Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion
Layout
I've been trying to sort out some things with automobile layouts. I'd like to get a consensus on whether to distinguish between the front-engine, rear-wheel drive layout and the front mid-engine, rear-wheel drive layout. The cars listed as examples on the front mid-engine, RWD article would typically be thought of as front-engine, RWD because they both have the engine in front of the passenger area. There are exceptions to this, such as the Toyota Previa, but I think most FMR layout vehicles could safely be called FR. Grouping these all under FR would allow rear mid-engine, rear-wheel drive layout to drop the "rear" label to become just "mid-engine, rear-wheel drive layout". I think this would be less confusing. Anyway, I want to hear others weigh in on this. swaq22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there's a difference between British English and US English here. I don't know the answer because somehow when I used to visit the US regularly discussion of mid engined cars didn't come up too much.
I THINK that in England, if someone mentions a mid-engined car, they mean the engine is behind the driver. (Outside of the US, post 1945 cars that people can afford to buy - or even to sit in at a show room - mostly have relatively short hoods / bonnets and engine blocks, so that cars with the engine firmly BEHIND the front wheels but nonetheless AHEAD of the driver simply don't happen too much.) I infer from some of the stuff that I've read in wiki, that statesiders may include as 'mid-engined' those cars with the engine ahead of the driver, where the engine is nonetheless BEHIND of the front wheels. But I may have misinterpreted. And I've no idea what 'mid-engined' typically means in Australia, NZ, India and Canada, nor in the many other parts of Europe and Asia where relatively fluent English is often used as a second language, and from where we seem to have many contributors. I suppose that (unless more of a consensus exists than I think about the meaning of mid-engined) the answer as ever is to try and spell out what you mean in simple language that will be accessible to the averagely smart NON-carnut. And (sometimes easier said than done) avoid ambiguity in the info box - so that where space constraints render unavoidable the use of acronyms / initials, the initials in question link through to a clear definition. Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, in England, and indeed Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (sorry, couldn't resist...) one would expect "mid-engined" to mean behind the driver. Things with the engine under the floor present unique exceptions to the naming system (and I don't know what industry insiders would call them) but there's no common distinction made here regarding the relationship between front-engine position and the axle line, that car buyers would be familiar with. – Kieran T(talk)06:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In the U.S. I've always heard mid-engine used to mean behind the driver. I've been subscribed to several different car magazines over the last eleven years and I can't remember a single time "mid-engine" was used for a front mid-engine configuration, it has always meant behind the driver. Also, I have never heard "rear mid-engine" used to clarify that the engine is behind the driver except on Wikipedia. I will check my automotive dictionary when I get home from work today to see what is used there. swaq14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Mid-engine, by any international convention, means the engine is mounted between the front and rear axles. It says nothing about its location with respect to the driver, which is why we qualify it with front mid-engine or rear mid-engine: in front of the driver behind the front axle, or behind the driver in front of the rear axle. While the terminology "Front mid-engine, rear-wheel drive" may seem unfamiliar or even pedantic to some that does not mean it is not notable and that the distinction should not be made. Often manufacturers and the automotive media do not make the distinction between simple front-engined and front mid-engined, but I would chalk that up to laziness or ignorance, and not because it is not worth making. We regularly make the distinction between rear mid-engine (Acura NSX, Ferrari 360, etc.) and rear-engine (Porsche 911, DeLorean DMC012, etc.): I don't see why we wouldn't make the same for front and front mid-engine. --93JC (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's my take: Front mid-engined rear wheel drive is definitely a term for a variety of automobile layout, however I don't think it needs a whole page devoted to it. I think content could easily be merged to Front engine rear wheel drive as it really is just a particular variety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you (93JC). I just never thought of cars like the Dodge Viper, Nissan 350Z, or Chevrolet Corvette (all mentioned in the FMR page) as being mid-engined. In fact, the Viper and Corvette articles both list the layout as FR instead of FMR. I'm fine with keeping the distinction. I am also not opposed to merging the FR and FMR articles. swaq19:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to be argumentative, but I do disagree with 93JC's point — strongly enough to come back and say so! ;-) Whether or not it's a variety-of-English issue, the fact remains that there are a lot of people in various parts of the world who will read "mid-engined" and be certain they're reading about an engine behind the driver. Therefore, if that definition isn't shared by some other people, we need to clarify it and if necessary avoid the phrase altogether, as an undesirable but essential compromise, in this mongrel-English edition of the encyclopædia. – Kieran T(talk)22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That's why we qualify it "front mid-engine". I certainly wouldn't oppose merging the "front engine, rear wheel drive" and "front mid-engine, rear wheel drive" articles; while I haven't really read through them I doubt there's very much unique content in the latter. That said, it's still worthy of mention, and the concept of 'FMR' powertrain layouts should not be expunged from wikipedia simply because many people may not have heard of it. --93JC (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I just checked my Road & Track Automotive Dictionary and it says: "A mid-engine car is most commonly thought of as one in which the engine sits immediately behind the passenger compartment and ahead of or over the rear wheels' centerline; but some front-engine cars (such as the Mazda RX-7) are considered front mid-engine designs because their engines are positioned aft of the front-wheel centerline." It does not use "rear mid-engine", but you could assume that's what you would call it to distinguish the two. I supposed then there are also ones which don't fall into either, such as the Toyota Previa which has the engine under the driver (more or less), that could just take the plain "mid-engine" title. swaq04:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
(Arbitrary un-indent) It's mostly semantics and marketing, I think. Some companies (Mazda is a good example) like to refer to certain sports car platforms as having a "front-mid-engine" design, explained by an engine being set far back in the chassis so it's closer to the middle of the vehicle. While this is (somewhat) fascinating from a technical standpoint, it doesn't change the fact that the engine is still in front of the passenger compartment - hence, as far I'm concerned, it's still a "front-engine" vehicle. Likewise, my definition of "mid-engine" depicts a vehicle with its engine placed roughly between the passenger compartment and the rear wheels. And to conclude the progression, a "rear-engine" vehicle has its engine placed behind (or, in certain rare cases like the original Fiat 500, on top of) the rear wheels. Duncan1800 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Layout field formatting
So assuming we decide to continue distinguishing between front and rear mid-engine, how should this be listed in the infobox? Traditionally this has been all on one line, but since I renamed the articles to not use abbreviations when "Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel drive" is used it wraps to the next line. See Ferrari Testarossa. I think this might be best if we put the driven wheels part on the next line without the comma. Thoughts? Oh, another thing I just thought of, currently we don't distinguish between front-engine, 4WD and front mid-engine, 4WD. swaq20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I raised this last year, and I'd be happiest seeing a return to the basic layouts: FF, FR, MR, and RR. FMR, as mentioned by User:Daniel J. Leivick, is just a subset of FR with a more even weight distribution and lower polar moment of inertia; the basic principles of the FR layout are all retained. Same with the "FM layout", a subset of FF. It's no surprise that these layout articles have barely a citation between the lot of them. Cars like the BMW M3 or Mazda RX-7 are routinely referred to as front-engined, so as per WP:NOR and WP:CITE, that's what we should be relying on.
I also see no problem using abbreviations within the infobox (e.g. the Testarossa). Spelling out in full is a convention limited to article names; there's no need to eliminate them entirely, especially if there's a layout/style cost in writing it in full. See how we typically write dimensions, power/torque figures, etc etc; we have no problems using those abbreviations. --DeLarge (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call "front mid-engine" original research, there are sources for that, such as the Road & Track Illustrated Automotive Dictionary. Dimension, power and torque abbreviations are more universally known, and are not limited to the automotive world. FR, RR, etc. are less likely to be understood by the average reader. Either way, we should pick one and be consistent. I would lean toward writing it out with the driven wheels part on the next line. swaq14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
As swaq pointed out, be careful with four-wheel drive. When I regularly edited the English-language wikipedia (ie some time ago), I started to convert the infoboxes's "layout" fields of many off-roafers from "FR / 4WD" to "front engine, rear/four-wheel drive". You could use that in other models. --NaBUru38 (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Typing it out takes longer, but it's clearer and easier to understand in my opinion. For instance, the Porsche 959 would be "Rear-engine, four-wheel-drive". Duncan1800 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Infobox automobile
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The reason was pretty stupid - since when we delete templates for being "redundant"? They were much easier to use for their intended purpose than the rather complicated one they got replaced by. I believe such templates are to make editing easier, so I see no reason for limiting the varieties of those, unless they are exact duplicates, not more specific ones. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I'm not too pleased that they were deleted. I used them religiously, as the {{convert}} templates are very tedious. By making Wiki harder to use for a novice, we're not doing ourselves any favors. Hopefully this decision can be reversed.--Analogue Kid (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I was one of the editors who agreed with the removal of these templates. At first, I didn't agree at all with the proposed deletion. Auto templates were just far too easy to use. After looking into the issue a little further, all of the auto templates appeared to be pretty redundant and don't have much control or functionality. Some were simply not that accurate. The {{convert}} template has everything and more that us, as editors in the Automobile WP would want. I know it's a harder template to write out properly, but it's comprehensive with some great options. I think it's worth the effort incorporating this template into our articles. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I still don't get it - why would such a template, something that's sole purpose is to make editing easier, be better when it is more complicated to understand and use? If there was something wrong with the templates, they should've been fixed, not deleted. I believe if there ever is a repetitive need for a template, one should exist, even if that means a hundred separate templates that could be rolled into one with a gazillion parametres (and "more functionality"). I don't want my templates to serve a hundred different purposes, I want a template that's easy to use for what I use them. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree - our templates were very useful and I think it's simply unacceptable that these were removed without consultation with our Wikiproject. It's not like these were put together by some rogue editor. They do more than simply convert units - they also contain our approved guidelines for what units to use. For example - when we specify fuel consumption in miles per gallon - we want it converted to kilometers per liter - not meters per liter or lightyears per teaspoonful. We should appeal this decision - made by just three people who didn't even bother to post here to tell us that the deletion was being discussed. Given the HUNDREDS of pages affected, it is quite utterly unacceptable that so little discussion was entertained. SteveBaker (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Those Auto templates are easy to use, but I prefer to use "standard" Wikipedia conversions, so that we have only one to use, there is no point to have several different templates that makes same things...but I think we must to have some sort of concensus and IF we/project starts to use only convert template we could do help page with examples to make the use as easy as possible. I have some examples on my
user page. And finally Auto templates were missing some conversions and nobody is updating those..... --— Typ932T | C07:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
UK Top sellers 1974 - 2007: Keepordelete discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Those with an interest in the UK auto market may be interested in a keepordelete discussion under way on an entry which seems to have proven curiously contentious over the years. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Autozam AZ-1
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
SSholden has recently renamed the Autozam AZ-1 article to "Mazda Autozam AZ-1". I don't know enough about that car to say whether this is right or wrong, but from reading the article it seems that it was not only a Mazda. SSholden did not discuss this change on the talk page first and has made a few other questionable edits. swaq15:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks dead wrong to me. We don't have the Mercury Sable article titled "Ford Lincoln Mercury Sable." The title contains the make and model of the car, NOT parent company or the company that sells it. --Sable232 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The car is commonly referred to today as a Mazda, simply because the Autozam "brand" doesn't really exist anymore. But as far as I've ever read into it, the car was clearly badged and marketed under the Autozam name - the fact that everyone knew it was a Mazda product anyway shouldn't contradict the actual history of the car. Duncan1800 (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Production Dates
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
I'm curious, in regards to the listed production dates of the vehicle articles here, should we go by the model year or the actual year they were made? I've seen examples of both on here and am not sure which is correct.--Flash176 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Among many unwritten compromises (guys, we have to finally put them all down) is the use of actual calendar years here. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As I recall, the compromise/solution/consensus was that we would use them according to the market (model years for North America, calendar years for those areas where it is correct). I can't speak for other areas but in North America things are pretty clear-cut in the use of model years. --Sable232 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been noticing several edits lately concerning people changing years back and forth from model to production. As PrinceGloria said, I think we need to take a look at this and perhaps put down some guidelines in writing.--Flash176 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Production dates are production dates as the word says, model years is model year its not that hard, for infobox, rules says to use
production time and I think this way should be used also in timelines, in the main article would be good? to have both for American vehicles?--— Typ932T | C19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say a timeline can be arranged according to model years, nowhere does it say "production" there, but the infobox cleary states "production" so it would be rather misleading to state otherwise. We could consider adding a "model years" field for American-market cars, but given the latest infobox issues, I'd say it is not the best idea. Moreover, what with cars sold worldwide? I'd say "production" is rather clear, besides, this data gives only a quick overview of what era does the model belong to, you need to go into specific details to get a good understanding, so I believe we can discuss model years in the body too. ~~
PS. Bottom line - if it says "production", it should be production - we should state "model years" if it says "model years".
Most importantly, be consistent when choosing one or the other. If you choose model years for production dates, then quoted production numbers need to be keyed to model years too. This goes double for "world" cars - in these cases, I would suggest being consistent in noting the calendar year introductions no matter where the car is sold, and noting model years separately when needed for clarification. Duncan1800 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
But in the timelines we should be consistent also, its misleading if some cars have models years and some production times, same goes for category (vehicles introduced in xxxx). --— Typ932T | C05:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Lead infobox photos
Latest comment: 16 years ago171 comments24 people in discussion
Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved.
Can we have a policy somewhere that states that formally states that it is not necessary or preferred to have the top infobox include a photo of the most recent version of a car? This keeps coming up, and it would be nice to have a policy to refer to. IFCAR (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
IFCAR's will is absolute, and any dissention will be crushed, immediately. No exceptions. Whether a photo strictly follows good photo standards, it must be approved by IFCAR's personal standards, or it will be reverted.(Dddike (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
So, we have invoked Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum. I don't know if IFCAR the Photo Nazi is right or not — but he definitely and persistantly controls, dominates and monopolizes the photo issue... so its easy at least for this editor to see that the Nazi label isn't without provocation. But who says IFCAR is right? How is that measured? There is no rule on the issue -- IFCAR simply steamrollers his way. IFCAR is the rule. The practice of domineering an issue is as far from the spirit of Wikipedia as any behavior could be: hence the Reductio ad Hitlerum.
:::::Wikipedia is no place for the beauracratic enforcement of petty rules -- especially those rules that only exist in the mind of a few. 842U (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone should just write it down to conventions, so if article has mainbox and generation boxes, best image should be used on the main box and follow general image conventions. --— Typ932T | C19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No one can seem to agree on what a good image is, however. I seem to remember a lengthy discussion on this page that seems to have been archived disscussing that very topic. Some individuals have decided to simply keep images they like and revert others, regardless of discussions on the particular image under review, and people simply give up and let the "reverter overlord" win. I've decided not to upload any images and simply use images found in Wikimedia Commons, and hope for the best. If we could just grant a little more lattitude, which I'm sure someone will comment that enough lattitude is already being used, and that no more compromise is warranted. I personally don't feel motivated enough to run around town and take photos of cars, and provide better examples, that will just be reverted anyway.(Dddike (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
A few things — Firstly, you'll gain a lot more traction if you will cut out the sarcasm and namecalling and mealymouthedness. The sooner the better; this kind of juvenile behaviour just isn't productive, and calling anyone a Nazi is a guaranteed way to lose an argument regardless of how much merit your position may have.
Secondly, you've made it amply clear you're unhappy with the present state of affairs regarding how lead infobox photos are chosen. Now you've had a chance to vent, it's time to put together a proper proposal for discussion. "IFCAR is a jerkface" type of statements aren't helpful. "If we could just grant a little more lattitude" is better, but still falls short of something that can be meaningfully discussed as a matter of policy. What kind of lattitude, specifically, do you propose? If there's been discussion on the matter before, it doesn't help to make a vague allusion to it. Instead, go find it and point us at it so we can see what you saw. Talk page archives are readily accessible; go look through them and find the dicussion you remember.
Finally, threatening to flounce off ("I don't care any more, I'm not motivated enough, my contributions are just going to be reverted anyway") is dramatic but utterly ineffective at winning support for your argument. If you're waiting for someone to say "No, no, please don't go!", it's going to be a long wait indeed; we don't do that here. Rather, those editors have the easiest time winning respect and support who strive to make high-quality contributions and engage sincerely in the process of building consensus. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see your point, and I am clearly in the minority. I am simply happy to contribute to this website, and that this type of environment exists to begin with. I will just contribute if I can, cross my fingers, and hope for the best.(Dddike (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
Whoah, nobody's trying to shush you up. It's good that you understand the points I made, and If you really want to leave things as they are, OK, but you may well have some legitimate points to make regarding the use of photos in automotive articles, and we'd like to hear them. The difference between consensus (Wikipedia policy) and majority rule or mob rule (definitely not Wikipedia policy) is subtle and sometimes difficult to discern — and sometimes it is trampled — but we must each and all try to see each other's points and positions, and try not to stifle debate. Otherwise we breed resentment, and once that grows beyond a certain point, it's effectively the end of the project. So: Please, we are listening: In what specific ways do you feel the photo selection criteria and/or usage policy and practice could be improved? There is no need to be bashful, just avoid sarcasm and attacks. If you genuinely feel — and can demonstrate — that IFCAR (talk·contribs) or another user(s) is behaving improperly, e.g. WP:OWN or WP:MPOV, then that needs to be addressed and resolved, through a third-opinion request and eventual higher-level mediation if necessary. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
At your suggestion, I read the archives (#12) and read the lenghty discussion on what constitutes a good photo, and I couldn't determine if a consensus or a general agreement was reached. I saw many examples of photos submitted, but I couldn't determine if a standard of some type was reached. I do see examples of other editors trying to organize images in some sort of sequence, which seems to be contrary to which image looks best and the images could be assigned based on that critera alone. I am opposed to a bureaucratic approach, which is the worst possible solution (Washington D.C. anyone?). At this point, there is a very fine dance currently going on "between consensus (Wikipedia policy) and majority rule ", and it seems to be decided on who is most successful at reverting. I guess it really boils down to which images and articles are on someones watchlist, and if the watcher wants to show preference, that is pretty much it. Concerning how the photo selection process could be continued, I think chronologically displayed photos should have more standing than image quality alone. I present this suggestion due to the rest of the world, who enters a car they have some interst in that got "googled", Wikipedia showed up, and the article appeared. If the reader is not a "gearhead" and just wants to learn about a new vehicle they are considering, and there are some editors who have assereted that Wikipedia should not be a "Consumer Reports" website, but it is being used as a research tool for a new purchase, that should be taken into consideration. Having the newest image appear "above the fold" does have its advantages. Image chronology does seem to be a contributing factor in image disputes, and I think that should be decided.(Dddike (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
Regarding the bureaucratic approach,
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
Policy shortcuts:
WP:BURO
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY
Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." (Dddike (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
You are brandishing bits and parts of Wikipedia policy that happen to support your guesses, opinions, and preferences without understanding how they fit into Wikipedia protocol overall. That undermines your argument. Please read WP:PROCESS carefully. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dddike, the ownership and ugh behaviour you attribute to IFCAR (talk·contribs) with regard to images might be against Wikipedia rules, which apply to all contributors and all articles. Sometimes it will happen that an editor can make contributions that don't meet Wikipedia's requirements, and can go on doing so for weeks, months, or even years before encountering any objection, resistance, or enforcement. Everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, and some articles are more closely watched than others. When only one or a few editors make a significant percentage of the contributions of any given type (e.g., images in automotive articles), they can tend to develop a casual disregard — and, over time, sometimes an unhealthy disdain — for the consensus principle upon Wikipedia is based. If such editors' contributions happen to coincide with the general consensus, then there's effectively no problem. But in this case, we've got some legitimate disagreement over what constitutes appropriate images and appropriate behaviour around image placement and maintenance in automotive articles.
