Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oilpanhands (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 8 October 2008 (→‎Note 2 of convention: No use of cubic inches after 1980? That's not true: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Talkbottom


CID vs. in³

cu in — a new consensus?

CID isn't, from my experience, a common abbreviation to describe general volume, but the cubic inch article clearly states it is a proper abbreviation when referring to displacement and displacement is what we're talking about here. But I've had a change in mind about CID altogether. I would prefer to use cu in over CID since it's a common abbreviation for general volume and engine displacement. Out of in3, CID, and cu in, cu in is the only abbreviation that is common for both general volume and engine displacement. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, while stuck in traffic this afternoon I found myself coming to your same point of view. cu in is an unambiguous and obvious abbreviation for cubic inches. It is widely used in general and in the automotive sphere. It would require no linking, and so would not complicate editors' lives. It would accord reasonably well with our convention to use cc for engine displacement when we're not using litres. For me, cu in bridges the gap between the benefits and drawbacks of in3 and those of CID, and so I would support a convention change to use cu in. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. I'd like to hear some of the other editor's chime in on looking at cu in as a possible abbreviation for cubic inch it would seem to fulfill both general volume and engine displacement. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what I said on the 26th: That leaves us with the choice of most common abbreviation: "cu in" and the most automotive appropriate: "CID"! While I prefer "CID" in automotive contexts over "cu in", at least I can formulate an argument for using "cu in" in automotive writings. I can not do the same with in3. I still feel that in automotive articles CID is the most appropriate, however, cu in is a step in the right direction toward the more automotively appropriate. (automotively...yes I think I just invented a new word)
Just thinking outloud... the space between cu and in...which is better?
Thin spaced  
191 cu in (3136 cc) 191 cu in (3136 cc)
Oilpanhands (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, let's go with cu in. I think it's a good compromise. IMO, thin space is a little bit better.--Flash176 (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're moving forward, and that's good. I prefer the non-breaking space (&nbѕp;) rather than the thin space (&thinѕp;), for a multitude of reasons. The thin space is not a non-breaking space, so it can and will make ugly orphans of our abbreviation: the cu will be at the end of one line, and the in at the start of another. Also, the thin space makes the abbreviation look too much like "cuin". Keep in mind, we have a hard enough time getting people to use &nbѕp; rather than just hitting the spacebar; the &thinѕp; markup is even less well known and we'll be forever going back and fixing it, even if we alter the applicable templates. Furthermore, we are already on tenuous ground with the convert templates, as we are already deviating from MOSNUM with this convention; if we go agitate for the convert templates to spit out our cu in with a thin space, it could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and get all our hard work washed away. See for example here. Let's see if we have true consensus for cu in and not get unnecessarily fiddly with special spaces, eh? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know the thin space was breaking. In that case, the non-breaking space would be better to go with, if, as Scheinwerfermann said, we have a consensus to use cu in.--Flash176 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thin space can be placed within the nobreak/no wrap template {{nowrap|cu in}}, but is the extra work worth it? Maybe not, but it might be on a template level like {{Auto CID}}. As I stated, just something to think about. Oilpanhands (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's worth the extra effort just to make the space like 1 or 2 pixels narrower.--Flash176 (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care much for cu in but if that's the consensus I support it. Only potential issue I can see is if the two extra characters cause a line to get too wide for the infobox (creating a line break) but I don't see that happening. --Sable232 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sable232, I'm in the CID camp with ya, but at least we'd be going from terrible to tolerable. So, I guess all that's left to do is to pull the trigger... Oilpanhands (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the trigger. Oilpanhands (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected your   to   per the present consensus and removed POV editorial comments ("...rather than the automotive standard...") not appropriate in a conventions document. I'll now go and revise the applicable templates so they produce cu in rather than in3. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2 of convention: No use of cubic inches after 1980? That's not true

While changing the convention at WP:AUN, I noticed that there is some type of prohibition against using cubic inches to describe engine displacement after 1980. Granted, many engines began to be "marketed" in litres after 1980, but the specifications gave and as I had shown in many of my examples above, continue to give displacements in cubic centimetres and cubic inches. To say that cubic inches shouldn't be used for displacement is very incorrect and this needs to be changed. Perhaps, what that note means to say or should say is that for engines that were once marketed based on their displacement in cubic inches and at a later date were marketed in litres should reflect this change in the naming of the engine. The example that comes to mind is Ford's 302. Which was later marketed as a 5.0 L (althougth the real displacement was closer to 4.9 L). And as shown by this example, sometimes the name of the engine differs from the volume being displaced. Oilpanhands (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the convention, which does not say "no cubic inches after 1980". There's a template, Template:Auto Lrev, which addresses the issue you seem to be raising with engines engineered in English units but later redesignated with Metric units. The solution for the engine Ford fraudulently called the "5.0" is very simple: We are writing an encyclopædia, not a marketing brochure, so we report the engine's actual displacement: 4942 cc --> 4.9 litres. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I paraphrased that no cubic inches after 1980, it actually says, "We use cubic inches only for automobile engines originally so engineered and designated, such as pre-1980s American and pre-1970s Australian engines." This leads me to believe that only a displacement of 4942 cc should be used and not 4942 cc (302 cu in). A more up-to-date example would be "the vortec 5.3 L has a displacement of 5328 cc (325 cu in)..." My take on the passage is that it prohibits the (325 cu in) for some reason. Oilpanhands (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-1980s is not the same as 1980. The Ford 302 was originally engineered and designated in cubic inches, which is why it is appropriate to give both units. The "for some reason" why it is inappropriate to call out the cubic-inch displacement of the 5.3 L Vortec engine is that it was never engineered or designated in cubic inches. The convention seems quite clear on the matter...perhaps you do understand it and just don't agree with it? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate--that's debatable. We have to look at who says it's inappropriate. A rule on wikipedia or General Motors, Car & Drive, and Edmunds? Sources favour the use. Therefore, the convention seems ill conceived. Oilpanhands (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ft-lbf

