Talk:Car spotting

Car spotting forums

Below is the list of car spotting forums, collected to wait until some of them becomes sufficiently notable to be mentioned in this article, i.e., when they will be reported in reliable sources.

• http://www.ExoticSpotter.com
• http://www.streetFire.net
• http://www.autospies.com - spotters or just shopper advice?
• http://www.autogespot.com/ - Dutch site about car-spotting with english section
• http://www.madwhips.com/ - reviewed by killerStartups.com
• http://www.carspyshots.net - 67 members as of 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.car-spotting.net/ - looks like squatted domain, filled with rubbish, waiting to be bought

`'Míkka>t 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Car spotting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added link tag to https://travelhuntersworld.blogspot.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410064551/http://www.streetfire.net:80/ to http://www.streetfire.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Shmee150

What's your concern about "dropping names" in mentioning the car-spotting YouTuber Shmee150, @Graywalls? That there's a YouTube audience for the hobby seems worth documenting to expand the stub, and if a particular channel is considered Wikipedia-notable, I'd have thought it was more useful to give the reader that wikilink than to write a milder "some channels exist" and leave them to do their own research. Belbury (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

For the same reason you don't need to rattle off Coca Cola is sold at locations such as Walmart, Albertson, Kroger, Costco... even though they all have "Wiki notable pages". Such format encourages further names getting added later, ESPECIALLY when social media and publicity type things are involved. That the hobby has audience is easily noted without needing to name names.

I think it's more appropriate to address the topic on that article, rather than that author/YouTuber on a topical article. Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Poor analogy with Cocacola. Walmart has only tangental relation to coke, while Shmee is grown specifically from carspotting, hence this name is relevant to article subject. There is no long list of notable things related to carspotting, so they may be all listed here. - Altenmann >talk 19:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Which is why car spotting should go to Shmee, not Shmee into car spotting. The subject clearly pre-dates Shmee. Graywalls (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no such rule and I see no logic in "Which is why". Everything nontrivial on the subject is valid content. I can list you hundreds of articles with "name-throwing" where the names are significantly related to the subject. Weirdly, the first example of this that came to my mind is "flying ace" - plenty of names. - Altenmann >talk 20:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Although a well curated other articles can set an example,WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a justification to do what other poor articles are doing. The art of shoe horning names into more notable article to improve prominence of less notable figures is a constant issue on Wikipedia. One example that comes to mind is a distant descendant of a ship captain who was involved in part of the shipping process of the Statue of Liberty inerted the captain's name into the Statue of Liberty. Graywalls (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

How about creating section "Notable carspotters"? Well within WP traditions. - Altenmann >talk 20:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) @Drmies:, I see back in May, you've done similar, yet more drastic trimming in the edit history. How do you feel about what's happening right above in the application of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE Graywalls (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC) ?

Oh, Graywalls, what can I say. I think dropping that name is rather silly and gives that one person undue attention--and the whole thing is of course utterly trivial in any encyclopedic content. I see that Altenmann has been at it (after another typical edit--one mention in a newspaper makes something encyclopedically relevant. Do you want to get into an edit war with them? I don't: it's tedious, and before you know we actually do have Notable carspotters. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that topical articles should be timeless whenever possible WP:20YT and avoid WP:RECENTISM. Things like plane spotting, car spotting, train spotting are decades traditions. I don't think it's going to become obsolete anytime soon, but I can't say the samea bout Shmee150 or whatever the latest breed of social media influencers of the moment. Generally speaking. Altenmann, this means I am not picking on certain articles. I prune all kinds of sensationalism form all kinds of articles. Graywalls (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. Self-reverted. - Altenmann >talk 22:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I thought I self-reverted ... Sorry. Maybe I self-reverted somewhere else :-) - Altenmann >talk 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's debatable what 2004 media we should compare a YouTuber to, to consider the WP:20YT angle, but I'd have thought that if there'd been an obscure and short-lived TV show in 2004 that was specifically about the car spotting hobby, or a notable motoring journalist at the height of their fame that year who focused solely on writing about car-spotting, it would be useful for Wikipedia to still be mentioning them and wikilinking to their articles in 2024, even if both had been otherwise forgotten. Belbury (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)