What you are dismissing as a "bureaucratic approach" is, like it or not, how Wikipedia works. We have protocols and procedures and in the event of a disagreement, we follow them. But if whoever has a disagreement will dismiss the procedures and protocols as bureaucratic nonsense, then the problem won't get solved. Nobody will press your point for you; if you see something wrong and want it fixed, you will have to engage and participate directly, and the only productive way to do so is within Wikipedia's structure, however unnecessarily bureaucratic you may misperceive it to be.
It would probably be challenging, though maybe not impossible, to develop a hierarchy of criteria for image selection and placement in automotive articles. Image quality and compliance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style would obviously be near the top of the list. I definitely agree with what I think I understand to be your position that the newest version of an auto needn't necessarily go at the top of the article. I would think a photo of the most notable version should be at the top of the article. There's flexibility in the notion of notability. It could mean the most popular/biggest-selling version of the vehicle, or the most iconic/most widely recognised, or the most significant version (for example, the first Ford Taurus was much more notable in terms of innovation than the last Taurus).
Obviously, the difficult decision is how to prioritise these criteria. Do we prefer a photo of the most notable version over an equal-quality photo of a less-notable version? Obviously. Do we prefer a good photo of the most notable version over a great photo of a less-notable version? Probably. Do we prefer a passable photo of the most notable version over a very good photo of a less-notable version? Maybe not, and then the best way forward would be to use the very good photo of the less-notable version and launch a hunt for a very good photo of the most notable version. What other criteria do we think would be appropriate, and in what hierarchy of importance? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As I've said on one of the current discussions of newest versus quality images, each infobox illustrates a segment of the vehicle history. Each infobox needs to be illustrated by a car produced within the years listed in that infobox, and the top infobox includes every production year, and therefore any vehicle produced should be admissible for it. There's one infobox that must be "current," and it's the infobox for the most recent generation. There's a table of contents at the top of each page that can go straight down to it.
My only concern is that the articles be illustrated with the best quality images as possible to show the car as well as possible. This also means that if there is only one good image of a car of a specific generation even if it's the article's best, most notable, or newest, it might be better off staying in that slot so another infobox isn't filled by something poor, as long as there is another alternative of suitable quality. (If that's not clear, I can try to re-explain.)
But mostly, I am strongly opposed to anything that mandates an non-generation infobox image be any specific generation. I think that if nothing else comes of this discussion, a clear policy stating "the lead image does not have to be of the newest version of the car" would be the most important point to take home. IFCAR (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to keep my thoughts brief. My opinion has always been that we should strive to have "professional" quality photographs on these articles. The issue here, from what I can see, is just regarding the head image on the page. There are some editors who are of the opinion that it must be of either the current or the "most notable" variant.
"Notable?" What defines that? To one person the ECA 1600 Mark II is more notable than the Mark VI, another editor will say the opposite. This is part of the reason why "notable" hasn't really been a consideration for the head image. Now, for some articles that will be something to look at and, unfortunately, that has to be on a case-by-case basis. For example, take the Ford Country Squire. Do we use the original model? The newest? The most prolific?
We have finally managed to craft an agreement on what constitutes a high-quality image. In the past, the consensus has been that it's more important to have a high-quality image at the top of the page than one of the newest model. We're not a buyer's guide, we have no obligation to put the newest image on top. Our obligation is to put together a good article. What's going to help get the article to featured (or at least GA) status? We seem to be straying from that idea. However, that should be the priority, and I don't see FA/GA reviewers criticizing the article for showing an older model. I do, however, see them criticizing using a low-quality image in place of a better one. --Sable232 (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I am an advocate of a model year hierarchy, with the age appropriate image contained within the article written about it for different generations. I would like to suggest that the lead photo display the newest model, if the vehicle is still in production (Toyota Corolla, VW Jetta). If the model is no longer being manufactured (Ford Granada, Chevrolet Vega), then the image could be based the most notable version. Would it make sense to use an image of a 1976 Toyota Corolla as the lead image photo for the article, just because it is the best image available, that satisfies agreed upon guidlines the best? (Dddike (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
IFCAR, I agree with your conclusion that there is no basis in Wikipedia policy or accepted standards of infobox practise to restrict lead infobox images to any particular version of a vehicle. I also agree with the logic you've used to arrive at this conclusion. I think it would be difficult for me to be persuaded that this what we agree on is wrong, but I remain open to others' opinions on the matter, and I hope we'll have some additional voices chiming in. I don't think we should settle for just a one-liner inserted in general policy to the effect of "You don't have to use the newest version in the lead infobox image"; that would leave too many open questions and we'd be having the same bickering again and again and again. Let's try to hammer out a set of guidelines and conventions on the topic, to cut down the repetition of this debate on each and every car article.
Sable232, I agree with you that notability is a bit of a moving target, and it will apply more easily and unambiguously in some cases (Ford Taurus) than in others (Toyota Corolla). I propose it not as a do-all-be-all standard carved in stone, nor as the prime criterion, but as one of a set of criteria by which candidate images for the top of an auto article can be evaluated and selected. I also agree with your logic for rejecting the automatic selection of the newest/latest version of a vehicle.
Dddike, a model year hierarchy is one of the fundamental anchors of vehicle article structure, in that each generation of the subject vehicle gets its own infobox with an image showing a vehicle from that particular generation. But we're talking here about the lead image. On what Wikipedia policy or MoS grounds do you base your advocacy for requiring an image of the most recent version of a vehicle for the lead article? Please keep in mind that "I don't like it the other way" is not considered a valid basis for determining best practices on Wikipedia.
So far, it looks like we've got a rough hierarchy beginning to shape up: Image is free > Image is relevant to topic > Image is of good quality per MoS > Image is of particularly notable or significant version of vehicle, if applicable. What else belongs in this hierarchy, and where? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My main concern with adding too many details to the policy would be that it doesn't leave enough open to case-by-case discussion which is useful. In some cases, there will be photos that don't make sense at head regardless of quality. (A 1976 Corolla would be one that I would tentatively support finding an alternative for. A version of a car very dissimilar from most of the model line, like a Honda Civic Shuttle or Cadillac Escalade EXT, would be another example there.)
I'm only looking to avoid "current must always be at head" idea that too often forces a low-quality image to be the first thing visible in an article. Whatever works to keep the illustrations looking good and being most useful. IFCAR (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that it would be counterproductive to devise a policy so rigid that we'd find ourselves painted into a corner when faced with a situation calling for lattitude and common sense. The opposite risk, posed by an insufficiently detailed set of guidelines, is that sooner or later there will be someone insisting on an edit because "It's just a guideline and doesn't say I can't have it my way" (see edit summaries at linked diff). —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sable232 and IFCAR. I don't think most current model year image should be a part of this criteria. I also don't even think most notable should be a criteria simply because it's too subjective. I'm in the camp of the best quality image being the top infobox image, although there's a big disclaimer that should be written with this guideline. Image quality is subjective as well. I've seen far too many better quality and composed images overwritten in the last year that should definitely have not been and the argument to keep it was the image quality was good. I think after guidelines for this particular topic as established here, we need to go back and revise image quality guidelines as well. Roguegeek (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
9 May 08
OK, there seems to be general agreement (so far) that having notability as a criterion would be problematic by dint of subjectivity. It still seems to me that notability ought to be a part of the image selection guidelines. What if instead of a criterion we call it a factor for consideration or something? I'm not trying to play word games here; I think we'll wind up with the best possible result if we can balance the subjectivity inherent in notability by categorising it as a relevant factor, but not a mandatory go/no-go standard. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd support notability or similar only so far as keeping out versions that misrepresent the model line, like the Cadillac Escalade EXT I mentioned before, or perhaps an especially old car like the 1976 Corolla. But I wouldn't go as far as to make it more of a part of the selection process than a disqualifier for extremes. But beyond that, it gets hard to determine. IFCAR (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, the image at the top should be the most 'typical' of the model years...the most iconic...the best photo...the car that's in the best condition...there are lots of possible criteria and I really don't think it's our job to shackle editors in this regard. We truly don't need a standard. What we DO need is our current recommendations for how to take good photos - and I'm pretty happy with them just the way they are. SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head here. We should move away from standards and identify guidelines. The other thing you mentioned, which I can't emphasis enough, is recommendations, guidelines, and even standards as to what constitutes a good quality photo. Like I said above, it is this issue that I'm finding to be more problematic and subjective when it should be completely objective. Applying a good set of standards to this issue will solve it. Roguegeek (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am suggesting a current lead image criteria, because despite efforts to prevent autos in Wikipedia from becoming a "consumer reports" research tool, I don't think it would be doable to educate readers from regarding Wikipedia Autos as such. A new reader who came across a particular article, then having noticed that an older image is the lead image, will probably induce an edit to display the most current image. Am I wrong in that assumption? There seems to be some apprehension about other people uploading an image that isn't up to others standards. Do we want to encourage multiple edits, where data can be accidentally deleted, then having to revert to fix the damage, or do we want to have quality data and images so that the article being edited isn't unnecessarily being modified because of perceived inaccuracies? Is having a goal of minimal edits just against everything Wikipedia represents?(Dddike (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
I don't think we can tell why the reader is looking here. Hence any particular choice of picture is as likely to attract them as to scare them off. So let's illustrate the article as best we can with something eye catching and (if possible) beautiful. If there is any convention at all about image use in Wikipedia it is that you stick your nicest photo at the top right of the article. The way to avoid scaring readers off is to provide enough information in the first couple of paragraphs to reassure them that they've found the right page. But even if people have such a short attention span that they won't read the entire article - they'll surely scroll down too see what else there is. That's why having photos of every significant variant is important. SteveBaker (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion displays such an abundance of good sense and common ground that it's hard to understand why discussions about individual instances become so impassioned as undoubtedly, from time to time, they do. I think it would be a mistake to become too prescriptive on the subject. If you have half a dozen more paras of guidelines and best practice statements, you won't do away with the micturation matches: you'll simply give those who feel sufficiently passionate more weapons to chuck at one other. The general rule of putting the best picture at the top of the entry makes sense, though common sense might argue against having say a first generation Honda Accord kicking off the entire section on umpteen generations of subsequent Honda Accord, because reason suggests that most readers will more quickly recognize a representative of a subsequent generation as a Honda Accord. Then again, you might argue that the first generation Honda Accord - even more the first generation Honda Civic - is much more historically significant because it introduced the idea of Honda as a manufacturer of grown up sized cars (albeit small ones, and only if you overlook the Honda 1300 four door sedan which most of us most of the time do). So we sure need to be be cautious about trying to impose one size fits all guidelines for which, when you get to individual instances, each of us will come up with the occasional entirely valid "yes, but....".
The important thing is that we try and have the best picture for the job, and for multigenerational models try and have decent representative images for every generation. And where there are genuine differences of opinion as to which is the better of two images we recognize them as that: differences of opinion. It's not a question of the other opinion being wrong (or worse...) All the same, I still haven't worked out why our strident friend IFCAR thinks it makes sense to have a picture that to me is a Mitsubishi Colt (Trunkless hatchback) lurking with a lot of pictures of Mitsubishi Lancers (cars with trunks). I think the underlying issue here MAY lie not with IFCAR's stridency but with Mitsubishi's endlessly complex variety when it comes to naming cars differently in different markets, and the more widespread knee jerk assumption that if that's what it's called in Peoria, then that's what it's called. Period. I mean full stop. And even if it's Japanese. (And even if in this case I've no idea they'd even recognize one in Peoria if it spent twelve months parked in the main atrium of the city hall.) Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Random thought to throw out here for discussion: What if we used a picture of the actual model nameplate of the vehicle in the lead infobox instead of a picture of the whole car? (i.e. Camry, Golf, Civic) Would that run afoul of any copyright issues, provided we all went out and photographed them ourselves? I realize the font changes sometimes from year to year. Then again, there can be an issue with something like the MB E-class, since it is labeled as E320 or E430 and not "E-Class". So I dunno, just a thought I guess.--Analogue Kid (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This is how the Toyota Supra article currently does it. The logo used in that article is the one for the latest generation (1993.5-1998) Supra. swaq14:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to this type of image display, however, sometimes some people do like to see an image of the car, which can be found further in the article. A photo or a graphic, either way.(Dddike (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
I'd just like to point out for benefit of Dddike and 842U that nobody is proposing anything that would prohibit or even weigh against using an image of the most recent version of an auto as the lead image. This isn't a discussion on whether or not to enact a "may not" or "must not" policy; nobody's interested in doing so. What we're discussing and trying to clarify is that one need not necessarily use an image of the current (or latest) version of a vehicle, and when selecting a lead image, a picture of a later version of a vehicle is not necessarily preferable to a picture of an earlier version. I am still open to seeing a counterargument based in Wikipedia policy and/or MoS provisions, but so far none has been put forth. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand clearly the point Scheinwerfermann is making, that images being used are done so to the benefit of the article. However, some editors have taken it upon themselves to set precedent as they see fit, and let the chips fall where they may. It is that perceived lack of regard towards the opinions of others that has drawn the ire of some editors in this discussion. And even though clear guidelines have yet to be established, nor should rigid guidelines be strictly enforced, it is that enforcement that is being protested.(Dddike (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
Fine, but in the meantime, IFCAR enforces "his" rules persistantly, consistantly and domineeringly: he reverts photos with circular arguements like this: "The article is about the entire _________ history, so the top infobox can be illustrated with any generation ________. No reason to pick anything but a good-quality image."
"No reason?" Says who: IFCAR
"A good quality image" Defined by: IFCAR
IFCAR never cites a Wikipedia rule or guideline for one simple reason: it doesn't exist. The only place there is a discussion, ostensibly, is here on this page. In the articles themselves, rather than accept anyone else's point of view, IFCAR dominates. Rather than cede that there could be reason to go some way other than "his" on the issue, IFCAR dominates. Rather than respond by letting the lead photographs reflect the true nature of the discussion, which is that there currently is no hard fast rule, IFCAR dominates. So like it or not, a certain photo policy is already being enforced by IFCAR: and that policy is his.
::What is this about? Something is very off. This isn't an attack on IFCAR -- it's recognition that he's turning this Wikiproject into an IFCAR-project. 842U (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
842U, let's please try to keep it civil and use less of an accusatory tone. I have two requests/suggestions for now:
1. You may have a legitimate beef with IFCAR, but so far all we have to go on is your capsule summary of what you perceive to be his improper behaviour, and that isn't enough. What's more, this isn't the right place to get that beef addressed and resolved. If you feel IFCAR is not complying with some aspect of Wikipedia policy, whether it be WP:OWN or WP:MPOV or anything else, please take up that complaint in a forum specifically intended for resolving complaints about editors' behaviour, such as WQA. That way, not only will you help keep this present discussion on topic and avoid undermining your complaint by appearing to attack IFCAR, but you'll also stand a much greater chance of a productive outcome. If you do choose to pursue your complaint in WQA (and, if necessary after that, on RfC), you'll want to link to specific diffs clearly demonstrating a pattern of the behaviour you find objectionable.
2. Let us please keep this present discussion on topic, i.e., working towards consensus regarding factors for consideration in selecting lead images for auto articles, even if we don't all like each other very much.
I think we should make "general" rules, it seems quite impossible to make definite rule, so BEST QUALITY picture to main box or if certain model/version is best known or representative of car then it could be used aswell eg. Ford Mustang. And the best quality means that it should be clearly better than the second best one. If you look the Subaru Forester page the image qualitiers doesnt differ so much --— Typ932T | C17:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
842U concerns, although not directed properly, are legitimate. Certain editors take advantage of the fact that we don't have standards and guidelines. When actions are questioned, retorts like "it's better quality" are common. Quality is subjective and we need to properly define what a quality image is because, honestly, the vast majority of infobox images out there are of very poor quality in my opinion. Roguegeek (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the issue could remain flexible, without a hard, fast rule governing these photos? Given that the articles are living breathing "verbs" rather than hard fast "nouns," perhaps the photographs can work similarly. The flexibility within the copy sections of the article seems to serve the encyclopedia well -- why not allow the same flexibility with the photographs? In the specific case of the Subaru Forester, arguement could be made either way, and the lead photograph could change from time to time.
That said, what article would run a lead-in photograph on a living notable person with a high-quality photograph of that person as a baby? An introduction that embraces in words and pictures the most current information also conveys the currency and hence relevancy of the article to follow.