Since the three of us are in agreement for fixing this to ft-lb/lb-ft, I figured it would be best to start a new section. Wikipedia's the only place I've ever seen this and I work in the auto industry. The accepted format is either lb-ft or ft-lb, not ft-lbf.--Flash176 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be completely accurate, the correct form is lb·ft (note centre dot, not dash or slash or period or periods), a common and debatably acceptable alternative is ft·lb, and anything else is flatly not correct. The previous discussion is at WP:lbft; please read it and let's take it up from there. It's to be hoped we'll have consensus to add lb·ft as the correct English torque unit to WP:AUN. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that lb·ft and ft·lb are both used, although the former seems to be somewhat more common. For what it's worth, SI puts the unit of force first, then the unit of length (Newton-meter/metre). Can't say if that has all that much bearing on this, but it's worth pointing out. --Sable232 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crap, I didn't realize I missed this discussion so recently. In regards to what Lightmouse was saying previously about "lbf" being universal, I disagree. I live in the US, and while I'm not familiar with how it is in other countries, ft-lbf is never user here in public. In fact, the first time I saw it on Wikipedia, I thought that it was a typo. Scheinwerfermann, in addition to your examples of where lb-ft is used, it's also used in calculating one of the forces of bullets when fired. As for ft-lb or lb-ft, I slightly prefer ft-lb for no special reason, but I have no issues with making lb-ft the default way if that's the standard as you say. Anything but ft-lbf.--Flash176 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also had never seen ft-lbf until I read it on Wikipedia. Road & Track uses lb-ft. swaq 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus then and now is in favor of doing away with "lbf", I think it's ok for us to go ahead and change it. Does this need to be the standard like it was before or should it go behind Nm in parentheses? Do any countries outside of North America use lb-ft?

BTW, Scheinwerfermann, all of the Wikipedia pages I'm able to find say foot-pound instead of pound feet. Are you sure that lb-ft is correct and not just a variation?--Flash176 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are gonna use this system it needs to be know its same in all countries, then we could also ask for change to convert:template maybe own variation to automobile articles, what about other conversions, the convention page says to use eg. 2300 mm instead 2,300 (and 2345 cc (2,345 cc) mm used in convert template, should we change the convention or ask also change for these? there might be some others aswell... I think we should get rid of auto templates and use general convert templates, if we can get such templates we are needing, there is no point to have two different templates --— Typ932T | C  19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flash176, the convention is to use both Metric and English units. Which one comes before the other is contextual; generally we give priority according to the market and timeframe in question. So a 1966 Plymouth Valiant is said to have come with a Template:Auto CID slant-6 engine producing {{as standard equipment, while a 1999 Jeep Cherokee is said to have come with a Template:Auto L straight-6 engine as standard. It gets to be less clear-cut in recent years in the US market; engineering and specifications are all metric, but common nomenclature is still English. So far there hasn't been a big war over the order of units; articles on US-only vehicles (e.g. Dodge Ram) don't spur many protests in favour of metric priority, while articles on international vehicles (e.g. Volkswagen Golf) prioritise metrics and may not even consistently show English units. As a general rule of thumb, prioritise the units in which vehicles and components (e.g. engines) originally engineered and marketed. It's not perfect, but it's generally workable.
Lb·ft is the most correct order of expression. Ft·lb is a widely-understood and generally accepted but colloquial variant. This is per just about every one of the (many) physics texts I've seen, which teach that torque is the product of the force times the length of the lever arm, not the other way round. It's true that you can find many instances of ft·lb (or ft-lb, or ft/lb, or ft. lb., etc.) on various Wikipedia pages. That doesn't imply correctness or accuracy; remember, the most common developmental stage of Wikipedia articles is "unfinished"! In any event, we've already got several pieces of good quality reliable support for lb·ft, in this and previous discussions on the topic.
Typ932, it's a little difficult to tell exactly what-all you're saying and asking, since there are a lot of thoughts kind of jumbled together and you seem to be missing some words. There are definitely convention issues beyond torque units, but in this conversation, we're discussing torque units. Let's solve one problem at a time. Eliminating the Auto templates and just using the Convert templates would definitely not solve any problems. In fact, doing so would create significant problems. To be more exact, it would re-introduce the problems solved by the creation of the Auto templates in the first place. Please re-read WP:lbft to see a good illustration of what I mean. This problem will not go away by our proceeding with consensus to use lb·ft rather than ft·lbf in automotive articles, but it will be diminished by the existence of templates like Template:Auto lbft. If we were to use your suggestion, we'd have the impossible task of convincing the whole of Wikipedia to change from ft·lbf to lb·ft. We might be right (probably not; there are probably subjects in which ft·lbf is correct), we might have a mountain of evidence to support our position, but it would still simply never happen. The best we can hope for is two conversion protocols existing harmoniously, and that is why we have the Auto templates. Rather than worry about the nonproblem of the Auto templates' existence, we ought to focus our effort on real problems like how to deal with Lightmouse (talk · contribs)' bots which do not distinguish between automotive and non-automotive articles, and are therefore likely to steamroll right over our lb·ft consensus.
At this point, I really don't think there's anything standing in the way of our adding a convention on English torque units. The relevant templates were modified long ago, and don't seem to have generated complaints. If there are no new sound/supported arguments to the contrary in the next half day or so, I'll go ahead and add the convention. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Car and Driver, Automobile Magazine, and Edmunds all use lb-ft or pound-feet. I support the use of lb·ft. I could ask my wife for her opinion (she graduated in physics), but she doesn't like Imperial units. swaq 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Scheinwerfermann, I just wasn't sure if on WP:AUN the lb-ft needed to go before or after N-m. It doesn't matter to me either way, I just wasn't sure if someone would object if I inserted lb-ft in what was perceived as being the wrong spot.--Flash176 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convention lb·ft added