Furthermore, the criteria for "a better looking photograph" are highly variable, subjective, ambiguous and abstruse — lacking in verifiability and measurability. The criteria for "most current" is clear cut, unambiguous, objective — thereby not subject to the whims of the opinionated or powerful.
However, by the same token, you generally don't use a photo of a 95-year-old actor who was famous in his 40s. I don't think anyone is arguing for anything extreme, just enough flexibility to not say "the newest/current must always be at the top." Editors are not bots, and can tell when something doesn't make any sense, but using a photo of a car that's a couple of years older when it's demonstrably (and, by in the case of the Subaru Forester discussion, admitted by both sides of the argument) to be better is far from unreasonable.
Most current is certainly free of bias, but also isn't automatically the most desirable, particularly in an inflexible mandate as you seem to be proposing. IFCAR (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::Excuse me, IFCAR — where precisely did you get this "inflexible mandate" idea from? My suggestion opens with "Perhaps the issue could remain flexible" and closes with "flexibility is the key." Because I outlined the pro's and cons of subjective vs. objective, you get "an inflexible mandate as you seem to be proposing?" Furthermore, I have not seen this vetting of the Subaru Forester photographs you refer to, this vote or jury of the photos in question — where and when did this admission by both sides happen? How many editors made this determination? What were there qualifications? 842U (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be you saying that the original photo was of higher quality, referring to the "...outdated (albeit more clear) photo..."
By "inflexible mandate," I was referring to "all lead images must be of the newest car." Which to me seems inflexible with regards to quality, even when there is consensus on which image is better. IFCAR (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I don't think it's particularly helpful that Dddike is making undiscussed changes of article lead images to the newest car in the midst of a discussion of that very topic, a discussion that so far seems to be showing more editors supporting the contrary position to his. IFCAR (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I am not the one who went into my post (above) and changed "IFCAR the Photo Nazi" (which was a quote from the comment before by Dddike to "IFCAR The Photo Nazi" with a link over to the Soup Nazi article. I don't appreciate this. I have my disagreements with IFCAR, I've been harsh on IFCAR and I realize it — but I don't appreciate someone editing my comments to make it look harsher than it is. It will be easy enough to see who made the change, and it's not helping the situation. Speaking of clear-cut rules, isn't it against the rules to edit someone else's comments here? 842U (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I want to apologize to IFCAR and the group for the discussion getting to the point where "Nazi" was repeated. I didn't invoke the term Photo Nazi, but repeated it from the Dddike post. I actually responded next, after Dddike, and then pointed out the two corrollaries: Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum — which I think are helpful in understanding something about why this happens. Dddike then went and edited my comments to link the words Photo Nazi over to Soup Nazi-- I'm thinking he wishes now he'd edited his own.
Either way, this lowering of the conversation isn't helpful — it's destructive. We'll get to some understanding on this -- I'd just like to apologize for being too harsh in the matter. I am perturbed with what I perceive as a unilateral domination of the issue about the photos. Clearly there is disagreement about some things, which is ok. Lowering the conversation isn't ok. 842U (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
842U, thanks for policing yourself. You make a valid point that "newest vehicle" is a more explicit standard than "best-quality image". However, this explicitness would introduce a significant format restriction that doesn't seem warranted, IMO, by any provisions in Wikipedia policy or structural guidelines for articles of this nature. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that your advocacy for a stringent "newest always leads" policy is — at least in part — not so much of a desire for this rule per se but more of an expression of your frustration with what you perceive as IFCAR's inappropriate domination of the photo selection and placement process. Your frustration is legitimate and understandable, but it's important to strive not to give in to the temptation to try to influence or leverage the consensus-building process to satisfy this kind of frustration. Please try to keep the two issues separate: (1) is the present discussion regarding whether the lead image in a vehicle article should always or preferably be the latest model variant, and why or why not. (2) is the question of whether everyone involved is behaving according to Wikipedia policy and protocol, and if not, what's to be done about it. Also, please, IFCAR does have a good point: it's unhelpful to make edits that are contentious by dint of this present conversation. It's not quite a bad-faith move, but it's uncomfortably close; could all of us please take a couple steps back and avoid making edits of this nature just for now? It won't hurt anything and will very likely help speed up this process so we can be done with it and go back to coöperatively working for the overall betterment of Wikipedia.
Let's also all try not to chase our tails debating whether to firmly reprimand or strongly censure or sternly disapprove; that is, if one participant in this discussion uses a phrase like "rigid protocol" and you think the phrase is too harsh, just say so — one or two sentences are plenty — and continue making your case. This is much more productive than if you will pounce on the phrase and load it up with all kinds of spurious cargo (bad faith on the part of s/he who picked the phrase, offence at the implications, justification for accusatory or sarcastic text, etc.). Let's all try to avoid getting sidetracked. It's really a fairly simple few questions we're considering here, and I think we can all agree that good images are better than bad ones. The primary question at hand, then, is what factors should guide the choice among multiple candidates of equally high quality for an article's lead image. We don't need a rigid, blunt-sledgehammer, always/never type of standard here, we need common-sense, flexible guidelines and tools to assist the decision process in any vehicle-related article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to this statement by Scheinwerfermann: "I could be wrong, but it seems to me that your (842U) advocacy for a stringent "newest always leads" policy....: I have not once advocated for a stringent newest always leads policy, and no one can point to anything I've written to conclude that. I framed my observations about how much more less biased the selection of a "latest gen" photo would be over a "best looking photo" by urging flexibility.
This conversation is ridiculous. I've had my edits changed by other writers, I've had my statements completely misconstrued by the participants here, as above. It's beyond trying to fathom what this conversation is about. It's ridiculous. 842U (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what you said on the Subaru Forester talk page implied that you favored "newest leads." You wrote:
"It makes little sense to put a picture of a vehicle that is out of production at the head of an article — when a serviceable if not award-winning photo exists to lead the article."
I think it's easy to see where someone could get the impression that was what you supported, even if that is not the case. IFCAR (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
How about no picture for the main infobox? Each generation will have at least one picture (if the article is long enough), so why making them fight for a second spot? --NaBUru38 (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support. Main infobox picture serves mostly decorative purposes, so we can do without it (and the resulting kerfuffle). PrinceGloria (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The top of the page is what you get when you click on a new page. If you're at the end of the telephone network - at least in England - you often have to wait ten or twenty seconds for the whole page to download: worse on Friday nights. And a picture is (1) more welcoming than simply a lot of text and (2) tells you at once you are on the right page. Or not. Otherwise you have to adjust the angle of your glasses and read the first para. I cannot get excited about whether the picture is of the first generation, the latest generation, or an intermediate version. Because I say it all depends on the individual case. I DO think that giving up on the welcoming picture at the top of the page simply because we're (entirely understandably) fed up with discussing what it should show would take us a step backwards, however... Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep after second thought It isnt good idea after all, it works only articles with short intro section, when you see the first generation picture, pages that have long intro it isnt good idea... --— Typ932T | C10:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Really, this is an encyclopedia, we are not here for aesthetic purposes... Don't mean to offend anyone, but I thought dial-up was dead, at least in Europe... Moreover, I often found myself looking for cars I didn't know anything about, so the picture didn't really help me much in determining whether it's the right one or not... Also, if the lead is short, in many screen resolutions you will have the infoboxes pushing each other down, so that they don't fit with their respective sections. This can be somehow alleviated with appropriate code, at the expense of big white spaces though... I'd say only include if there is a consensus on the pic and that it doesn't screw up the layout. For sure doesn't have to be the most recent generation - just as much and older-gen picture goes to prove the article covers all gens. The best quality one by our guidelines and community decision on the article's talk page. Anybody against? PrinceGloria (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking through articles this morning, to get a feel for exactly how a lot of articles are illustrated now. And it seems that most lead images are either the current/most recent model already, or the second most recent.
If we made that our goal -- if not a strict policy -- it would eliminate such outliers as a 1976 Corolla with a lower risk of a mediocre image being the first thing users see on a page. Because when a new car first comes out, the first pictures will generally not be very good; taken wherever the car is first spotted, whether in an indoor auto show with unnatural lighting, excessive glare, and a cluttered background, or in the most cluttered and least attractive parking lots with a less-than-optimal angle and/or lighting. Moreover, even when one good image is created and uploaded, if it is moved to the head spot, that will mean its generational infobox will be left with something unappealing, as in the case of the Subaru Forester's current arrangement, while an older generation is much more likely to have enough good (or at least better, depending on the standard of the editor) images to go around. (The other alternative would be having the same image in the head infobox and the generational infobox, which I assume no one thinks is the best way to provide maximum information about a car.)
While I don't see a need to choose based on age from the standpoint of having the best encyclopedia or from the standpoint for Wikipedia's style guides, this would at least take some subjectivity out of it.
So, as I propose, a new guideline could read something like:
"It is preferred to have the lead infobox illustrated by a high-quality (per WPA image standards) photo of a car from the most recent or second-most recent generations. There is no requirement, however, that the infobox must contain the very most recent car. In the event of a dispute over which image is to be used, editors are encouraged to discuss the quality merits of each image considered, but so long as both are from the most recent two generations of the car, which is newer should not be one of the factors considered. Possible exceptions to this policy -- based on quality, notability, or any other disparity -- should be raised on the talk page before being included in an article, and the talk page message should include a clear description of why this article should be an exception."
I was hoping to satisfy the users who want something new at the top without being overly restrictive. I'd be much happier if we just put the informal precedent that excluded age into formal writing, but we only got a lot of discussion and no action when I proposed that. I know I rambled a bit, but I just wanted to incorporate everything I could think of for this discussion here. Any actual policy, I hope, could be consolidated. (Though, policies that make assumptions leave things open to "well, it doesn't say that!") IFCAR (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason in satisfying particular users. There are more pleasant and healthy ways to satisfy oneself than to disfigure Wikipedia. Other than that, I agree with what you stated right above. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct, we're not here to satisfy users. There are those who feel the most recent vehicle is preferable per se, for reasons that have so far all boiled down to subjective opinion and personal preference. They will probably carry on holding that preference no matter what is said or done here, so I think we're moving in an unproductive direction with suggestions about preferring the two (or three, or one and a halfth, or twelve and three quartersth) most recent generations in the lead image. Just as There's no sound basis in Wikipedia protocol for preferring or requiring an image of the most recent variant, there's likewise no such basis for a preference or requirment for the lead photo to show the 'n'th-most-recent vehicle.
So, unless someone can put forward a sound and policy-based reason for preferring newer vs. older vehicles in lead images, I think we should consider any such requirement a dead issue for our present purposes. Let's focus instead on whether or not to have policy statments to the effect that it is neither required nor particularly preferred to show any particular version of a vehicle in the lead image, and to the effect that atypical or unrepresentative examples of a vehicle — whether because they are odd-duck/unpopular/poor-selling/rare versions or because they have been modified — are not suitable lead images.
FTR, I find some merit in the proposal to prefer photos of the vehicle nameplate as the lead image, if for no other reason than it offers a way out of this debate. Of course, it's entirely possible we'd find ourselves right back here debating minutiæ of whether it's to be preferred or required that the latest version of the nameplate be shown! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't see a picture of words being especially useful, and a photograph of a logo is likely going to fall under fair use rather than free. IFCAR (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your second paragraph there. Maybe make clear which image criteria are most important? I too don't think that saying it should be of the nth most recent is a good idea. It's arguable, but take Buick Riviera. The '71-'73 model can be considered the most distinctive and unique, so why force it to be either the newest one or the '86-'93 model that nobody seemed to like?
As for using an image of the nameplate, that just makes bigger problems, IMO. It's going to fall under fair use, and I, as well as a lot of other editors here, are sick of dealing with it. I'd guess one would have to defend the use of that image as more than "decoration" and considering the rampant copyright paranoia here that's not going to fly. Even if it does, one would (hypothetically) have to defend it in an FA review. If you're lucky enough to not have the usual "I don't like it, go away" response, I'm sure having a fair-use image would be a problem.
Furthermore, I don't think doing away with the image is wise. Just because there's an argument about something doesn't mean it needs to be disposed of altogether. --Sable232 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of people are agreeing, but I still don't see anything being done. Can we put in language into the Conventions page making it perfectly clear that the lead image does not have to be the newest, if so many users do agree on that? IFCAR (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, this has been an "educational" discussion. A lot of interesting subjects, suggestions and POV have been expressed, and from the looks of things, it appears that certain "image guardians" will now be able to assert their POV with documentation. What I haven't seen is any contriteness concerning dominant behavior. I can absoutely guarantee that we will see more disputes based on which image gets used in the lead article. and now legislation will be used to assert dominance. What brought on this discussion to begin with is not which images should be considered for the "esteemed privilege" of occupuing the lead article image, but dominant, repressive behavior in that selection process. Party One is interested in Party Two's suggestion, as long as it doesn't conflict with Party One. (Dddike (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
why not just merge a bunch of photos of the various generations of cars? As new models appear, just add its picture to the top of the stack? Personally, I'd want a 60's T-Bird photo instead of a photo of one from the 80's, but if you merged photos of each generation, including the 4-door versions into a stack, then you'd have a one shot progression of the vehicle.
Also, I don't think IFCAR should be the only editor castigated for blindly following procedures at the cost of fairness, Scheinwerfermann has willy-nilly modified other's photos to some end only he understands; rotating photos 90 degrees for example. Why? 02:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There are gallery and thumbnail provisions for efficiently and neatly displaying multiple images of cars. What's at issue here is how and how not to select the one image that goes in an article's lead infobox. Suggesting multiple images at the top of the article isn't responsive to this issue. Again, we're not here to castigate anybody. As has been pointed out numerous times in this discussion, there are provisions for effectively and productively objecting to edits and editors, but this particular forum isn't one of them. For my part, of the rather few image edits I've made, I can't think of any that have been "willy-nilly". I do recall rotating one image 90° for better fit in the article that used it. I'd be interested in learning how this constitutes blindly following procedures at the cost of fairness, but that's a topic to discuss on my talk page and/or the relevant image and article talk page(s), not here. Please, whoever you are (12.73.241.11, as it seems) remember to sign my comments properly on talk pages. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Provision added
We've got an obvious if typically rough consensus here. I've added the relevant provision to the conventions page (see point #5). We can now move on to squabbling about my having done so, if we really want to. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:This entire discussion was swift and chaotic, with huge and convenient misinterpretation of my comments, both byScheinwerfermann and IFCAR... I find myself wondering now if Scheinwerfermann is a Sockpuppet of IFCAR, and whether any protocol was followed to decide this issue.
Very clearly, the operation of all photographs in this entire project have been handed over to one person.
I'm nobody's sock puppet or meat puppet; if you don't believe me, you may initiate an investigation to find out for sure. Be ready to provide good quality evidence to support your suspicion, or your request for investigation will be summarily dismissed.
That you have to ask where the protocol for image selection is located strongly suggests you've never seen it, which means you've never read it, which is rather odd for someone with your level of passionately-held opinion on the matter. How can you possibly know what you're arguing for or against without having actually read the policy...?
The discussion was far from rushed, and anything but chaotic. The individual who edited your comments admitted having done so and apologised for it. Me, I prefaced my relatively inconsequential interpretation of your position with "I could be wrong, but...", so I really feel I did the best I could on that, and it was neither "huge" nor "convenient". Instead of taking the opportunity to correct me, you chose to lash out and rant at various Wikipedians and the process in general. Nobody has handed control of anything to anyone; consensus developed — and it developed on the side of codifying flexibility, not rigidity, in the selection of lead images. You got what you claim to want, and yet you continue to complain for reasons that still don't seem very appropriate or cogent to me, it is what it is for now. As has been repeatedly and explicitly explained to you, Wikipedia provides effective channels for you to address grievances with another editor's behaviour. Ranting and hitting out at me or IFCAR or anyone else will simply not get you anywhere you want to be. Please try to keep perspective on the relative importance of which picture leads the Subaru Forester article: there are hundreds of thousands of desperate, homeless, starving people in Burma right now. You may wish to think that over while you enjoy a nice cup of tea and a sit-down. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Before dumping the starving people of Burma on top of people who disagree with you, before misinterpreting at your convenience the people who disagree with you -- I suggest you accept that those of us who disagree with the process and the outcome are entitled to that opinion, and that that in and of itself does not constitute a rant.
Oddly, the new convention says this:
The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation — e.g., the newest, the last, the first, the best-selling, etc. — of the subject vehicle, but it should be reasonably representative. Low-volume or unusual variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image.
But IFCAR has then reverted the Subaru Forester lead photo to his preference, citing this in his edit comment: "Switched lead image per WPA's explicitly stated preference for quality over current generation."
So where is the so-called flexibility?
It's possible that both you and IFCAR are more educated in both Wikipedia and the project... but to manipulate the comments of other contributors, to miscontrue them and then dump starving people into the conversation... is... er... peculiar. This has all been strangely educational. 842U (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Side note: World crises are irrelevant to this discussion and unproductive, however good the point they make is.
This has happened before: Newer editor comes in, thinks "lead image must be newest" and changes it, established editor reverts, discussion ensues, newer editor sees the explanation, either understands or picks up his pen and goes away. There has been an unwritten understanding that "newest first" isn't a requirement. There's been a good number of unwritten agreements here. Those have been causing trouble, which is why we've been trying to get those agreements written down so they can be referred to.
Now we're trying to get the above situation fixed. 842U, you say "nothing has changed." Of course it hasn't - the consensus is still what it was before. I'm still not entirely sure what you're looking for out of this discussion. You implied that the newest should be first, then said that you weren't recommending that as a guideline. You did mention flexibility, which is what I thought we'd had before. What are you trying to accomplish? --Sable232 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I will also add: 842U, please understand that continuing to harrangue and lash out unless/until you get what you want is not an effective way of participating in the process of building consensus. Sometimes the consensus goes against what one wants, and that's just how it works. I still think notability should be mentioned as an image selection factor, but the consensus is against it, so that's how it goes and I will just have to cope. Likewise, if the existing consensus — which, as Sable232 accurately points out, has not changed — is not in line with your preferences and opinions, whatever they might be, you will also just have to cope. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
842U, image quality is mentioned before (above, ahead of) the point regarding no preference for current-generation lead images. That's deliberate. We mention the weightiest factors first and foremost. (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The intention, if I understand you —Scheinwerfermann, and I appreciate you bearing with me, is that the new convention would allow flexibility. But it's being interpreted by editor X either incorrectly (because the rule does not say there is an explicit preference for quality over generation) or it's being interpreted inflexibly because of it's rank in the list -- though the list doesn't state what you state here: "we mention the weightiest factors first."