I have specified lb·ft as the correct English torque unit in WP:AUN. While I was in there, I took the opportunity to tidy up the convention and make it a little clearer, more explicit, and more readable. Let us hope this improves the quality of articles within this project. At the very least it gives us uniform provisions for removing ft·lbf from articles where we may find it. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Automobile

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New displacement template (Auto Lrev)

Flash176 (talk · contribs) and I noticed the other day an interesting problem with Template:Auto L: it doesn't work well for engines originally engineered and designated in cubic inches and later redesignated in litres. The template was spitting out 317 in³ rather than 318 in³ for the Chrysler 5.2, for example. This is due to rounding employed in the selection of the litre designation. I played around with the litre conversion factor and sure enough, there's no factor that can be used that'll make all engines convert correctly. When I bent the conversion factor to make the 318 convert correctly, it broke the Ford 351. When I fixed the 351, the 318 broke again. (I actually ran a couple dozen known conversions through it; the 318 and 351 are only examples). Clearly that approach wasn't going to work. Besides, fudging conversion factors is an ugly way to do things anyhow. I took a look at Template:Auto L and Template:Auto CID and devised a solution: I've created a new template Template:Auto Lrev. This is specifically to correctly display the displacement of engines engineered in cubic inches, but later redesignated in litres, and for articles about American vehicles sold in metric markets back in America's cubic-inch days. It's essentially the Template:Auto CID template with inverted output. You input the known cubic inch displacement of the litre-designated engine, and you get a correctly-converted, litres-first, dual-units display like this:

{{Auto Lrev|318}} yields Template:Auto Lrev

I've deployed this template in Dodge Ram and a few other articles, and it seems to work perfectly, but please report any faults you may find. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSC Aero

Someone smarter than me edit the boxout, the SSC Aero is not rear engine. Wikipedia is full of noobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor sponge (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was vandalized yesterday and no one caught it. I have fixed it now. Insulting Wikipedia editors is unlikely to garner support. By the way, please sign your comments with ~~~~. swaq 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rpm/RPM

Currently there's no convention as to whether or not RPM should be capitalized. Pretty much all of the articles I come across have it spelled rpm, however, outside of Wikipedia, most, if not all, places that I'm aware of capitalize the initials. Do you think that there should be a convention as to the preferred spelling of RPM? Personally, I think it should always be capitalized since that seems to be the standard from what I've seen.--Flash176 (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, we probably ought to devise an uppercase/lowercase convention for mph (MPH), mpg (MPG), and so forth. I can't agree with a preference for uppercase based on your anecdotal observations. Grammar authorities seem to agree that noun abbreviations (NHTSA, RDA, IQ, THC, UFO, HIV, and so forth) get uppercase, while adverbial abbreviations (rpm, mpg, mph, and the regionally-preferred kph) get lowercase. See here, here, here, here, here (search page for rpm), here (search page for rpm), here (search page for mph), here (search for mph), and here (search mpg) for example. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Scheinwerfermann says above, particularly about anecdotal evidence: as it happens, an example of the danger of this kind of evidence is that I'm sure I've seen the opposite (lower case) much more often. Above all, this is one of those issues where we should consult or develop the Wikipedia manual of style, and definitely not have our own guideline just within this project. – Kieran T (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you've half-way convinced me, enough that I'll support a lower case convention. I do think we need to implement a convention for the above-mentioned initials.--Flash176 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've got support for lowercase over at MoS. I'll go ahead and add the convention. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There should have never even been a debate on this in the first place. WP:MOS always supersedes other conventions. It doesn't matter if it comes from an individual user or an entire WikiProject, WP:MOS is god as far as Wikipedia is concerned. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facelift categories