842U, I'm not trying to be rude, but please properly indent your paragraphs and use page hierarchy. Talk pages are hard enough to follow without your writing all over the place.--Flash176 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's described below, and it's also very easy to figure out by looking at how others have done it when you're editing this page. As for what is going on here, by appearances what is going on here is that you are being obtuse, perhaps deliberately. I'm not sure why. You are making this much more complex and difficult than it really is: Good images are better than bad images, and there's no preference for newer-version vehicles in lead images. What's so difficult to understand about that? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
842U, you have put up a valliant fight and have shed light on boorish, strident behavior encountered by many other editors, who simply gave in and moved on. Editors who assert strong, iron-fisted control will remain dominant, using legislation adopted as a result of this dialogue, and all future disagreements will be met with the same result. Believe it or not, I really don't have a preference to the age of the image being used for the lead article, just a long as it heads towards an article that maked the Featured Article on the Home Page. I'm tired of the rigorous, insufferable attitude behind it. I think the only way the fight can continue is to take up arms, in the form of a high quality digital camera, and slug it out. (Dddike (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
824U, even if you don't consider the conventions to be clear enough in expressing what was conveyed by the majority of the participants in this page's discussion that quality is the top priority for a lead image, what do you think the conventions say is a priority? They now clearly state that how old the car pictured is is NOT a priority. "Flexibility" doesn't mean "sometimes, how old the car is is the top priority"; as used in this discussion, at least by me, it meant "flexibility to choose among different generations to get the best picture." I don't think you have a consensus that says otherwise. Reverting to the image of the current Subaru Forester with the only explanation being "Wikipedia promotes flexibility" doesn't mean anything and goes against every bit of the spirit and pretty much all of the letter of what was decided here. IFCAR (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(help me, am I properly indented?) Regarding your reverting edits by two other editors seven times in three days of the Subaru Forester lead photo, the conventions are clear: no photo is more appropriate than a latest generation photo.' Your statement ( 11:37, 11 May 2008) that there is a "WPA explicitly stated preference for quality over current generation" is false: there is no explicitly stated preference. The discussion here arriving at the new convention centered on flexibility, the convention itself allows flexibility, and the spirit of Wikipedia, which trumps all guidelines of a project, encourages flexibility over rigid enforcement of a standard. Furthermore, the word "quality" is ambiguous, abstruse, and utterly undefined by the conventions: it is a weasel word that can be manipulated and exploited at the caprice of the user — leaving a project such as the WPA vulnerable to being photographically bull-dozered, steamrollered, or Shanghai'd. 842U (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
842U, I've fixed your indenting. It works by looking at how many colons are before the first character in each paragraph of the text above yours, then using one more colon than that. If there are no colons before the first characters of the paragraphs you're responding to, you use one. If one, you use two. If two, you use three. If three, you use four. If four, you use none.
Compared to the '09 Japanese-spec image you seem to prefer, the image of the '03-'05 Forester is a better-quality image by dint of its less-cluttered, higher-contrast background. That's completely regardless of who made the image, uploaded it, and/or selected it. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing on the conventions page that states "no photo is more appropriate than a latest generation photo." That may be your convention, but the majority of editors who expressed opinions clearly disagreed. Flexibility doesn't mean flexibility to do whatever you want with "flexibility" as the only explanation. IFCAR (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
842U, May I suggest that the low-quality image you are using be replaced by an image that you have taken, making sure that the Quality of your image greatly exceeds the inferior image presently being used, and that the inferior, elementary school amateur image be relegated to Wikimedia Commons to exist in obscurity? (Dddike (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
:::Convention #5 says any generation photo is ok. An up-to-date picture of a just introduced vehicle like the Forester will likely always fall through the so-called "quality" filter — because the photo's are taken with flash indoors. Hence, though suggested otherwise by the convention, the lead-photo may by subjective definition never have a latest generation photo. And thus the newly crafted Convention #5 is either worthless or seriously in conflict with the spirit of flexibility suggested by the consensus discussion.
If the consensus discussion on flexibility for lead-in photos is earnest, and "any generation" photos are ok, and if the conventions are going to allow the weasel words of quality and better to rule the choice of lead in photos, then the convention might state that "latest generation photos" from exhibit hall or auto shows, photos with glare, etc. are acceptable.
Otherwise we haven't acheived the flexibility that the discussion suggested -- leaving the WPA again vulnerable to the ever-looming caprice of a single point of view. 842U (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The point isn't to exclude anything, it's to have a good-looking photo at the top. And if there isn't a good photo of the current generation to go at the top, then why would anyone benefit from rewriting rules to do it anyway, as the rules clearly state that there is no preference given to the current model?
It's certainly not as if no articles have their lead image as the current model. It's certainly not impossible. But a top-quality image will generally not emerge while a car is still only in auto shows. But sometime before it is redesigned again, it is certainly possible to create one. IFCAR (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is also not to create zero-tolerance always/never rules; grownup levels of common sense and reason are required when interpreting and applying the rules. You will likely not find much support for your idea that we include an explicit, exhaustive list in the conventions saying that photos taken at the Denver or Chicago auto shows with Nikon or Canon cameras no older than two years, using an exposure index of 200 or lower after 2:23 pm on Tuesdays or Thursdays are OK as lead images. Fact is, most of us here in this discussion have a solid, general understanding of what the conventions mean. You are outnumbered, which means you will have to think very carefully and watch what others are doing to gain such an understanding yourself. As for your complaint that the very newest cars are excluded because they'll always be low-quality indoor images taken with flash: even if you're right, and I don't agree that you are, eventually those cars make it onto the road, just waiting for you to come along with your camera and make a high-quality image to lead an auto article. It still looks to me as if your real issue is that you don't like IFCAR. You've been told again and again how to deal with that if you feel you can provide evidentiary support for specific allegations against him; the manner in which you continue posting here is making it progressively more difficult to assume you are acting in good faith. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
::There is precedence that allows a short clarifying descriptive to a convention item without it being exhaustive and explcit — there should be no further support necessary than these existing precedents:
The standard regarding "oldness" in the convention list (item 13) is specifically descriptive of rust, missing body panels, and mis-matched body panels, and
the standard regarding taking the photos (item 11) is be specifically descriptive, with front ¾ view from the height of an ordinary person, etc.
Adding something as similarly clarifying to the list's item 5 such as "glare being acceptable for a latest gen shot"... is certainly no more "explicit or exhaustive" than "rust, missing body panels, and mis-matched body panels."
A few short words allowing auto show glare would:
have clear precedent from the existing list
would simply clarify the reality of a latest gen shot,
would have item 5 reflect the consensus discussion,
would not require a specific shot of any particular generation but would allow shots of any generation.
A latest generation photo could include glare... the way a photo of an older car would surely exclude rust.
I am not certain what you are referring to with the "manner which I continue posting here". I did not mention IFCAR in my last post — but rather the importance of protecting the articles from a single POV. Nor have I invoked the plight of the suffering Burmese to make my points about photographs in WPA articles; you did -- and don't think that doesn't make it more difficult to assume your complete good faith. Nevertheless, we can put these things behind us. I submit this in good faith, and I assume yours. 842U (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would Wikipedia benefit from encouraging lower-quality auto show images? The only possible benefit would be showing the latest generation at the head of the article the instant a photo is available, but the protocol that has been now formally established says that is not, in fact, a benefit.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you're trying to make all images of whatever quality acceptable as lead images so you could use the newest, against the clear decision made against that on this page. IFCAR (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The "clear decision" was for flexibility. The guidelines give no explicit direction that says "better" (unverifiable, un-measurable) trumps newer (verifiable, objective).
::::What does it hurt Wikipedia to have a current, up-to-date photo with a little glare? Honestly? Wikipedia is not a beauty contest, and I'm not the first to say that in this disucssion. This isn't a place for personal attacks. I've refrained from mentioning you in the last posts I've made because I see now 1) that this isn't about you, but rather about one editor, any editor, having unilateral control of a whole section of Wikipedia's photographs and 2) that our consensus discussion with approximately 12 contributors centered on flexibility — a flexibility that's doesn't exist. If the conventions were truly guidelines there would not be a broad pattern of photos in the lead position by one author meeting one criteria — which is in fact what exists. People here are arguing against rigidity but creating exactly that. 842U (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The convention guideline is now written to make it impossible under for anything but a glareless shot of a brand new car to make it to the lead photo — which is virtually impossible because new cars are first photographed by lay-persons inside with artificial lighting, causing glare.
::::For all the talk here of flexibility, its very clear that what's happening is to implement rigidity. It's too bad. 842U (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::You make a good point. The conventions could be mod'd slightly like the other guideline to include a short phrase that makes a recent still photo from a show ok for a lead photo. The way I read the conventions now, it's cool to put a current photo there, even if it's not award-winning. Reading over this discussion is amusing. Just when 842U gets his point across the players change. It's like a good farce: the good guy leaves and the bad guy enters. Too funny. Burma, good one! BMWR1200C (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we please close that now? Lately there's been a lot of good things happening @ the WikiProject, we started putting down our "unwritten conventions" and discussing real issues on the meta-level rather than case-by-case, and reaching consensus rather quickly and neatly. Can we move on to another open case and close one that is essentially closed? PrinceGloria (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how we can close it without answering the questions that 824U is raising. I think we can very easily, very simply, but me just saying it helps nothing because that's just an example of me exerting evil dominance. But with users calling for a provision designed to circumvent what we seem to have agreed upon, we're clearly not done until a majority has said yes or no to that. IFCAR (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
IFCAR, I appreciate your making this point. Thank you. I was asked to move past the "evil dominance" mode, I've apologized for echoing Dddike's sentiment — and presume you've accepted that apology. Let's move past that.
My intention isn't to circumvent our agreement, but to reflect flexibility in the lead photos. The discussion and agreement have been distilled into the guidelines, the guidelines say that the lead photo "need not be" any particular generation -- which by default means the photo may be of any generation. You revert the Forester photo saying the rules explictly say they require quality first... which happens to be undefined. I am asking for an inclusive rather than exclusive definition of quality.
I'm asking that photo quality for a just-released generation not be the same as quality for an older model. I am asking that quality includes many factors — including rather than excluding timiliness. I'm asking that rather than a single mindset generating photographs across many, many articles -- by exclusive undefined forumula -- that more than one mindset may inspire quality too. In retrospect, a recipe that requires utter sameness and uniformly "good-by-one-interpreation" photos will comprise the very "quality" the guidelines aim to inspire. Uniform does not equal quality.
I ask that you broaden your interpretation of quality. The lead photo's are not fixed, and as the prolific contributor you are, your swiftly reverting the one single lead photo suggests you are unwilling to consider an alternative. Sheinwerfer has pointed this out to you on your talk page. I am not asking that all photo's be current generation. I'm asking that you allow an interpretation that says the two kinds of photos, a current model with glare vs. a glare-free but old model compares as roughly equivalent in "quality" -- that both are valid lead photographs. A fine place to start would be your allowing one single Subaru Forester current generation photo, any of them, to lead the article.
:::You are a prolific and tireless contributor — with your mark on a gracious plenty of articles. I am not asking for a guideline to be rewritten. I am not asking for all or nothing. It is your willingness to see another point of view that I'm asking for. Would you willing to see this from another point of view? 842U (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But the basic point of this entire discussion was that the majority of editors said that "timeliness" is not an attribute worth factoring in to the choice of lead image, and that point was introduced into the conventions. It was decided that one photo being of a newer car than another is not a factor in the quality of the image in choosing which to use. The opposing point of view was considered, throughout the entire discussion, but the majority of editors decided against it.
That's how Wikipedia works: ideas are considered, and then decided upon. And then editors go along with the decision. The decision was that newness is not a factor. IFCAR (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I must be missing something... I see "timeliness" mentioned in the discussion but where does it say specifically as "timeliness is not a factor in quality?" You might be making that up. I also don't see where a vote was taken or that a majority decided this issue. And IFCAR, did you get the closure you asked for about 842U's question being answered? I missed that too? BMWR1200C (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahem.
Per IFCAR: "the majority of editors said that "timeliness" is not an attribute worth factoring in to the choice of lead image."
Please cite the source for this in the discussion.
Per IFCAR: "the majority of editors decided against it." Please cite a source for this in the discussion.
From Wikipedia:Consensus: Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it.
The guidelines have no basis in the communal consensus unless they document something actually in the discussion. It's not in the discussion that "the majority of editors said that "timeliness" is not an attribute worth factoring in to the choice of lead image." Nor is it in the discussion that "the majority of editors decided against it."
Those wishing to close this discussion might be tired of the discussion, but that doesn't equate with the guidelines reflecting the communal discussion. 842U (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please help with something then, accepting that the discussion is closed? Do the new guidelines allow a picture of any generation at the head box? Or not? So "mote it be" acceptable to put a picture of a recently introduced generation when the photo has the usual flash highlights? I'm looking at the conventions and the discussion and some of the comments in article edits and I can't tell what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. Thanks. BMWR1200C (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
BMWR1200CThe guidelines do allow any generation at the head box, but timeliness is preferred (1978 F-150 not encouraged as the lead article image for Ford F-150, for example, or 1991 Lexus ES also not recommended for Lexus ES article). What is deemed acceptable boils down to what a particluar "image guardian" who wants to take issue, is at the heart of the matter. Just to clarify...(Dddike (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC))
This is the most superb example of cultural difference. If you live in a rule based society you expect and respect rules by which you can operate: European countries right of the Rhine come to mind - Germany, Nederland, Scandinavia, much of Switzerland. However, rules tend to come from the state. If you live in countries where the citizens have little respect for the state - especially if there has in the past been a long history of rules being imposed by unwelcome foreigners - Belgium, Italy and Poland come to mind - rules are there to be evaded or ignored. And for obscure reasons I do not understand, the British seem to have no more respect for their rule givers than the Belgians have for theirs. And in the US you have the usual mixture of attitudes, from obedient teutonic types in Wisconsin to the freer spirits you get as you move west and south. And as with every generalization, I am sure there re exceptions to these impressions all around us: but the impressions remain valid, at least for me.
On the guide line question, I side with the agnostics. If you make the guidelines too prescriptive you'll simply reduce the number of people who can be bothered to contribute at all. Most situations will call for a picture of a recent or current model at the top of the entry, but there will be perfectly good reasons why that is not a good idea every time, either because the available images are of lesser quality or because the latest version is a lemon. Shame to name names but ... ok, for me the Ford Mustang in 1964 was iconic. But maybe that's just my age. Younger readers may think that more recent Mustangs are more significant. Doesn't make them or me right or wrong: we bring our own baggage of experiences and preconceptions to everything we read. Do not be surprised that your opinion and someone else's may differ.
I apologize for digressing, though Burma makes a respectable precedent (a reference you'll only recognize if you have read through the whole discussion: if you haven't then maybe you shouldn't wish to). I think the digressions arise because those of us who've been trying to follow it think that everything that needs to be said has been said. Several times. And are becoming bored. And I know I don't have to keep up with it still, but somehow I am. But don't depair: IF someone goes and takes a hatchet to the guideline than none of us likes, then we can launch another discussion next week! Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
TIMELINESS IS NOT A FACTOR WHEN DETERMINING IMAGE QUALITY AND SUITABILITY FOR MAIN INFOBOX
We've had enough communication on that. Market of origin guideline in naming articles means that, according to an age-old WikiProject Automobiles compromise, we name the article by the name originally used for its marketing in the market that can be considered "domestic" for it (hence Japan for Japanese vehicles which originated there, though not ones developed and first launched in other countries, like the Camry Solara or Aurion). We need to put it down specifically and decide on the exact wording, because, while most of the experienced members of the project agree on that in principle, it still raises a lot of controversy, especially among newcomers. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, PrinceGloria and Sable were invited into the conversation by Scheinwerfermann. With a tiny total group of people participating in the discussion, some specifically invited here, perhaps pre-disposed to support the editor who invited them, the conversation vociferously shut down after three days of discussion, this doesn't meet the spirit of discussion. 842U (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This WikiProject is the focus of my Wikipedian activities, so I don't need invitations to participate in discussions - I've seen it before I got notified by Scheinwerfermann, which seemed a bit superfluous to me, though I thought he invited all active members, which I found appropriate. I really don't want to delve into that any further. A mature editor can sense a moment when he or she crosses the line between insistence and obsession. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
842U, your objections appear increasingly far-fetched. Let's be grownups and remember that within mere moments of inviting PrinceGloria and Sable232, I invited you, Dddike, and others I knew to disagree with my position, as well. And if it helps to set your troubled mind at ease, there are provisions of this WikiProject on which I disagree strongly with PrinceGloria's opinion. Nevertheless, I participate in the consensus-building process and if my preference isn't reflected in the outcome, I don't carry on coming up with increasingly-spurious objections to the process, nor do I randomly attack the other participants without any evidence, nor do I selectively pretend to be both a knowledgeable expert and a clueless novice in how Wikipedia works as the moment suits me. I can behave to this standard, so can most of the other participants in this discussion, so I'm sure if you try, you can too. Please start trying now. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::To ask IFCAR and others to cite their source that the discussion is reflected in the guidelines — that cuts right to the heart of this process and yet neither he, nor anyone else answers that basic question. It's not an attack. The notion that the guidelines reflect concensus are repeated ad nauseum and with an very clear unwillingness to cite the part of the discussion the guidelines do actually reflect -- followed repeatedly with copious comments about how tiresome, tiring and worn out the thread is. PrinceGLORIA can type in ALLCAPS a declarative statement that doesn't occur anywhere leading up to the guidelines -- and then beg off the conversation, saying its tiresome. But hey, my vote doesn't count because I'm new here. You can accuse me of pretending to be novice or expert -- which is an unfounded attack. You can hurl the Burmese into the conversation. But cite the source for where the guidelines reflect the community discussion... and watch what happens. Silence. I can hear it coming now. 842U (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Because others involved in this discussion have stated in so many words that 842U is persisting on an issue that some have stated has already been decided, but 842U is asserting that specifics haven't been agreed upon and wants a source cited, means that this matter has been regarded as closed? What is the core issue being discussed? Standards of images being used or "assertiveness"? (Dddike (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC))
Please remember who you are logged in as when editing ;)
Fabulous. This doesn't do much for 842U's complaint of the consensus-building process being railroaded, rushed, and otherwise unfair, does it! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This was not a "mistake" of any size. It was a blatant and deliberate attempt to abuse and manipulate the consensus-building process through sock puppetry, which is explicitly forbidden. Now: What was it you were asking? Something about being confused as to how to indent properly on Wikipedia talk pages? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Lead image policy vote
Let's have a vote on whether or not to include this statement into the Conventions, to settle recent disputes with a policy: Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining image quality and suitability for main infobox.IFCAR (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy
Policy shortcut:
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding.(Dddike (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
Wikipedia is also not a bureaucracy. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Certain editors have lost sight of that core policy. Standards can not be enacted without consensus, and it can't be achieved by voting. If an edit is being made without consensus, regardless of who contributed, the edit must demonstrate consensus, or both images. No standard exists that only one photo can be shown. Want an example? Go to Wikipedia Japan. (Dddike (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
Comment - Scheinwerfermann (talk·contribs) I might support this when the wording is rectified. "Timeliness" isn't exactly what's meant here, so much as vehicle production date.
Oppose - this wording is pretty incident-driven, i.e. not really understandable for a person not participating in our discussion. I propose: "When determining which image to use for the main infobox in articles describing models with more than one generation, whether the photo represents the most recent generation should not be a factor in the discussion, only the quality of the picture according to Wikipedia guidelines". PrinceGloria (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Broadly your draft works for me, Prince G. The lumpier it gets the more prescriptive it risks becoming. Nevertheless, if you want to pin people down, how about adding two words? - as follows:
"When determining which image to use for the main infobox in articles describing models with more than one generation, consideration of whether the photo represents the most recent generation should not be a factor, only the quality and appropriateness of the picture according to Wikipedia guidelines"
Appropriateness is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. However, I would suggest that the most beautiful picture of a car in the world becomes a little less appropriate if (1) it is of a special Hooper bodied version when most Bentley Type Rs looked utterly different. Or (2) if there is a distraction - beautiful woman or dead fish - which while not obstructing the car image nonetheless draws attention from it. It will always be for the 'editors' to judge when a super high quality picture is nonetheless insufficiently appropriate. But I think we just want some wiggle room so as to ensure that not "ONLY the quality" is the consideration. Or?
And please don't mention discussion in a guideline: people who feel the urge to discuss need no such encouragement. If discussion is wanted discussion will happen.
(I'm not sure I ever wake up, but I hope this makes some sort of sense nonetheless. If 'appropriateness' is too lumpy a word I suppose you could use 'suitability', but that, for some of us, carries an undesirable moral undertone!) Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - PrinceGloria, I support whatever wording makes it completely unambiguous what the outcome of this discussion is. You might say my wording was "incident-driven" because I tried to use the feedback from this incident to see how wording could be misinterpreted if not spelled out. But your suggestion seems to work fine as well. Charles01, the conventions as written now call say "it should be reasonably representative. Low-volume or unusual variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image." There is also a convention on avoiding distracting background. Unless we're taking that out, I think we're covered on the Hooper-bodied Bentley covered in dead fish. IFCAR (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment — thanks, IFCAR, for the first part of this discussion which has actually made me laugh out loud (and in a good way), rather than just shake my head in despair and try hard to resist the urge to post a message asking everyone to go away and have a cup of tea. I am now tempted to head off to cover a Bentley in fish, and take a really good photo. :-) – Kieran T(talk)11:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Support - I support the sentiment. But we don't "vote" - we seek consensus. If there is no consensus to include this statement - then it shouldn't be there. SteveBaker (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
OPPOSE, To reference the plight of the Burmese people, I will make my statment, in context, speaking out against a REPRESSIVE, IRON-FISTED dictatorship whose will shall be carried out, regardless of what the populace desires. I really don't care which image gets used, I don't like the attitude behind it, at all. That individual probably regrets mentioning the Burmese right about now.(Dddike (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
COMMENT — I do not regret mentioning Burma, and this is not a referendum on the legitimacy of the Myanmar junta. Please behave yourself in a mature manner. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
OPPOSE Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion. Ideally, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus. In theory, action without resolution of considered opposition will be rare and done with attention to minimize damage to relationships. Voting is not consensus seeking. Asserting a desire to end debate or discussion is not consensus-seeking. The Burma comment, perhaps well-intentioned has been perceived as stonewalling by the facilitator of the discussion. The sock-puppetry may be a reflection of not being heard. The suggestion that a vote had already been taken and that the majority had had already decided (de-cide: kill the opposition) thwarted consensus-seeking. Opposed anonymously under cloak of new registration. Vbclerate (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:OPPOSE A photo of a freshly introduced model with glare or background is roughly equal to a clear photo of an old model. Both are ok. Jingpho (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC):Oppose On any given day, I would choose a neat but slightly tattered copy of today's newspaper over a perfectly new copy of yesterday's. Amarapura (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Support - I support welcoming all the incarnations of 842U. Why don't we all set up more profiles and quickly become the largest WikiProject! Woot! PrinceGloria (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Worth noting that two "oppose" votes are listed as suspected sockpuppets and that another user who posted from at least two accounts here (two formally linked) has been blocked for the same offense. We're much closer to consensus than the vote seems if you don't count one person saying the same thing from multiple accounts. IFCAR (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
So, if the "sockpuppet" votes get reduced to just 842U, there are three objections, and consensus has not been achieved. (Dddike (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
Are you stating that Wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone, is more credible than a dictionary? The point I'm trying to make is that strong-arm tactics have no place at Wikipedia, from what I've learned about the spirit of policy that applies to this website. Earlier, my opinion was asked, and I gave my opinion. But now, I should just give in and stop making some people uncomfortable. The link you inserted said, silence is consent. Do you want me to shut up so that you can have your way?(Dddike (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC))
Yes Wikipedia is a more credible source for Wikipedia policy than a dictionary. You gave your opinion, most others disagree with you, so yes it would nice if you dropped the topic. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Support I know that I and IFCAR have had more than our fair share of arguments in the past regarding automotive images, but I can not agree with him more on this issue. When I first recieved word on the ongoing argument, I was a little reluctant to join, as I don't want to get trolled anymore, as I am still getting frequent visits on my talk page from the GM Minivan vandal. But anyways, I agree with the fact that an automotive article's head image should be by the highest quality, and not the most recent. I have made many reverts to the Ford Taurus article, as many users have taken a mediocre quality image of the latest model and stuck it in the head, taking out its current head image that depicts that of a 2005-2007 model in very high quality. Also, many cars are better identified with older versions of it. When I say "Ford Mustang", I bet the one thing that pops into your mind is the 1964 model. And how can you say "Plymouth Voyager" without its wood sided 1980s second generation model springing to mind? So, in a nutshell, I agree with IFCAR on this policy, and I believe that the head image not be determined by what is/isn't the latest model of car available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrmann (talk • contribs) 18:28, 2008 May 14
Support It has been defacto policy for a long time, I see no reason not to add it to our image convention guide. As with any project guidline there can and will be exception. This is such a heated debate for such a non issue. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Just who is going to elect themselves Supreme Commander King of the Fiefdom and not only monitor all the articles that need editing on an annual basis, but will also be responsible for gathering, posting, and editing said articles??
And it was my image that someone willynilly modified. A square image that was rotated 90* and affecting layout in no way but by that simple act, making it just wrong. If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it.Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The policy has already been added, regardless of the ongoing debate, at Wikipedia, consensus=mob rule. Don't like it? Tough.(Dddike (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2008
(UTC))
Ah, yes, you refer to this image, which I did indeed rotate 90°. As there's no top, bottom, left, or right to a combustion chamber viewed per se, and the image is in fact not square, and the image as rotated physically fits better into the text flow of the one and only article that uses it, there's no basis on which this modification can legitimately be said to have made the image "wrong". It seems more likely your objection is really that someone dared to alter an image you uploaded. This would fall under WP:UGH. Please remember that contributions, once made, are no longer yours to control. They become a part of the encyclopedia, and as such, they are open for modification and improvement by all members of the Wikipedia community. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Where do I find the actual "policy"? I think I mis-voted. I was voting against the idea of requiring the most recent model being pictured. Going to the start of this section I see this seems to be one of those trick questions where you need to support NOT doing something. Is that the right understanding, finally (duh)?Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The policy proposal is written at the top of this section. It looks like you did misvote as you were voting against a clarification that indicated that preference was not to be given based on the year of the vehicle pictured. Feel free to change your vote. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I changed my vote. When do the ribbons stream down and the corks pop for victory?
Support either the proposed wording or Princegloria's alternate wording. For clarity, could all confirmed sockpuppet comments and votes here be crossed out, please? --Athol Mullen (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
We should bring this debate to a close. After more than a week of hard argument there is clearly no sign of consensus and further debate clearly won't change anyone's mind - so this proposed change is dead in the water.SteveBaker (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
While this "vote" (LOL) was going on, the policy was already added, Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions, #5 "The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation — e.g., the newest, the last, the first, the best-selling, etc. — of the subject vehicle, but it should be reasonably representative. Low-volume or unusual variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image." So, was "the rulling counsel" trying to build consensus AFTER the mandate was already added? FOR THE RECORD, my suggestion was that a current lead article image should have some merit or consideration in the selection process for a sutible image, whether it be a photo of the vehicle or a graphic representation of the vehicles nameplate. This policy was an "understanding" of the rulling counsel and they just assumed that all editors understood this, and this edict need not be written, because everyone agrees with "the rulling counsel" and new editors will be brought up to speed on how things are done. Attitudes are firmly intact and I'm just not participating in my "re-education".(Dddike (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
Seems to me that, once the "oppose" !votes that really supported an alternate wording are factored into support of the general principle, the only opposition is Dddike, plus 842U and his sockpuppets.
Once the sockpuppetry is taken out, there are one or two people left who are saying that the absolute newest model must always be used for the lead photo in the article. The general consensus is the opposite, and most of the remaining discussion centres on the wording of the change, not on whether there should be a change or not. I'd suggest that we close the !vote as passed for change but not passed for actual wording, and move on to nailing down the wording to be used. --Athol Mullen (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's abundantly clear that there is no consensus on this matter. There has been ample discussion and it seems unlikely that further debate will change anyone's mind. The 'consensus poll' was seriously split. Without consensus to change, the status quo must therefore stand. Hence, there is no agreed guideline on lead images beyond our pre-existing general image guidelines. Each article that has a dispute on this matter will therefore have to argue the merits for their specific vehicle type individually, on their own talk pages - and decide the matter in the light of the nature and history of the vehicle and given whatever photos are available. That being the case, the debate is over and I see no need for a sub-page. SteveBaker (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Steve, I am most surprised a seasoned Wikipedia member and editor like you would declare there is "no consensus" in a discussion where everybody agreed but for one user using sockpuppetry and personal attacks in lieu of arguments. I strongly believe we did reach a rare consensus among members of this WikiProject and I would find it very disappointing if it got lost just because of this one user (who should be given credit for forcing us to go through the whole process, establish consensus and, hopefully, start formalizing our guidelines). PrinceGloria (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked back through the list of support and oppose comments - I see several that are not labelled a socks. Looking a the edit histories, I agree that there was some unfortunate sockpuppeteering going on - but I don't think all the oppose votes can simply be handwaved away like that. SteveBaker (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The flat-out oppose votes were 824U and his socks and Dddike, while I don't think any of the others said more than "I object to the proposed wording to something I agree with." IFCAR (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, that is why I opposed. For that matter, I can change my "vote" (do remember we were just voicing opinions, this is not an actual vote) to support if this is required to sustain a good consensus. Seriously, though - why the sudden change of heart, Steve? PrinceGloria (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What followed: Scheinwerfermann did that, participating in IFCAR's edit war, helping IFCAR thwart the 3RR rule, and acting in place of IFCAR in the article editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrigus (talk • contribs) 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright I think I can speak for most people here when I say, that this debate has run its course, the consensus seems to support the addition of a brief clarification to the image convention page. At this point there is too much SPA activity and accustations of abuse to continue productive discussion all we are going to do is create further rancor. If users still feel that they can make valid suggestions for changes to the conventions, please do so on the convention talk page and please, please leave out the personal stuff and just discuss how the changes you are proposing will improve our articles. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Predecessor/Successor
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion
I have searched a bit and found nothing discussing this. What exactly is the position on what is considered a predecessor or successor automobile? This comes after viewing a small edit debate going on at Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR, regarding whether or not the Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren is a successor. Both are considered "supercars", but they are drastically different in their layout, design, market, intent, and the reason for their creation. So, because they are both the top-of-the-line sport model for Mercedes-Benz at their respective times, should they be considered related? The359 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the CLK was the successor to the S-class Coupe or the 500SEC. The SLR was an off-shoot of the roadster SL, and I don't believe the SLR has a back seat where the CLK did, and the CLK GTR has, or had a back seat and was used for races in Europe, I think.(Dddike (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
The CLK GTR shares nothing with the CLK. Most notably, the CLK GTR has the engine in the back, so no, no back seats. The359 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
But the question was, what do we mean by predecessor or successor, right? You might have an entirely new car from the same maker which occupies the same market niche- you could call that a successor, despite there being no engineering relationship between the two cars. Rather than making up our own original criteria, I think we should let the sources be our guide. One car is the successor of another if sources refer to it this way. Friday(talk)20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I came across this issue where the article on the Chrysler Crossfire suggested the car was the successor to the Plymouth Prowler... because I disagreed with the suggestion and it was an unsourced statement, I deleted it. In situations that aren't clear cut, if there were a credible source to suggest the relationship between the two vehicles, even when the suggestion is otherwise tenuous, then it might be ok? 842U (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I was the one who removed the SLR as the CLK GTR's successor. I would agree that it needs to be sourced to meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. As a note, the CLK GTR article does not mention the SLR McLaren and the SLR article does not mention the CLK GTR. swaq21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I share the belief that the two should not be considered predecessor/successor simply because of how different they are, even though they are both called "supercars", just as the Crossfire and Prowler are vastly different besides being niche retro-ish sports cars. I would even go farther and say that the CLK GTR does not fit the same niche as the SLR, as a limited production homologation special is vastly different from a mass produced grand tourer. The359 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There was discussion a while ago about getting rid of this altogether because of precisely the conversation above. Almost all of this is original research. If there are reliable, secondary sources which tell us about the succession, all well and good. Otherwise, it's got no place here and belongs on a helpful, and as opinionated as it likes, fansite about the marque. I'm in favour, therefore, of having the predecessor and successor fields filled in only when referenced. – Kieran T(talk)22:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think predecessor/successor can serve useful purposes without much though, or even necessarily a need for sources, when an auto manufacturer directly replaces one nameplate with another for the same segment of car (Ford Taurus -> Ford Five Hundred/Ford Fusion). It is not difficult to determine a direct succession, at least to me, for something such as this. For the CLK GTR and SLR however, too far apart in time and relationship. The359 (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that in an instance where it's pretty clear it can be included. However, there was an editor here who liked to come up with grandiose explanations as to how a fullsize sedan was the successor to a personal luxury coupe. Such claims (which are blatant OR anyway) need to be cited or removed. --Sable232 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, when "pretty clear" means "referenced". And, given that automobiles are much written about by various, often emotion-driven authors, I remember we've been talking that an appropriate source is the automaker itself. Unless they state a vehicle has a predecessor/successor status to another one, I believe it is OR or POV. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Best by request
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I am cross-posting the following comments of mine from their original home on the List of GM engines talk page, which I just spent a large chunk of time reorganizing. Yes, I know the list's intro needs sources for some statements; I can provide many (at least in regards to American cars), and will work on filling them in shortly, but I was more concerned with making the list more usable and concise for now.
I've reworked this list pretty extensively, adding in a lot of missing engines (many of which will need pages created for them) and even throwing in some of GM's heavy-duty production to provide historical perspective. I know I'm still missing some things - early Vauxhall engines come to mind (damn it!) and there may be other regional production from South America, Asia, etc. that I'm not aware of. The help of Wikipedians from elsewhere in the world (outside the US, that is) would be greatly appreciated, especially in pinning down dates and specifics for Opel/Vauxhall production and refining the data for other "world" engines.
The list has been organized mainly in a historical way, tracing GM's engine development through the years - I feel this is more instructive (and interesting) than grouping things by division; others may disagree, and I would welcome additional input. I'm also somewhat hamstrung by the way individual engine pages are currently organized - instead of starting with a semi-DAB page like "Cadillac V8 engine" and expanding from there (into, say, separate pages for L-head, OHV, aluminum, and Northstar V8s), everything is currently mixed into confusing jumbles on single pages. I understand how to get through all these pages now, but that's only after months of learning the "tricks" needed to do so. Most of what exists seems incomplete as well, at least compared to my own references.
I'm also of the opinion that sprawlingly huge pages like "GM Vortec engine" should be nothing more than DAB pages, giving links only to the various engine families (Atlas, small-block, LS, etc.) under that name and sorting things out within those pages instead. On that note, if Ford's Duratec brand has a page, why doesn't GM's equally notable EcoTec brand?
At some point, I may decide to rework this list into a series of tables instead, but that's down the road. I'd also like to work up a comprehensive, cross-referenced list of RPO engine codes (don't laugh - I've already tortured myself with the similarly daunting list of NASCAR race tracks, so RPO codes shouldn't be much more painful). For now, though, I think this gives a good base from which to further refine and Wikipedia's coverage of General Motors and its engineering achievements.