There are some new categories made for facelifts see eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2007_facelifts, what do you think, do we need these kind of categories?. IMO vehicles introduced in year xxxx category could be used for this. --— Typ932T | C  17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it looks to me like an answer looking for a question. The articles will say if the car has had a facelift and I have no interest in finding out, say, what cars received facelifts in 2004.--Flash176 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone familiar with system could nominate them for deletion, if we reach consensus here... --— Typ932T | C  18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the person who is doing this has already added at least one incorrect category, as the 2004 Corolla never received a facelift.--Flash176 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete facelifts on cars are a part of the industry, however, a category for faclifted cars would be a waste of time, because every car gets a facelift just about every two years, and how do we decide what constitutes a facelift and what doesn't. That soulds like an edit war just waiting to happen. What about research efforts to classift facelifts for cars of the past, such as the '55-'57 Chevy Bel-Air, or the Ford Mustang of the '60s. This category needs to go away.(Regushee (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment most of the categories currently in auto articles seem pointless. I can't imagine anyone having any use for any of the extended lists of articles beyond cars from a certain brand or vehicles of a certain type. I'd delete this, but current precedent for categories would seem to suggest that we keep it. IFCAR (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IFCAR actually has a point here. Really how important is Category:Sedans et cetera? Most cars are not exclusively sedans, so when you go to an article in this category (for example Audi A4) you often get an article about a vehicles available in three body styles. Another category that kind of baffles me is Category:Australian cars. How do you determine whether a car is Australian. The Ford Laser was made in Australia until 1994, but it was a Japanese design. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added it Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23, dont know if I have to put every category to deletion or is the main cat enough --— Typ932T | C  07:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title is also too non-specific to be of any use as it just says Facelift. Facelifts of what? Should ageing Hollywood stars also appear? Malcolma (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet Cavalier, Malibu & Impala Need Subcategories

On the Wikimedia Commons, we have got to do subcategories for those three aging Chevrolet cars (the Cavalier is discontinued). Cavalier has got 82 photos, Malibu with 83 & Impala with 136. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing all these pictures at? I count 10 Cavalier, 12 Malibu, and 29 Impala pictures in the articles.--Flash176 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As he said: on Wikimedia commons. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I also think we need a standard for category names. Here is a varying list of how categories appear over at the Commons.

As can be seen the standards are quite chaotic. While it is not suitable for every car to be labeled the same, I think some sort of standard should be set. Both the make and model should be present, and the model code should be used in favour of "generation". OSX (talk • contributions) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors on the Commons do not tend to recognize decisions made on a Wikipedia, so this is probably the wrong place to have this discussion. IFCAR (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also count the Commons:Category:Toyota Highlander Hybrid category for hybrid vehicles. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power templates TfD

FYI, {{Auto bhp}}, {{Auto Nm}}, {{Auto PS}} and {{Auto ihp}} are up for deletion. Discussion here. DH85868993 (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally nominated these, but have since retracted the nomination. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Thunderbird

Take a look at the section headings. I've heard "Aero-Bird" before, and I can see where "Torino Bird" comes from. However, a lot of the rest is questionable ("Birds of a Feather?" What?) and it is all unsourced. Even if it were sourced and notable, I doubt it belongs in the section headings anyway.

I would simply remove it all, but I'm not thinking I can deal with the fanboys alone on this one.

Thoughts? --Sable232 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Bird is definitely used a lot, and I've heard Glamour, Retro, and possibly Aero before, but some names, specifically the Birds of a Feather, sound arbitrary.--Flash176 (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - After a quick search, the only site I found specifically referring to the '77-'79 T-Birds as Birds of a Feather was this site, which was written on August 20, 2008, so I suspect she used the Wikipedia article as a source. Every other reference I see to "Birds of a Feather" in regards to the T-bird is a picture of 2 or more T-birds or clubs/owners groups.--Flash176 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. All of them. Whether or not anyone has heard this one or that one, or seen the other one "used a lot", this is an encyclopædia, not a misty-eyed retrospective or an enthusiast website, and cutesy nicknames have no place in it unless they can be thoroughly and reliably sourced. Any fanboys decide to whine about it, I've got your back. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your background?

Perhaps this is a bad idea, and if so, I apologize, but I thought maybe it might help us understand each others' viewpoints a little better if we knew what countries the other project members were from and our backgrounds.

I'm from America, born and raised, specifically Tennessee. I've always been an automotive enthusiast and attended WyoTech where I learned how to work on all the mechanical components of vehicles as well as design and build frames/roll cages and high performance engines. I received an associate's degree in automotive repair and business management and began working as a mechanic where I worked on cars sold by all the major companies in the US. Right now I'm going back to school to get degree in mechanical engineering and hope to either get a job designing trophy trucks or as a DSS agent after I graduate.

Again, I'm not trying to be nosey or anything, I just thought knowing each others' experience with cars might help us understand each other a little bit better.--Flash176 (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the United States and have been learning as much as I can about cars for fun over the last fourteen years or so. I've been subscribed to Road & Track for over eleven years, as well as some other automotive magazines. I like doing things myself so I've been trying to teach myself to do my own car work. I enjoy driving. My occupation is not related to cars. swaq 02:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm from Cape Town and pretty much a car enthusiast. I got into cars by watching Top Gear, and always browse the South African motoring websites for the latest news and launches. My interest lies more in European and Japanese cars, American cars having not featured much in our country until recently. I drive a Honda S2000 if that makes me seem more interesting :) I'm always on the lookout for poor articles (and there are plenty!) which could do with a rewrite. I like clearing out an article almost in its entirety and rewriting it from scratch as a coherent piece (examples on my user page). I will most likely annoy people by doing this but tough, I don't think my rewrites have degraded the quality of any article that I've touched. I'm currently chipping away at convertible, having just merged about 6 articles together. I'm STRUGGLING to find references in order to write a coherent History section. Work commitments means I edit FAR less than I used to a couple of years ago, although I do try to comment on Talk pages now and then. Zunaid 08:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A car nut from North Europe, always been intrested of different cars, I read lots of magazines, follow Tv shows etc. Personally intrested about Italian cars but dont dislike any brand. I ll try to make english wikipedia more international with different conversions, also trying to clean nonsense, POVs and other nonwikipedia stuff. Also sourcing is one of main intrested here, there are lost of articles without any sources. I want also that every details are right so no hp is enough I want to know the standard what its represents to make comparison easier --— Typ932T | C  10:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely by looking at someone's user page you can see where he/she is coming from to the extent he/she wants you to know. And if you then look at their contributions you get a pretty sufficient understanding. Or? But since you, Flash176, sort of asked ... I started following matters motoris/zed in English language motor magazines in the 1960s, notably Motor, Car (possibly Small Car back then) and Car and Driver (a couple of months in arrears, but the European and US market were more separated back then so the delay didn't much matter). Although (British) English remains my mother tongue, I have considerable experience of working also in American (English) and try, where possible, to restrict myself to words that work in both languages. Otherwise it's a question of following the rules and / or in cases of residual doubt figuring out which version of English is most likely to be the mother tongue version for the majority of readers for a given entry. I've also acquired a reasonable working knowledge of a few other western European languages - enough to understand the motor magazines (especially the pictures and data tables) though probably not enough to contribute poly-clausal sentences to non anglophone wiki-entries. I drive, much of the time, a Seat Toledo TDI which is (or in 2001 when I got this one was) a sort of cut price Golf IV with a smidgeon more style and firmer dampers: a sort of cautious compromise between sensible and self indulgent. I don't think they sell it in the US and even in the UK I read that the used car market doesn't see enough Toledos to 'understand' them which correlates with lousy residuals and a suspicion I will keep it for ever. I also keep a 1991 petrol engined VW Polo for when the diesel runs out and an old Toyota mpv for family reasons. My contributions on the wiki car entries have concentrated perceived gaps that I am relatively competent/capable to/of fill(ing) - ie on translating entries from French and German wiki on cars that don't appear, otherwise, to have much info in English wiki. I've also taken to uploading images, trying to concentrating on older images of older cars, since most folks seem to concentrate on newer images of newer cars, and I am sufficiently barking to have been photographing unusual cars in the street since several decades before anyone had heard of wikipedia.
I follow the discussions on this page with interest and generally resist the temptation to jump in with both flippers. As a general comment, we sometimes seem to confuse standardisation with quality. Well, certainly there is an overlap. But I think quality is more important than standardisation. I think that if you try to over-standardize you will lose quality in the process of editing out bits that don't conform. The other problem with standarisation, is that the further you attempt it, the more you will fail. Either that, or you will reduce the number of your active contributors to approximately one, and your entries will become very dull and the information they impart very restricted. I am not opposed to standardisation. Intellgently applied, it enhances communication and undertanding, and that's presumably core to what we're about. But not at the expense of intelligence and quality. Quality is more important. Getting repetitive, now...Charles01 (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll play. It's kind nice seeing where everyone comes from and why they edit here. Insight never sucks. Been living in Southern California all my life. Professionally, I currently work for the largest automotive photography studio in the world as a production manager, senior digital media specialist, and product specialist. Worked in the automotive industry for over 10 years and have driven over 5500 different vehicles within that time. Member of the Motor Press Guild. Personally, I'm an avid motorcyclist, auto-geek, and photographer specializing in panorama photography. Currently own two Camaros (come from a big Camaro family), a Honda CBR600RR, Suzuki GS500E, and just bought a Honda S2000. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a California native out of beautiful Santa Cruz, California. After highschool, I spent a year lounging around UCSC because they wouldn't let me into Stanford, some how I managed to get good enough grades to transfer and began studying mechanical engineering and planned on entering the world of automotive engineering. Three years later I'm still here and have fallen all the way down the engineering ladder, stopping for a time in the world of product design finally landing in the world of studio art focusing on photo and planning to graduate this coming June. Photo has always been a hobby and I have worked in the photo lab as a lab tech, but now it looks like it may end up being my career and I can't complain. I've come to realize that while I am interested in the engineering of vehicles, I really don't care for actually doing the calculations and modeling myself. Despite dropping my aspirations of automotive engineering I still can't get enough of cars, currently I have a Mazda 6 (hey at least its a 5-speed) as my daily driver and a Porsche 944 Turbo that I pull out on the weekends. I might be selling the Porsche in the next year or so as I have my eyes on an Alfa Romeo GTV and with the art major I probably wont have the money for the Ferrari 308. --Leivick (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much Clutter?