I bring this up here because, in general, pages on engines (either lists or individual engine families) seem to be very haphazardly constructed in a lot of cases. I'm looking for comments on how they ought to be organized and presented. To start off, I'll note that there seems to be a massive difference in quality between American engine pages and Asian engine pages, while European engine pages (save for BMW, which is perhaps overly complete in detail) are somewhat lacking overall.
Your comments, suggestions, notes or novelties are encouraged - but please, no references to disaster-ravaged nations if at all possible. Duncan1800 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I should note as well that I did not write the rambling, bordering-on-original-research section about GM's diesel problems - it's been there for quite some time, someone keeps adding to it, and it sticks out like a gaping wound to me. Duncan1800 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks much better, IMO. I think that the diesel section should be purged completely - we need a good section on the engine's own page, not on that list. There's three or four sections on "GM diesel problems" and they're all terrible, riddled with OR/POV/weasel-words/etc. I can't believe that was at the top of the page. --Sable232 (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's part of the problem, actually - the engine needs its own page, in my opinion. What we have now is one page about the Oldsmobile Diesel V6 engine, and a section under the main Oldsmobile V8 engine article (all including that same amount of OR/POV qualities). This goes to my point about organization issues - it was hard enough putting together just a simple listing of engine families because of all the convoluted links that currently exist. Someone searching for "chevrolet V8" needs a brief DAB page explaining the different families of Chevy V8 engines, which can easily link them to the three most likely choices (small-block, big-block or LS) or the bigger GM list if that's not sufficient. As it stands right now, only Chevrolet Small-Block engine appears on the first page of a search for "chevrolet V8". Besides that, all of the various Cadillac V8 engines are lumped onto one page, the Buick V6 page is a mess - I could go on, but you probably already knew these things. Duncan1800 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a single citation and not much of a reference for the article.
Where is the "GM V8"? The one they got sued over because it was used in multiple platforms at the same time.
Is "Big Block" the official GM name? Is that trademarked? Or just common usage? Where's the "Rat" and "Mouse" nicknames if you're going 'off-label'?
I've seen automotive articles where editors lambasted contributors for entering the equivalent of RPO codes and part numbers and the like..."too detailed" they cry, "this is an encyclopaedia, not a parts book" they opine. Is there an official policy regarding the level of detail to be included in this type of article?
I can see some reasons for suspicion solely due to my faint memories of a recent case similar in some detail, but it would be good if you could substantiate your doubts, Bull-Doser. Perhaps you recognized some of the photos he/she uploaded as seen online and can provide a link to where it can be found outside of Wikipedia. Thanks! PrinceGloria (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Request to merge category
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I have proposed that the Category:Luxury SUVs be merged into Category:SUVs. There seems to be no good reason for a separate category for Luxury SUVs. There is no recognized definition or any official vehicle classification system for this type of vehicle. All of the models linked within this category are also listed under the broader category of SUV vehicles. The article about "Luxury SUVs" goes directly to the general "sport utility vehicle" article. Manufactures like to add the "luxury" tag to their vehicles, but it is broad, highly variable, ambiguous, and not encyclopedic. Please add your thoughts to the nomination page: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 26#Category:Luxury SUVs — Thanks CZmarlin (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a good question! The category "luxury" is subjective, but the size of the vehicle can be measured and the type of platform used by the manufacturer can be determined. In the United States, the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) collects the data and does the testing.[2] The EPA has defined a "market class system" that groups together cars that are similar from the car buyer's perspective. They have been doing the "gas mileage of new and used cars by EPA size class" since this 1985.[3] However, all Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) under 8,500 pounds are lumped together.[4] Therefore, the latest "2008 Sport Utility Vehicle" data includes everything (hybrid or gasoline) from the most efficient (the regular fuel 4-cylinder Jeep Compass and Patriot 2WD — 23 city & 28 highway) to the least efficient (8 cylinder 4WD Mercedes-Benz G 55 AMG — 11 city & 13 highway).[5] Of course these are two examples are not direct competitors in the market, but is there a better defined method of parsing this vehicle class? Does the European Union (or other nations) have any official definitions for SUVs? — CZmarlin (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
EuroNCAP recently started distinguishing between "Small 4x4s" and "Large 4x4s", but as only selected models are being tested, and only ones available in the EU, I am not sure if we can go by those categories. I'd stick to having SUVs lumped together - no harm really done, and less OR or edit warring. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Supercar again
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
To the latter question, urgh, no. They're the solution to a non-existent problem, i.e. readers finding themselves at quattro GmbH and Audi Quattro when they want to be at another "quattro" article. Even a link to the Quattro dab page (which wouldn't discriminate against people not looking for VW/Audi-related pages) would make more sense, although it still wouldn't be necessary—neither of the listed pages would be found by typing "quattro" into the search box.
Addendum: found a guideline which is very specifically against this; WP:NAMB, "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous". There's no good reason for those dab links (and by having far too many wikilinks, they're not even being correctly implemented). --DeLarge (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
We have a very clear consensus on the term "Supercar". We (wikipedia) do not say that a car is or is not a "Supercar" because the term is far too vague. We could (in principle) say "such-and-such reviewer says that X is a supercar" - because we could at least prove whether that statement was indeed made by that reviewer - but there is little reason to write that since it tells you nothing whatever about the car itself. Hence, unless there is an especially important reason to say it - we probably should not. But we've debated this to death - and we have a very clear consensus. SteveBaker (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the term from quattro GmbH - I removed one instance of it from Audi R8 - but left another since it was merely quoting what someone else said - which is arguably OK. The template doesn't seem to use the term anymore. SteveBaker (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If this is the consensus, the there needs to be cleaning up of Car classification, which discusses and gives examples of supercars -- especially since the auto infobox for 'Class' links to this page. No? Quaeler (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Automobile commercial failures category
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
I just noticed this relatively new category: Category:Automobile commercial failures. Is this okay, can we really say one car is a failure while another isn't? What is the criteria. If we have this should we have a commercial successes category as well? Just seems a little wrong to me, so I thought I'd bring it up. swaq15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Entries under this category will contain many different points of view. What may be one perspective of a "failure" may actually have contributed to future success because of the lessons learned from that perceived failure. Moreover, I am not sure the exact definition of failure. Is it measured by:
lack of sales?
biggest sales declines?
reduced profits?
design problems?
technology problems?
lack of marketing and advertising support?
insufficient market exposure and service and parts support?
perceived image of the automaker or brand?
etc.
Quoting from the 2005 book "Sixty Heroic Automotive Failures" by Tony Davis: car enthusiasts will argue endlessly about what are the best cars, they'll argue even more ferociously about what are the worst. The models that are discussed in this book are open to further speculation as to their "failure".
This topic is also highly subjective depending on nationality. In other words, almost all Italian cars could be listed as total failures in the North American market. Moreover, this category could include almost all makes of cars as almost every automaker has experienced a model that was not successful during their history. Recent examples are listed in a November 20, 2006, article from Forbes magazine by Dan Lienert entitled “Automotive Turkeys 2006”. (http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/17/car-sales-down-forbeslife-vehicles-cx_dl_1120turkey.html). Should all of these cars be included in this category?
Moreover, the case could be made that all Sport Utility Vehicles have become massive automobile market failures after achieving success. The U.S. automakers are now closing the production of these gasoline guzzlers because their sales have dropped precipitously. Now automobile dealers in the U.S. will not accept a big used SUV as a trade-in for new cars.
I also recommend that this category be deleted. This is a category just begging for edit wars, with consensus being gauged almost every time ANY vehicle gets added to it, on whether it should or should not be on this list. This could get really heated if a car gets added that has a fan club, such as the Ford Pinto, or the Cadillac Cimmaron. One of the more well known car clubs that could really get argumentative is any car wearing the name Edsel.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures for the deletion of the equivalent article. As I argued at that AfD, a "commercial failure" is a very specific definition; it had to have failed to recoup what it cost to design, develop, and manufacture (and lets see you source that). To make it a category, a car's commercial failure would need to be a defining feature of its notability. Offhand, only the Edsel or De Lorean spring to mind as such, but they were entire divisions or companies, so in that case the figures are easier to get hold of.
The "turkeys" listed at the Forbes article (linked above by CZM) are simply those which suffered a large year-on-year decline, and include such notable commercial successes as the Porsche Boxster. Can't see this surviving a CfD. --DeLarge (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. I have never nominated a category for deletion before but think I have got the procedure right. Feel free to add comments such as those above. Malcolma (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Toyota Camry
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"That article contains a lot of information that is NOT covered in your article. There is NO REASON for you to delete that article, and there are people looking for something more in-depth then your tiny paragraph on the US Versions. Having that separate article does not hurt anything, and I was in the process of changing it so that it was not simply duplication! Please leave my article alone, as you are not an authority on Toyota." — User talk:Venomnitto, 19:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Its issues like these that are really annoying me to the point, that I am considering semi-retiring. I am already less active here than I was before; and to be frank, I really cannot be bothered arguing the toss for this case as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Your search settings may not have included categories — at the bottom of the search results page are a bunch of tick-boxes to set the scope of searching. HTH. – Kieran T(talk)13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Image quality/selection
Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Had a read over the previous lengthy discussion, re images in lead infobox, however, mine is a more generalised question, regarding the actual "quality" of image - both in terms of the quality of the photography, and also the content of the photo. Whilst the quality of the photography is self explanatory (ie, focus, shadows, lighting, reflection, etc), my greatest concern is the actual content of the photo. My point is I'm seeing a number of photos of "modified" vehicles - such as different wheels, advertising graphics, non-standard bodywork, etc. IMHO, a photo should only be included if the content of the image is "OEM standard" specification. Discuss, please. -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have examples of articles illustrated by photos of modified cars? Unless there is no other image available, the car pictured should be stock, in accordance with the conventions. IFCAR (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
One of the images I removed wasn't loaded in Commons, and I can't now find it! I'll try to find some quick examples of what I think should not be used (with my reasons why):-
religious statement, non-standard graphics above headlamp and along doors, commercial advertsing on front bumper and sunstrip
Well if there are better images of cars without decals, I wouldn't use these, but in general I don't think some stickers are too big a deal. The image caption can note that the vehicle has non standard decals, the pics still do an adequate job of illustrating what the vehicle looks like. What I would be concerned about are major modifications that effect appearence, like body kits, aftermarket lights, wheels and so forth. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
DJL, I'm with you most of the way - but I'm very concerned about the top image. We should not be displaying any religious connotations on car articles, and if that were the only image available, I personally wouldn't use it! -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 10:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... this took me all of about twenty seconds, although it's the solution to a non-existent problem as far as I'm concerned. A photo of a car whose owner happens to be Christian? It's not like we have a glow-in-the-dark Virgin Mary statue on the rear parcel shelf and "Jesus saves!" stickers all over the back of the car. I'm also fairly confident no-one thinks Audi is getting endorsement for its motors from the Vatican, or doing a limited edition RS4 Haddock. Let's not make storms in teacups, eh? Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I'm not "making a storm in a tea cup"! I asked in good faith, for an helpful answer on the general concensus. The point is, this is meant to be an encyclopeadia - so articles on cars should only include encyclopaedic facts on the relevent car - which is why they shouldn't promote anything else. Regarding the religious point, I personally don't mind if readers are Christian, Muslim, Hindi, Athiest, or whatever - but I am aware that to some people, religion, particularly the public portrayal of religion, is a very sensitive issue! Please don't blow me out of the water for asking a "good faith" question (if in doubt, please look at the yellow box at the top of this page <wink>), and please don't assume that everyone is an expert on photo-editing software. Kind regards -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 12:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
None of those images actually seem to be used in any articles, and two fail the criteria for being used an infobox anyway for not being the 3/4 front angle. I don't see a widespread problem of modified cars used in articles, or any problem at all with tiny decals that don't in any way interfere with the depiction of the car. IFCAR (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there really anything which isn't yet clear? Choose the best available photo with the least distractions. Don't have any ego about whose it is. If taking pictures, bear in mind where they're intended for and if there's a problematic logo or sticker, choose a different angle, or a different example of the model. It's very responsible to check with the community but it's surely clear that these discussions will run on and on ad nauseam. – Kieran T(talk)13:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article Harvard (automobile) was created recently, and I'm having trouble verifying some of the statements in it. See Talk:Harvard (automobile). Some info in the article doesn't check against available sources. There's a page reference to "Standard Catalog of American Cars: 1805-1942"; does anyone have a copy? --John Nagle (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This new template has just been created. It looks like this was suggested at Template talk:Mazda#Japan vs. NA. This seems like a bit of overkill to me and seems to be something that should be discussed here. Thoughts? swaq17:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Mazda is perhaps the most consistent Japanese manufacturer when it comes to global lineups. With the exception of a few fringe models (CX-9 vs. MPV) and JDM keicars, there has been "one Mazda" globally for the last two decades or so - naming notwithstanding. It's not like Ford or VW. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My Wikipedia Rating
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I have been rated one of the best automobile editors for Wikipedia, despite editing most articles and putting dimensions with infobox expansions. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I hate to burst your bubble, but no one gives a rats ass about your self-indentified 'wikipedia rating'. Find something better to do here than turn articles in pieces od crap and taking shitty photos that hardly ever make there way into articles. Do you have some disorder that prevents you from taking a half-way decent photo? I hate to sound harsh but it's true.122.104.178.140 (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hahahahahaha! Who does this "rating" of automobile editors and where can we find where your contributions were rated? SteveBaker (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It's like me adding the "Parent Company" & "Assembly" fields on infoboxes, or otherwise adding infoboxes to pages! -- Bull-Doser (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering the majority your contributions are either unsourced, original research, or a copyright violation of some sort, I highly doubt that (even if there were "editor ratings") you would be considered anywhere close to the top. Start throwing in proper citations, leave the POV out of the edits, and don't upload copyrighted images that fail fair use. I am officially highly confused as to the point of this discussion and am actually kind of ashamed of myself for even joining it. Roguegeek (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles flagged for cleanup
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Currently, 1551 articles assigned to this project, or 25.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Anon changing production years
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The user 193.110.186.106 (contribs) has been changing dates on a bunch of Citroën and Bugatti articles. I don't know enough about these cars to tell if the changes are correct, vandalism, or possibly using model year instead of calendar year. Anyone want to take a look at his contribs? swaq14:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
A whole bunch of these turned up on my watchlist this morning. It's tricky since they're often very small changes. We need to check references, but in the meantime perhaps we should leave a message on the IP's talk page asking for a note about where they are getting the info, and see how they respond. – Kieran T(talk)15:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It's vandalism. Some of the changed years can be cross-referenced later in the article. He's just changing one year in most places hoping people can't tell.--Flash176 (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the pattern is just too suspicious — changing years and production figures, usually by one year or a few cars. I've rolled them all back just now. – Kieran T(talk)12:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sport utility coupe
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am wondering why there is an article about Sport utility coupes because I don't know of an automaker that would want to have a vehicle in the "SUC" category. It seems to be original research. There is a mention of such a name in a January 9, 2008, Los Angeles Times article by Dan Neil [6] as a bad joke. I don't think there should be a Wikipedia article about something that does not exist. — CZmarlin (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This does seem a lot like original research to me. I have added maintenance tags to the article, though it should probably just be deleted. swaq20:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Besides, the term "sport utility coupe" got over 1K google hits when I google tested the term. In fact, one page had relevance to an SUV with 2 doors; so I thought I would increase awareness of that type of SUV by making a dedicated article about it. Because the SUV specification encompasses more than just "wagon" bodes; it includes pickup truck and convertible bodies too. Some recent SUVs have even employed sedan bodies too; such as the BMW X6 and Spyker D12. --Roadstaa (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Supercars
Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
I am starting to understand the amount of bullshit that has gone on, regarding the supercars classification, but I am also a little annoyed with the lack on common sense.
There are enough reliable sources available for cars such as the F1, F40/F50/Enzo, Veyron, etc to make the term a really easy choice for certain cars.
Just because it might cause problems in relation to the borderline cases, does not mean that the article should suffer and have the car called a sports car.