I was looking for articles to fix/add templates to and went into the Jeep Commander. User WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat has rigged the infobox so that you can view engine specs. I was going to remove it to make it like all other infoboxes, but decided it was unique enough to post in here to get your opinions. Thoughts?--Flash176 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the extra content is unique, and I also agree with you that it overloads the infobox, which most of us agree in general is perpetually on the verge of being overstuffed even in standard form. Too, there are problems with the extra info. Per convention, we state an engine's displacement in cubic inches only if the engine was originally designed and marketed that way, and even if that were the case for any of the engines in the Commander — which it is not — the litre displacement would come first. What's more, engines do not get any particular fuel mileage; vehicles do. And we've already discussed (to death) the question of fuel economy in infoboxes and decided against it. The entire article doesn't need to — and shouldn't — be crammed into the infobox; let's keep the infoboxes in line with the content and formatting standards as they've evolved. IMO, of course. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is more, WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat (talk · contribs) seems to be disregarding other conventions as well, as evident from his contribs. It looks like an advisory note on his talk page is in order. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the show/hide would work very well in dealing with our cluttered infoboxes. We should use it for dimensions. IFCAR (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to make a new category, "Dimensions", and put height, length, wheelbase, curb weight, etc. into it, then yes, that could be beneficial to the infobox - especially on these articles with the lengthy dimension lists.--Flash176 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the extra content needs to be there. Bore and stroke are on the engine's article. Fuel economy... we've been over that. Power and torque figures are put in the prose or a table, which is more efficient anyway.
As for dimensions, it isn't a problem for most articles. It's usually a problem for pickup trucks. I've been working on trying to find different ways to fix that situation. --Sable232 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ford press images: free or no?

As some of you may have noticed, a number of Ford press images have made their way onto the Commons and then into a number of Wikipedia articles. But from what little grasp I have of what is acceptable or not on Wikipedia, it seems these fall into the category of "unfree creative commons" and therefore should not be used here.

Example: Ford Flex image uploaded to the Commons via Flickr, where it had this tag. According to this, it doesn't seem to be right. But hopefully someone else who's more familiar with these policies can address it. IFCAR (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I to noticed that someone had uploaded some Mustang images from what appears to be Fords PR flickr page so I thought I would try my hand at uploading some needed images, however an admin deleted them on the wikimedia commons as it was thought that they were uploaded using "flickr laundering." My experience with fair use and creative commons licensing is tpo weak at this point so I also hope some can answer whether these images are free or not. --Leivick (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm able to very easily cross-reference images like this due to a very large press photo database I am capable of accessing. The easiest thing anyone can do with images like this is to nominate for deletion. This is the arbitration process for photos over at Commons. What I do, usually because it's very easy for me to determine whether or not something is press, is I'll just change the permissions on the image and then nominate for deletion. roguegeek (talk·cont) 09:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're obviously press photos, but they were uploaded by Ford to Flickr using a Creative Commons license that the Commons seems to accept. But the English Wikipedia seems to have tougher restrictions. Again, I hope someone with greater understanding of this can clarify. IFCAR (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These photos are not acceptable on Wikipedia, and the ones at Wikimedia Commons will need to be deleted. The license on flickr states they may not be used for commercial purposes, and sadly Wikipedia disallows that, in case they want to sell their content. Edit-self: Ah, I see somebody's added this: "Please note: This image was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons licensed as noted below. The Flickr user has since changed the licensing to be more restrictive. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. See the Creative Commons FAQ on revoking licensing." Confusion. Disregard my previous comment. ;-) – Kieran T (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image permission directly from Flickr says it's for non-commercial use only, which is not allowed on Commons. The user who uploaded seems to have changed the permission to allow usage on Commons. I will be nominating for deletion based on this premise. roguegeek (talk·cont) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but the implication from the tag added (and quoted by me, above) is that the original upload to flickr was done with acceptable, less restrictive permissions, which it is implied were still in place when the image was copied to the Commons. Since those rights are, says the commons, non-revokable, it leaves Ford the victims of a mistake, but the victims nonetheless. Although I'm sure it's a grey area if Ford didn't do the transfer to Commons... Don't get me wrong though; I'm not advocating use of these images, just trying to answer the questioner. I'd personally err on the side of caution and not add them to articles, since they're likely to disappear. – Kieran T (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...I donno about that "victim of a mistake" thing. This smells funny to me: "Oops, gee, golly, boy, someone here at Ford sure messed up there with that licence...now I guess we're stuck with our slick promotional photos on Wikipedia, darnit! That means Wikipedia viewers will see high-dollar pro photos of our exciting new models, but only amateur snapshots of our competitors' cars...now what are we going to do? This is awful, just terrible!" Regardless of intent, in effect this looks to me like a tapdance around the spirit and intent of Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's image requirements. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Ford intended to release these images to the public domain for promotional purposes, I see no problems in using them. In some cases these promo shots offer very high quality images of older and sometimes less popular vehicles that are very hard to obtain through the traditional method of photographing vehicles in parking lots. The question is, what was the intent when these images were uploaded. --Leivick (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question would be what the difference is between a fair use promotional image and a manufacturer photo under Creative Commons. Aren't both available for all uses with attribution by any rule but Wikipedia's? IFCAR (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this discussion I'm having with editors over at Commons about this issue. Join in if you can. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the scenario of this image, where the license on Flickr remains one that seems to be acceptable by Wikipedia standards? How would this one be different from standard fair use? IFCAR (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad, so sad. We snagged them when they were free, CC states no backsies, so we should use them to help improve articles. Ford had a chance to review CC before dumping images onto Flickr; i'm surprised that a company with a ton of Lawyers could make such a monumental gaffe like that. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is unbelievable. A difficult-to-replace fair-use promotional image can show up and people go berserk thinking the maker is going to sue Wikimedia for all it's worth, but here we've got images of questionable copyright status of brand-new vehicles that won't be scarce for quite some time, and yet that is OK? --Sable232 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sable232: The Automotive image guidelines state that in order for a photo to be "useable" on Articles, the car must be the focus of the picture, and the best photos desired as ones that have little to no "background clutter." Lets pull the Ford Focus image from Ford, and the one currently on the article for the North America Version:

  • Ford Motor Company Picture
    Ford Motor Company Picture
  • The current Focus Pic on the article by IFCAR
    The current Focus Pic on the article by IFCAR

Ford's photo is obviously shot in a studio background, with a simple light cloth background with nothing on it, which puts the focus on the....Ford Focus. It also shows the "front ¾ view" of the car also outlined in the guidelines. Angle wise, thats debatable.

IFCAR's photo is shot in a wooded area, and has been sufficiently cropped so that the image is focused on the....Ford Focus. It also has the "front ¾ view" of the car also outlined in the guidelines. However, notice that there is two trees just above the bonnet, which sorta distracts the image abit. Also the angle looks....off. To me, the shot also looks like it tilted towards the back for some reason, like it was shot on a slope.

And since it was brought up, the Ford Flex:

(Yes, I know the first FoMoCo Flex pic was cited, but I also grabbed the other ¾ shot by Ford on Commons.)

Now this is where I think it get's sorta tricky. FoMoCo's pics look great, but there's the problem of the "front ¾ view" viewpoint. It looks like your either squatting, or approaching the Flex from a hill or some other incline in the first pic, and I don't think the second one satisfies the "front ¾ view" due to it being shot from the side and looks distant. IFCAR's again has the problem of background clutter, only this time we have several SUV's, a Chevy Express Van, and a Mitsubishi Fuso Reefer. Plus you have a guy in the driver's Seat of the Flex. Which are distractions.

Now seriously, which images would you prefer?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick FYI. I want to clear up what a ¾ view really it. It's generally when the front-most tire and rear-most tire of an image line up with each other. The Ford image above of the Focus is most definitely a front ¾ shot. The first Ford image above of the Ford Flex is not, but the second definitely is a front ¾ shot as well. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Ford press images are very high quality, as they are professional images I would have to go with them, not to diminish the work that IFCAR has done in the field of automobile images. --Leivick (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the images are free (despite FoMoCo "backsies") and they satisfy the Automotive Convention Guidelines for Images. Can they be put on their respective pages, or is there anymore objections?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the WikiProject Autos image conventions is that images be placed as close as possible to relevant text. That's the reason the photo of the 2009 Focus currently resides in the second-generation section of the article, so readers can compare it to the 2008 version. IFCAR (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, your pic ain't exactly "quality" as stated above. I rather see Quality vs. Quantity. Also, the grouping of both two images and an infobox in the Ford Focus article and smashing the text may also be construed as an Accessibility violation.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to love quoting policies that you don't seem to have ever looked at. Grass and a tree is somehow a distracting background (though the page you link two lists sample images featuring similar backgrounds), and nothing on the page you linked to now in your allegations of "accessibility violations" says nothing at all about stacked thumbnails. Sounds so threatening, until you find out there isn't anything to it. You'd make a fine corporate attorney.
And it's not about quantity, it's about using the images to illustrate the article, as described in the first policy you linked to but seem to have ignored. IFCAR (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that the best available image belongs in the lead info box. In the case of the Ford Focus the best image is the Ford press image, with all due respect IFCAR, it is a professional quality image, while the image you are attempting to put in the lead info box is amateur quality. It has less than perfect exposure and contains serious JPEG artifacting, it has nothing to do with trees in the background. --Leivick (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info box image captions