The problem is that there isn't a solid definition for the term "supercar." One persons clear cut case is anothers borderline. It is a subjective term used by magazines and the like not encyclopedias. The term "sports car" has a very specific definition which all so called supercars fit and should be used here. As we have seen before, a source can be found that refers to most new high performance vehicles as supercars, so the term has very little meaning. To give the example I have given many times before one more time, the word "supercar" is like the word "awesome." Both are subjective and both get thrown around a lot by the automotive press in relation to certain vehicles, but that does not mean that we should start the Veyron article with "The Veyron is an awesome supercar." --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Awesome is hardly the same as supercar, and is not used in the same way. All I am asking for is a little common sense, I am not suggesting using the term for borderline cases, do you really think anyone would describe a Veyron as anything other than a supercar? I would suggest that borderline cases do not use the term, but for clear cute cases the term is fine. I would also suggest that if a magazine such as Evo can use the term, then an amateur project such a wikipedia can. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Who decides what is a borderline case? As for Evo, it is a car magazine which makes all kinds of statements and uses all kinds of words that would never show up in an encyclopedia. I will say it one more time "supercar" is a subjective term, we should not use subjective terms in an encyclopedia unless we are discussing them in the context of a particular review or editorial. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It is just as subjective as a term such as SUV. It is pretty much industry standard and is supported by a number of reliable sources. It is a world apart from saying a car is awesome. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Like sports car SUV has a specific dictionary definition as well and is not subjective. As for the term supercar, it is the industries standard puffery term used to make their expensive cars sound special. Muscle car is tough one which I have been thinking about for a while. It gets thrown around almost as much as supercar, but it does have a pretty specific definition refering a mid-sized high performance V8 American vehicle from the 1960 and 1970s, but that probably isn't the most commonly used sense of the word. Actually the intersting thing is that while they were on sale, muscle cars were generally called supercars by the automotive press an example of how such a subjective term's use changes over time. I think I have made my points as clear as I can and will give others a chance to voice their thoughts. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I would hate to see the term muscle car get the same treatment as supercar, I see no reason why with a little common sense and cooperation that both terms could not be used in a sensible manner. All it would take is for consensus on each particular article. If consensus says the F40 is not a supercar then fine, same for a Mustang wanting to use the muscle car term. It should be easy and in the best interest of each article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is subjective, we can't use the consensus process on individual article to see if we want to give certain cars subjective labels, that only creates battlegrounds. I can see a large number of articles in which there would be major arguements over whether something is a supercar or not and the worst part there really isn't a right or wrong answer. If you want to call the Ariel Atom a supercar, you arn't wrong it is just your opinion. When evo calls the F40 a supercar it is just stating the opinions of its editors, something we really shouldn't be doing. Alright I swear, my last comment for now. Two people going back and forth isn't all that condusive to a group discussion. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
DJL is right, the terms are just too subjective. Besides, I really don't think we need a supercar category.--Flash176 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own article on Fred Duesenberg, the Duesenberg Model J was a "supercar". I'm sure you could find references to the Model T being a supercar, as well as the VW Beetle. Way too subjective a label. In actual fact, I'm surprised the Duesenberg article hasn't been edited to remove such a POV reference...too bad it's a quote, from back in the day.Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, the problem with using consensus on Wikipedia to determine which cars are supercars violates the policy on original research. Content must follow this policy as well as having a neutral point of view and being verifiable. Simply labeling cars as supercars will probably violate at least two of these policies any way you look at it. For reference, here are the other supercar discussions:
Somewhat off-topic, but not really. What do you guys think about pony car being a classification? I'm not to keen on using it due to the same original research argument. An editor reverted my edit where I changed pony car to muscle car on the Camaro page. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I think neither muscle car nor pony car should be used as a classification for the same reason as argued against supercars. As for your question, though, both of you are right. The Camaro is a muscle car and a pony car. I would probably be more inclined to classify it as pony car over muscle car since muscle cars are generally regarded as not being around after the 70's, but pony car applies to all years of the Camaro.--Flash176 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see how classifying vehicles is difficult. That response, just like mine and anyone else's on this subject, is loaded with OR. My rationale was going to be, "well, pony car isn't in the car classification article," but the editor who reverted my edit went in there and threw it in with a full, unsourced definition and included examples. Strangely enough, it included the Camaro. I think there's a much bigger issue we should be addressing here. How do we REALLY define car classifications and what reliable sources do we use to back it up? Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that only a few pony cars were properly equipped models to be considered to have "muscle" qualifications. Many Camaros (just like Ford Mustangs) were sold with six-cylinder engines to buyers who wanted economy with a "sporty" look. For the 1967 model year, 26.6% of total production (or 58,761 units) came with 6-cylinder engines[7], whereas only 34,411 had the Super Sport option, and just 602 were Z/28 models [8]. Even by 1969, about 60% of Camaros came with the standard I6 or standard V8 engines. Based on actual production, the Camaro was arguably best classified as an "economy" pony car. Only a minority of Camaros had any "muscle". — CZmarlin (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, what CZmarlin said. As far as defining car classifications, pony cars are traditionally considered as having short decklids, long hoods, rear wheel drive, and I'm not sure if a powerful engine is a prerequisite or not. The reason you never hear people say pony car anymore (outside of enthusiasts) is Mustang has been the only one for the last 6 years, and even then there was only it, the Camaro, and Firebird.
Roguegeek, pony car may not have been in the main article, but the page has been up for quite a while. Besides, grand touring and supercar are in the article and you can see what trouble we're having with that supercar as well as pretty much no American refers to a car as being a grand tourer. What I'm saying is, whether it's on the classification page or not is irrelevant. The page isn't the be-all, end-all for Wikipedia. It's incomplete at best, as witnessed by the box at the top of the page.--Flash176 (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue I'm trying to bring up goes beyond the Camaro at this point. What in that response was original research and what wasn't? For what wasn't, can you provide reliable sources? Throwing a lot of these cars under the generic "sports car" classification is making a whole lot more sense to me now. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems with the term sports car, is that according to some sources, a sports car among other things is small. [9] - that might be OK for some of the supercars, but a Veyron is certainly not a small car. Some of the supercars fit in quite well to the GT category (Merc SLR for one) but that is just swapping one term for another. If there are issues with using terms, then perhaps something similar to the McLaren F1 article would be a good solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mclaren_f1. No mention of sportscar, GT, supercar and without it looking strange. Also the Halo model term is wrong in some cases, this implies a car company with many low end cars, and one high end car designed to improve the reputation of the entire range - this is fine for the Ford GT, but is incorrect for the Enzo - Ferrari have many high end cars, of which the Enzo happened to be the highest - not a halo car. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
coupe
Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion
Can someone please explain to me if a coupe must have at least 2 plus 2 seating? The coupe article seems to imply this, but coupe is given as a body style for many strict 2 seaters on wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No, coupe is just about any 2 door car, although the size of the car plays a role in it. For instance, I wouldn't call a 60's Lincoln or Galaxy a coupe, I would call it a 2 door sedan.--Flash176 (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The answer, I think, appears in the opening sentence of the entry (at 01 July 2008), wherein you can read a definition:
'...the precise definition of which varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, and over time.'
English is a widely spoken language. Many people who live in the US think English is what they speak there. Now that I live in the UK, I am aware that this view is not universal. English is especially widely spoken as a second language, and those of us who are less than bilingual will tend to see each word as a precise synonym for a word we already know in our own mother tongue. But of course each word in each language carries its own baggage of unspoken assumptions, assumptions so firmly embedded that the user will generally not even be aware of them. Generally meanings are close enough in different versions of English that we don't get tripped up by the differences. But not always.
Even if you only speak one language, you should be aware that English is a less precise language than German or French. English has more words than those languages. Its words and grammateical habits are more diversely sourced. And even among English speakers there seems to be a certain fluidity as to what each word actually means: commonly accepted meanings, as far as I can see, change from generation to generation in English more rapidly than in other languages I've come across.
So if you try and tie down too precisely a meaning - such as that of coupe or super car - you won't convince folks who grew up with different versions of common sense to your own. You'll simply establish that, with all the good will in the world, people with different backgrounds can understand the same word differently. Which .... we sort of know anyway. It seems to me that the opening sentence of the 'Coupe' entry handles this situation very well. If you'd told a Rover executive in the 1960s that his (4 door) Rover 3 litre coupe was not a coupe, he might have been polite enough to show interest. He would not have changed the name of the car. And he would probably have difficulty working out why you'd bothered to mention it. The Mercedes CLS of our own day and the Volkswagen Passat based wannabee that either just has been or is just about to be released also come to mind in this context along with the descriptions they' get in press releases.
For my part, I'm still reeling from your implicit belief that a Super Car must have wheels. For those of us lucky enough to have grown up with an English speaking television in the house in the early 1960s, that comes across as a very restricted sort of a definition.
I'm still in two minds regarding coupe.. A mini has 2 doors, it certainly is not a coupe. A 911 is a coupe, a boxster is a sportscar, but what is a Cayman? To me a coupe is not merely a 2 door version of a saloon/sedan car - I wish I did not read evo magazine quite so much, because their definition is stuck in my mind..2 doors.4 seats, with the emphasis on speed but a touch of practicality. Ford Capri, Honda Prelude etc Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I always thought of a coupe as having two doors, regardless of whether it is a sports car, economy car, etc. Therefore I would call the Cayman, Supra, and Paseo coupes. swaq15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, where I live, coupe means generally a two-door. If you want more specific, it probably means a 2-door car lacking a b-pillar. I understand that in some places they call things coupes based on interior space, which leads to the strange-to-my-ear notion of a "4-door coupe". Friday(talk)15:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
is a mini a coupe? is a 2 door version of a 4 door a coupe? not something like a 3 series BMW, which is actually a different body, but something where the body is actually the same apart from the lack of doors? is this something which is different in europe/US? or just me taking in too much of what I read in various car magazines? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2 door versions of 4 doors are almost always called coupes. Evo refers to just about any 2 door with a sloping roofline as a coupe. For instance there "small coupes" section contains many two seaters, such as the 350Z. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The latter, you're listening to car magazines and worrying about this too much. I don't see how we can explain to you any better what a coupe is.--Flash176 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The article's definition is wrong. A coupe does not necessarily have a fixed roof, and it may or may not have a b-pillar. Pierce-Arrow, Packard, Volvo, Cord, and yes, the gargantuan Cadillac all advertised models as "convertible coupes". That kind of puts the kabosh on "small", "4-seater", and "fixed roof" as means of differentiation. Like "GT", or "SS", "coupe" is more marketing than fact.Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see size having anything to do with a car being a coupe or not. Hmmm was my old Mitsubishi Minica a coupe? It had 2 doors. I always considered it to be a piece of shit, rather than a coupe. I'm sorry but I cannot consider a 2 door Ford Escort (euro model) to be a coupe, it was just a shitty hatchback that was cheaper with 2 doors - for me a coupe has to have a different body from the saloon/sedan it is based on. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree, you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. And what does being cheap have to do with something being classified as a coupe? Being a coupe has nothing to do with how nice a car is. swaq17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
That's bullshit, I was not proposing any reverts or gaining any consensus, I was just trying to get an opinion. I apologise if my questions caused any offence and I apologise for not agreeing with your opinion regarding coupe, I shall try to not ask any questions in the future, and if I do so, I will of course agree with any opinions that are given as replies. I am very sorry for not thinking that a shitty hatchback is a coupe or that a 4 door car, with a 2 door option and identical body is a coupe. I stand corrected. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps or hurts the discussion, but according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a coupe is "a 2-door automobile often seating only two persons; also : one with a tight-spaced rear seat". So, a coupe is generally a 2-door vehicle with a backseat that is generally cramped to sit in. Ford Mustang, Jaguar XK8, Porsche 911. Or a Honda Civic 2-door that has a trunk (boot for UK editors). Generally, if it has a hatchback/tailgate, it's considered to be a hatchback, not a coupe. The Cayman is probably a coupe, since it was based on the Boxter roadster. The MINI is a hatchback, both current and historical versions. Generally, if the back window lifts up when the rear door is opened, it's a hatchback. I realize the original MINI had a rear door that opened from the top and was hinged at the bottom, as did a generation of the Civic, where the glass section opened up and the metal portion opened down, creating a "tailgate", that was loosely defined as a clamshell hatchback, but it's still a hatchback. (Regushee (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC))
Regushee, you say "The MINI is a hatchback, both current and historical versions." I just can't let that sit here on record without clarifying that with regard to the "historical version" this is absolutely not the case. It has a bottom-hinged boot, which stops below the rear window. (But for the purposes of the definition suggested above, that's not a problem; it's not a coupé because there is no four-door version, and the rear seat has as much room as could be expected for a car this size, relative to the front seats.)
On the definition: I grew up in the '70s thinking coupés were booted (i.e. not hatchbacks) and had a three-box shape, and were always sporty or at least grand tourers. But from the '80s on, they seem to have included things with two-box shapes, such as the weird and wonderful Volvo 480 which some people call a coupé. But nobody called the '80s VW Polo of that shape a coupé; in fact, the two-door hatchback version got that name. And here I get to my point: the manufacturer decides whether to call a model a coupé or not, and that is the one and only definition we can use: is it verifiably called a coupé by the people who matter: the manufacturer, and perhaps the mainstream motoring press. Anything else is original research and/or a personal point of view. I think the article should say, "A coupé is a name some manufacturers use to describe certain body styles.", or something to that effect, and nothing more specific. – Kieran T(talk)20:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
OK; a coupe is a coupe if the manufacturer calls it a coupe, and a hatchback is a hatchback if the manufacturer says it's a hatchback. Sometimes, what the manufacturer decides to market their product as can be different from how it is defined by the market, or the owner, but I think one of the more common descriptions can simply be a "2-door", or by describing the vehicle by the name of the product.
For example:
What kind of car do you drive?
I drive a Mini.
What kind of car is a Mini?
I don't know; it's a Mini.
(Regushee (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC))
*nods* I agree, but without commissioning a professional polling company to conduct a large-scale survey, we can't verify what the market or the average customer thinks, so the manufacturer's definition just seems to be the one that fits Wikipedia's standards. Anything else, as the existence of this discussion kinda suggests, is us making it up as we go along — albeit with the best intentions, of course. – Kieran T(talk)21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Infobox
Latest comment: 16 years ago39 comments14 people in discussion
I still think the dimensions, fuel capacity, and electric range specifications are superfluous for the infobox, but I'm not going to complain unless more stuff is thrown in. The lack of consensus is why I stopped cleaning up infoboxes in automobile articles. swaq20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Just counted the votes (all 6) it was 3-3 to keep or remove, it still needs to be discussed much more and dont run straight away to change something which affects thousands? of articles. --— Typ932T | C20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
We do not list max range for combustional engine vehicles, so I believe it is a superfluous, not to mention contentious, value to list. We do not list fuel consumption either, for reasons vehemently discussed, so I'd rather do away with maximum electric range too. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion July 3
Agreed. I say do away with electric range, fuel capacity, and designer. I mean, who cares who the chief designer was? I know it's a pretty standard thing, but do we even need a class? I've always thought a car's class was fairly obvious to the individual and have never understood the point of it, either.--Flash176 (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Same here: Range, fuel capacity, and designer needn't be (and shouldn't be) in the infobox, and the vehicle 'class' is so nebulous and variable by market that it is best covered in the body text of the article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I like the designer info there, and if something is going to be removed there is huge work to include those in articles, if we remove something you have to think what data we lost.Why we should remove something anyway? the box is good now --— Typ932T | C20:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It´s always the same here: TOT CAPITA, QUOT OPINIONES. I, for one, have drawn the conclusion that there never ever will grow any good out of it, so I quit this whole pseudo-democratic (or democratic in extenso) thing for good. Good luck to you all. --328cia (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If a field an article was using is removed the contents will still be in the wiki code, just not displayed. So it could be incorporated into the article when the infobox is updated and it is noticed that it is still using an old version of the infobox. I'm not necessarily for removing 'designer' in particular, however. swaq21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, it seems someone added the 'sp' (spelling?) field to make the infobox say "Kerb weight" instead of "Curb weight" when 'sp' is not set to "us". I don't recall this being discussed anywhere and I think I'd prefer to not have it. I think it makes the infobox code more confusing and reduces the consistency of the infobox across automobile articles. swaq16:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
That "someone" was me. I did it so that the template can be persuaded to display British spellings of terms when used in car articles written in British English - as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. The choice of the parameter name "sp" was to be consistent with the Template:Convert. The slight increased complexity in the template is more than compensated for by the increased consistency and MOS compliance of the non-US-English articles. An alternative, I suppose, would be to insist on the use only of terms which are common in all varieties of English. -- de Facto (talk). 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I like it, a lot. It's not as though this example is merely a minor spelling difference; there's also the fact that "curb" has an entirely different possible meaning, and to a non-technical reader, the concept of "curb weight" could be taken to mean "curtail weight"... I know, it's incredibly unlikely. But when combined with DeFacto's point about consistency within individual articles, which is a strong directive from the MoS, this is a very useful change. – Kieran T(talk)18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
why does it have to say "curb" "kerb" "wet" "dry" or anything weight??? why can't it just say "weight"? save a few bits of hard drive times x articles.Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Because curb weight is the proper term. It's like saying a vehicle's top speed is 160, but not saying whether it's km/h or MPH.--Flash176 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"curb" or "kerb" is not a unit. How many kilograms per kerb? NHRA and AHRA and IRL and NASCAR all use just plain "weight", sometimes in combination with a "wet" or "dry". How more authoritative a source do you need? Only the buff books and rags use terms like "supercar" or this newest triteness. Calling it a "curb weight" is editorializing a high-faluting setting for parking the vehicle. Has anyone actually heard the term "curb weight" used for a pickup truck? It's the weight of the vehicle, whether it's parked next to a curb or boardwalk or ditch. Just give the facts and be done with it. Jeeez! Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The "curb" does not determine the units used in measuring the weight. Given the units for how heavy a particular vehicle is, the Template:Convert automatically appends the lb or kg, as appropriate. However, the actual number may depend on the body style, type of engine and transmission, as well as numerous other variables such as optional equipment, air conditioning, etc. of a given vehicle. Even the definition of "standard equipment" may vary among several trim levels within a particular model line. Add to this confusion the fact that governmental regulatory agencies and other organizations have different definitions of what is curb weight. In other words, providing a specific weight may not help the "non-technical reader" — yet many articles appear to have exact numbers. — CZmarlin (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Chill, people. It was an example. I never said that curb was a unit.
Marshmallowbunnywabbit, curb weight is not, as you put it, an editorialization of a high-faluting setting for parking the vehicle. It is a proper term used in the automotive industry to specify how the vehicle was weighed. In other words, the word weight by itself is like saying horsepower; horsepower could be measured at the wheels or engine. Likewise, weight could be gross or curb. The amount may be the same in either place, but the meaning is drastically different. Hence my previous example. So, yes, to the layman horsepower is horsepower and weight is weight, but there is a difference.
However, I will say that outside of bench racing, people usually aren't concerned with a vehicle's curb weight.--Flash176 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion July 4
My point about the 'high-faluting' nature of 'curb-weight' is that it was originally meant to connote a high-end vehicle, that one would park next to a curb, back when curbs were found in upperclass neighborhoods and residences. Just like 'towncar' actually meant something, connoting again, a highend vehicle. There were never actual town[b]trucks[/b] and you never saw the weight of a commercial vehicle referred to as its curb weight. Just like 'coupe', it is meant to connote and nowadays is out-moded. Just call it what it is: weight.