Anyone know how to display image caption in automobile info boxes? Other info box templates have a caption line, but when added to auto info boxes, captions do not appear. Some images could use clarifying captions any thought? --Leivick (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I know of is to add the caption in the "image" field after the image like this:
|image = [[Image:Aptera Typ-1 Wallpaper.jpg|250px]]<br>Jason Hill's final Typ-1 design rendering. (seen here)
Automobile infoboxes don't have a "caption" field for some reason.~ Dusk Knight 05:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The captions appear when you put your cursor over the image. There's no need for a separate line. IFCAR (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the image title that appears with the cursor over the screen and this is not always very informative. For example, in the one quoted above the description says "Aptera Typ-1 Wallpaper.jpg" which is not too bad but some will just say something like abcd1234.jpg. Adding an informative heading after the Image description seems to work fine. Malcolma (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes is is good to have some explanation if the image shows something different than the title says, eg special version or something else, usually this happens when you dont have exact picture of what the title says. I usually use italic text in captions like that, you need to add break
or space after the image tag that it works ok. --— Typ932T | C  11:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolma, you add the caption within the image listing to make the hover-over text something other than the image name. Like this: |image = [[Image:abcd1234.jpg|250px|Jason Hill's final Typ-1 design rendering]]. Another line isn't needed. IFCAR (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IFCAR. Image caption here is already at a useful capacity. Having it visible all of the time just makes no sense. roguegeek (talk·cont) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the captions appearing. The tooltip which appears when the mouse hovers is by no means reliable, depending on the browser being used. – Kieran T (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Leivick, could you give an example of where you feel a hard caption is needed? Just want an idea of what we're trying to work with here. --Sable232 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something like Porsche 924, the lead info box shows two vehicles a Turbo and a non Turbo, it would be good to clarify this with a hard caption. --Leivick (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a good infobox picture according to our convention :D PrinceGloria (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Ok, right, how about Porsche 944 I just uploaded a high quality image to the info box, however the image is of the Turbo model, it would be nice to clarify this in a caption. --Leivick (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither for nor against a caption, but I think perhaps a good example of where one could be utilized would be vehicles with differing body parts depending on their trim level and year. For instance, the lead image on Toyota Matrix is of an '04 XRS model. [This] image that used to be in the first gen box is what a base model for the same year looks like. The current first gen infobox image is what an '05+ base model looks like. Anyways, that's just an example I thought of where a caption could be beneficial.--Flash176 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let us not "overinform" the reader. The lead image is to present the subject in question, so one should be chosen that represents the overall population the best - if it does not, it should be swapped for something else. I'd reserve any "specific" images for thumbnails in the article body. Standard title (visible while hovering the mouse over the pic) should be enough IMHO. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that easy, if you have car that has many different body styles it is sometimes good to inform the reader if the it is not so obvioius but for general sedan sw styles it is quite easy....or if the image angle is not so good to reveal the version. But for model years or engine versions it is not needed --— Typ932T | C  19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivial to add a "caption" field which would allow a caption to be shown, as I just implemented. I don't see why this should not be optional for those images where a caption may be useful. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose that (since you inferred there is no opposition). This is a gateway for circumventing the image quality rules, and another way to clutter the infobox IMHO. Just choose the best-quality image representing the most "standard" version possible. All information can be contained in the standard description, they are here anyway. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cunningham, yes, a caption box is trivial, but so are electric range, fuel economy, etc. I think what bothers people the most is continuing to add sections to the infobox and making it unwieldy.
PrinceGloria, I don't see how adding a caption box would become a gateway for circumventing rules. The rules still apply, Chris and the other users are simply wanting to make it easier for readers to know about the image. You've been on Wikipedia for more than a week. I'm sure you realize that getting high quality images of vehicles, especially standard versions, is sometimes easier said than done. There's also the instances where one version of a vehicle is just as common as another.--Flash176 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a great need for a caption box, for example, where the only suitable (or only, totally) image is of a nonstandard, prototype, etc., version of the car. In these cases, no caption may confuse the reader further. It's no different than adding captions to any other images. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 17:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same way, its good to have sometimes, but it should not be used for example telling model years or trim levels, what engine is in car or such things, only if there is good reason. For example body style if it is not shown good enough in picture, maybe facelift model info? if there arent pictures enough for main article or other generation box to show the differencies in body and such things. --— Typ932T | C  18:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The caption field seems fairly standard on Wikipedia infoboxes, and we can always include something in the documentation and guidelines to discourage unnecessary use. For the images that do warrant an explanation, it's better for the caption to be permanently visible rather than hover-text.~ Dusk Knight 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs replacement - Lincoln Continental

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:IMG 0339 Desktop.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sister projects question

Is there some set way for defining our sister projects? I'm just wondering because some of the listed projects, such as WikiProject:Space Missions and WikiProject:Airport don't really seem to tie in to our project. I'm thinking about reorganizing the list to appear like this, but wanted to see if there were any objections.

Also, the 4 I have listed in other (aircraft, rockets, ships, and trains) - should they be listed at all as sister projects?--Flash176 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure I see the value in having such a list anyway. The only people I can envisage it helping are keen editors with spare time — and they can easily search for their favoured topics. – Kieran T (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&oldid=243980109"