And by the way, I consider weight to be very important information in and of itself. As for electric car ranges...at what temperatures? Is an electric car's range the same in San Diego as it is in Minneapolis? In January? Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Typ932, You say you like the designer being in the infobox. That's nice, but what you or I or anyone else likes and dislikes is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Flash176, your explanation of curb/kerb weight is cogent and you're right that it is the proper term, but we will still need to figure out a way of avoiding endless pointless curb/kerb squabbles. We may want to consider solving the problem by using the single, appropriately-linked word weight in infoboxes. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
yes I know very well that, but my question is WHY WE SHOULD REMOVE something which is good now??? Just let it alone--— Typ932T | C09:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"but what you or I or anyone else likes and dislikes is irrelevant to the discussion at hand" why are then discussing anything?? I have always though that WE will decide whats included and whats not, unless not this whole conversation is pointless--— Typ932T | C09:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion July 5
Typ932 (talk·contribs), you're starting from the assumption that all the fields presently included in the infobox are "good". That is not necessarily correct for any or all of the fields we're currently discussing. A balance needs to be struck between providing the vehicle's identifying, distinguishing, and parametric information on the one hand, and keeping reasonable control over the size (length) of infoboxes. Infoboxes that are overly long grow cluttered and difficult to read, and they get in the way of the article text, which is where detailed information is best presented. There exist numerous different kinds of tables, charts, timelines, and suchlike that can be used or linked within article texts, for pieces of info best conveyed in that manner. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, why have the "layout" parameter? Can't this go in the same parameter as "platform". For example: | platform = [[FR layout|FR]] [[GM Zeta platform|GM Zeta]]. Also the fuel capacity, electric range and designer fields should also be killed. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Because as OSX (talk·contribs) describes, it's not needed. The information it contains can easily and readily be consolidated into the platform field. Please see my response to you farther up the page. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The whole infobox is not needed everything can be be written to main article, the lenght of infobox isnt a problem, we can made collapsable box like in italian wikipedia eg. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Merak. If we remove fields there is huge work to move all the data to the main artcile, especially dimensions without tables in main article will mess the text. --— Typ932T | C07:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Dimensions as they are are a huge mess. Many infoboxes have upwards of a half-dozen numbers for each measurement that differ by a few tenths or an inch or that have no explanation as to what they mean. Besides, that information isn't that useful to have in any form, really, and there are many other sources that have a better format for dealing with lists of these numbers. I'd say we can safely remove the dimensions from the infobox and only mention them in the text when there's something particularly notable about them, like "X car is only y inches (z cm) long, compared to cars A, B, and C, which are all d inches (e cm) longer." IFCAR (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Typ932, please stop disrupting the hierarchy in this discussion by randomly indenting your comments. You use just one more : than the previous text has, unless the previous text has four of them, in which case you use none. Zero-one-two-three-four, zero-one-two-three-four, zero-one-two-three-four. Very easy. Please coöperate. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have some problem to read it? or what is ur problem? went thru all my comments cant find any error in my comments....--— Typ932T | C16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Typ932, it can be hard to read. And you can't find anything wrong because Scheinwerfermann keeps fixing them.--Flash176 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I personally think the designer, weight and all dimensions should be included. cars are factual logical creations, to have the numbers to back them up, makes sense. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's arguing that designer, weight, and all other facts about a car should be excluded from the article. We're discussing which parameters belong in the infobox. The fact that you like the information in the infobox is not a valid argument in discussions like this. And please pay heed to the talk page hierarchy comment above. I've fixed your comment's improper indentation. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of the detailed discussions about what to include and what to exclude in the perfect info box can be argued either way. If you base yourself on the Chevrolet Impala entry or the Honda Accord entry, your arguments (and conclusions) will be different from the ones you's apply for the Hudson Super Wasp or the DKW F5. To get an overall 'consensus (ach, that word again...) the 'scoring' exercise advocated somewhere - I think by Steve Baker - would have been a great way to resolve the differences, especially if it had been carried out three years ago. But by now we have a large body of entries using the info box 'as is'.
What is largely overloooked by those keen to make their mark by removing something from the info box template, is that those of us who actually take time to contribute significantly to the entries may then find ourselves solemnly working through all the individual entries and inserting bits of text or extra tables or whatever may be necessary in order to compensate for the loss of information resulting from the loss of an info box line.
And then, just as that task has been accomplished, someone else will come along in six month's time who wasn't party to the discussion the last time it happened, and campaign persuasively to remove (or add) something else. And all the entries need to be checked and, where appropriate, adjusted. Again.
If the wiki project is a device for keeping us off the streets, maybe that makes sense. But for the rest of us, there is a real risk of triggering gratuitous job creation schemes that waste time.
I don't say never under any circumstances modify the info box format. But before doing it you need to be sure that (1) it's worth it and (2) enough contributors able usefully to pick up the pieces are also persuaded it's worth it. From the way the discussion has run thus far, I'm not sure that's where we're headed on this one.
This discussion isnt going to give any answer what to do... but Ill suggest that those overlong dimension fields is American pic up/truck articles should be removed, its not problem with all car articles....one problem is also fuel consumption figures in main text (EPA highway,urban etc,), when making conversions on those, it makes the text hard to read. --— Typ932T | C19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Sche...whatever your name is... I don't recall saying that these items should be included because I like them, if wikipedia was based on what I liked, it would be full of porn and warez links. I am not trying to say that the dimensions etc belong in the article (they obviously do) but they also belong in the info box. One small petty note, please don't mess with my indentations, I know it is petty of me, but as long as the messages are in the correct order, then I really dislike people editing my message. I wouldn't dream of editing yours. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not "editing" your messages, I am repairing the faulty indentation you are apparently deliberately using for some strange reason. Your unwillingness to type (or copy and paste) my name suggests you might be indenting improperly out of laziness rather than in a deliberate effort to disrupt the conversation. Nevertheless, improper indentation hierarchy interferes with the legibility and flow of this discussion, so I (and/or others) will continue repairing it.
Furthermore, whether you recognise it or not, whether you admit it or not, you have not provided any justification for your argument in favour of retaining the infobox parameters being discussed, beyond the fact that you think they should remain there. That boils down to "I like it, therefore it should stay". —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Charles01 (talk·contribs), you make some good and coherent points, particularly about the need to consider what workload we may create with whatever decision we take on an issue like this. Please keep in mind that when you dismiss opinions and preferences different from your own as merely the result of people wanting to "leave their mark", it's difficult to think you are assuming good faith. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with conversion templates?
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I've noticed that the distance conversion templates have changed into scientific notation of late. This is nice when I'm talking about string theory, but for everyday articles on more mundane subjects, its needlessly technical. I want it to say 100,000 miles (161,000 km) not 100,000 miles (161,000 km).--Analogue Kid (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Checked with the editors of the convert template. What we're seeing is temporary and should be fixed in the next 24 hours. Roguegeek (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the language version links are now in place so people can toggle between the two. Let us wait and see if someone better qualified than either of us will find your challenge irresistable!
Actually I think the translations into English display a pretty sound understanding of the Italian texts (as far as I can judge). It is only the anglophone mother-tongue fluency that is, till now, not in place throughout....
Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
Seems that it is still unclear what means production time, so if somebody wants add model years it should have own field in template:infobox automobile like model years which is totally different thing than production time , we should have one rule for all and not mess things... I wonder if ever get this clear.... --— Typ932T | C18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Why the hell does nobody listen to me?! You are not always going to find a specific introduction or discontinuation date for a North American car. Assuming that a car built from MY 1991 to 1996 was built from CY 1990 to 1995 is blatant OR. Maybe it was introduced December 20, 1990. Maybe it was introduced January 3, 1991. If you don't know, don't put it in. Therefore, we cannot use calendar years across the board because the information is not available.
I hate to bring this up and I'm sure this is going to cause a big ruckus, but it seems to me that European editors are trying to force their methods on parts of the world to which they do not pertain. I have never advocated the project-wide use of model years since I don't know how it's done elsewhere.
If you want add model years, dont mess it with production time which is totally different thing, add then new field like model years or something, we should have some consistency with articles, and quite many us car articles have production time, just changed some Honda dates, very funny to read production time as 2009-present.... consider we are now in 2008. --— Typ932T | C18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
And for european editors I dont count whos from which continent, put as it says production time is production time, easily find when the car is sold fisrt time, if we want model years it has to have own field and not mess with current field --— Typ932T | C18:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I dont want any war here but this thing should be made clear, and add maybe new field for model years, do Americans buy they cars as model years really? In Europe the registration date is what counts.... waiting for more opinions if we add new field or what.. --— Typ932T | C18:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record - registration date does not equal production date either. That said, production years are pretty easy to find out about, that's not a secret. That said, we MIGHT add another field for model years. OTOH, the infobox is already swollen. Good grief... PrinceGloria (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"Good grief" is right...this is a debate that will never, ever have an either/or solution involving a single infobox field that works for every car. That is because motor vehicle administration and regulation is done differently in different markets. The North American market has long operated strictly according to model years. This was initially a de facto standard created by the planned obsolescence practise of restyling vehicles each and every year. When safety and emission regulations came into force in the late 1960s, the model year was codified for regulatory purposes, and so the model year is firmly established in North America as the means by which vehicles are regulated and identified and their repair parts specified and supplied.
Other markets do things differently. For example, in many markets, vehicles have long been sold and known by model, not by model year. For example, the car sold and known as a 1962 Valiant in North America was sold from 1962-'63 in Australia as an SV1 Valiant and in those same years in Argentina as a Valiant II. In those markets, emissions and safety are regulated and repair parts are specified by vehicle production date.
Still other markets, such as the UK, have tended to lean heavily on registration date for vehicle identification and sales, though in this case production date is used for safety and emissions regulation and parts specification.
So, no, there will never, ever be a single infobox field that will adequately get the job done for all the world's vehicles. The only workable solution I can think of is to provide two fields in the infobox — model years and production dates — and have an understanding that one or the other or both may be used as appropriate to the specific situation. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to use both types, referring to the calendar years as "production dates" and using as much of the full date as possible would be best to distinguish them from the model years. IFCAR (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my if this solution is too simple, but how about this:
•Production | MY 1987-1998
I fail to see how the term "production" requires a calendar date. if it was introduced in the 1987 model year, than production began in the 1987 model year. --Sable232 (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Sable232, I think you may not yet understand that in some significant portion of the world's markets, model years are not used. Furthermore, your assertion "if it was introduced in the 1987 model year, than production began in the 1987 model year" is not correct and never has been. The way the US regulations are written, for example, allows a great deal of flexibility in when production starts and ends for any nominal model year. Your 1987 example could easily run from September of 1986 through August of 1987, for example...and that's just in the US & Canadian market. In other markets, model years are defined differently. There really is a difference between model year and production date, which cannot effectively be glozed over in the manner you suggest. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
A car that is introduced in the 1987 model year is a car whose first car off the line is called a 1987 falling within US regulations. There isn't a set time for a model year of September to September or anything; it's more specific to the car.
But yes, it definitely doesn't work for a non-NA market. What would be done, for example, for an article on a car not sold in the US?
Scheinwerfermann, I do understand that the rest of the world does it differently. What I don't understand is why this has been turned into a issue of these proportions. I still don't see a problem with simply denoting that the years listed are model years, where necessary. I feel some editors are making a mountain out of a molehill with this.
The infobox could be modified and I can see a couple ways to do that but I'd prefer not to reawaken that can of worms, because it will all come back around to "what belongs in the infobox?" and this item will get pushed to the back burner yet again. --Sable232 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I personally believe production time in ACTUAL years is very important and all cars' infoboxes should contain that info for universal compatibility. After all, we e.g. convert units in infoboxes, so that both metric and imperial measurements are given. And, as mentioned above, the convenience argument does not work for me - actual production dates can easily be found for American cars in English-speaking sources, perhaps comparatively more easily than for cars built in other countries...
Model years, as a marketing feature, can actually be dealt with in the article's body, and also in the section headings as well as infobox headings, if no other ways of identifying a given generation are found.
This does not need to be a problem (unless you want to make it into one) as long as people are prepared to write what they mean.
There IS often a problem in getting at the truth of a situation. That often happens with all sorts of things, but it is not a problem that should distort our meanings (thought it may, on occasion, call for careful application of constructive ambiguity).
Traditionally in the northern hemisphere plants closed for a month in summer during which major retooling for new models took place. Folks came back off the beach and after refining their production processes as best they could, the new models started to roll. Depending on anticipated demand levels, you'd build up your stocks for a month or two and then launch your new model. So you might get a production period of September 1958 - June 1961 for a model that actually triggered a press launch and hit the show rooms in November 1958 (as was sold to the public from say January 1959). But production was September 1958 to June 1961 and that's what you write if you know it. If you don't know it because only folks in the plant knew the precise dates and they weren't taking notes, you write 1958 - 1961. The model year is something else. That's an issue for the marketing department, and as we see here with great clarity, the marketing department will take a different view according to where he's doing his marketing.
The thing can be complicated by makers who stop building a car in June 2005, but nevertheless stock pile the things near the docks in the country of manufacture and / or the country of sale, and continue to sell new models as 'current' throughout 2006. Again, the facts may be hard to determine unless you have spies in a lot of warehouses in unglamorous suburbs of Tokio. But if you have the facts, then 2005 was the last production year even if the thing was sold as a 2006 and a 2007 model because they needed to shift the things and they like selling cars. But (again) problems uncovering truth are not a reason to burden wikipedia with falsehood. We simply need to get better at discovering truth and citing sources so that others can infer the extent to which we have done so. (That sort of situation needs to be spelled out in the text, of course. In the info box the production date is merely August 20** - June 2005. Surely...)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's that time of year again, the Goodwood Festival of Speed, where a lot of great great cars are out on display, and we thankfully can get a lot of great great photos of some rarities. I've already found several collections on Flickr which are under the Creative Commons licenses, so they can all be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. There are quote a few exotics and concept cars that are rare to find photos of, so feel free to search. There are also a large number of motorsports vehicles, so I have already informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport about them so that they can cover the racing side of the Festival of Speed.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I need some backup/help with this article , User:Rarelibra keeps reverting the trivia/miscallenea tag which I think is totally appropriate to get that page cleaned in someday. --— Typ932T | C19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I put it on my watchlist. Looks like that guy has been removing tags from a bunch of other articles too. Some sort of anti-tag crusade, I guess... swaq19:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel like looking through all of his contribs, but if he is deleting tags, then he needs to be warned and subsequently reported.--Flash176 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no help, no hope. Your plethora of fact tags were placed there (go through the history pages) by the same user who did the same thing to the Ford FE engine page. And then 'archived' all the complaints about his high-handed dictatorial takeover of the article. 4 months later this 'editor' then went through and deleted anything he didn't like (even though he admitted he wasn't an expert on the subject matter...in one of the archived discussion pages). Meanwhile, the 1st Generation Camaro article sits with absolutely ZERO references or citations for years (to give one example).
When a vandalism complaint was lodged it was dismissed out of hand by one of you folk, because he's one of you?
Why isn't there an official policy against abusive editing?
Why should anyone help you with your article when you all ignore requests for arbitration for others' articles?
There is without a doubt official policy on abusive editing. If you think there is an issue of edit abuse, you can take it to WP:ANI. WP:CAR cannot hand out sanctions to editors. --Leivick (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Mitsubishi Lancer
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Not sure if it'll make much difference -- the article as a whole is dire -- but there was a brief edit war at Mitsubishi Lancer over the weekend regarding the Ralliart model. It was unfavourably compared to the GTS in an Edmunds.com review, and since then there's been a back-and-forth over whether or not the AWD is "to blame". I managed to quieten things down and get the dispute onto the talk page, where I've also suggested a compromise wording, but one of the editors involved would like a third opinion. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
photos
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
1. can someone point me towards guidelines for submitting your own photos, re licensing and general info on what makes a good photo for wikipedia?
2. any requests for JDM car photos? take advantage of me, I live in Japan and have a new digi-SLR which I am itching to use. Also I live about 30 mins from Tsukuba circuit, so I might be there once in a while. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sennen Goroshi, thank you for your offer to photograph vehicles found in Japan. Guidelines for taking photos can be found here. Once you have the photos, please upload them to Wikimedia Commons, with the name of the file displaying the year, make, and model of the vehicle. If you upload them to Wiki Commons, all international Wikipedia will be able to access them. If the file is uploaded to a particular wikipedia, it can be a little difficult for other wikis to link to them. Once the photo has been uploaded, then please go to the particular article for that vehicle and link to the image that was uploaded to Commons.
To answer your second offer, I would like to see a Subaru Legacy with the twin turbo (both Second and Third generations, 1993-2003) and if possible both the wagon and sedan. I think the JDM name is Legacy GT and the Legacy RS. A Legacy STi would be really cool. Please focus on original condition vehicles, and less so on dramatically customized, but as always please use your best judgement.
The Emperors special Toyota Century limo would just be amazing if you could get it. Cars that are located in automobile museums would equally be much appreciated, especially the old stuff, such as Crowns, Presidents, Lancers, Skylines, Laurels, Cedrics, Quint Integras, Sylvias, Corollas, Sunnys, three-rotor Cosmos, etc..
I think the Legacys you are after are the B4 RSK and the GTB - strange I had a look at a B4 RSK with a view to buying 4 days ago. They should be easy. There is a motor museum (mostly Toyota) in Tokyo, to be honest last time I was there I was taking pics of the Ferrari, but there were some nice historic Japanese cars, that I could pay more attention to next time. I assume there are enough pictures of the new GT-R? There is a NISMO dealer about 15 mins from my house, also Veilside is located pretty close to me, I have been there before and they have no problems with people walking around the showroom taking photos - but obviously as it is Veilside, the cars are highly modified. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sennen goroshi, thank you for volunteering your time to photograph JDM vehicles. Another suggestion is to photograph cars that you would normally ignore that you see every day. Vehicles like minivans, econoboxes (I think they are called kei class); vehicles used as taxis would probably be interesting to people who have never visited Japan. New vehicles would also be very welcome, such as the Subaru Exiga, or the latest mid-level executive cars from Mazda, Nissan, Honda and Toyota. Another suggestion; delivery trucks, like the big Hinos, Isuzu busses and the Fuso, for instance, trucks that deliver fuel to gas stations or the trucks used by FedEx and UPS. Dealerships would also be an interesting photo. Thanks again (Regushee (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC))
Touch of class
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm back again with a request for help. It's been clarified HM=SCCA's Class H Modified, but I'm concerned about over-generalizing. If somebody's got access to a contemporary rulebook (the website doesn't say, & the regs are likely to have changed since the '50s...), it would be a help. I'm also posting to WP Motorsports. Thanks. TREKphilerhit me ♠ 05:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Resolved