Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and Scream Awards: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''The [[Spike (TV channel)|Spike TV]] Scream Awards''' is the first awards show dedicated to the [[horror fiction|horror]], [[Science fiction|sci-fi]], and [[fantasy]] genres of feature films. The award ceremony was hosted by [[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]] co-stars [[Rose McGowan]], [[Marley Shelton]] and [[Rosario Dawson]]. The first Scream Awards were held on [[October 10]], [[2006]], and the second were held on [[October 19]], [[2007]], both in [[Los Angeles]]. The show was created by Executive Producers Michael Levitt, [[Cindy Levitt]], and [[Casey Patterson]].
{{talkheader}}
{{talkbottom}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes}}


Awards during the night included; Best Rack on the Rack (which went to [[Vampirella]]), The "Holy @%!?/Jump out of Your Seat" Award and Most Memorable Mutilation.


==2006 Nominees/Winners==
== CID vs. in³ ==
===The Ultimate Scream===
{| class="collapsible collapsed" width=100%
!Discussion from Sept 13 to Sept 26
|-
|
I'm sure I'll get some flak for this, but I'd like to bring this up. Some pages use CID to denote engine displacement while others use in³. CID is the industry standard, but it's been said in this discussion repeatedly that Wikipedia is a site for laymen. Anyone who went to school knows what "in³" stands for, but CID will require an explanation for some people. I prefer the use of in³ for this reason, but either way, I'd like to have a standardized unit.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


* ''[[Batman Begins]]'' (Winner)
:This has been discussed a fair number of times in the past. I personally prefer CID because it is standard usage (and easier/faster to type), but I accept and use in³ here, because as you say it is universally understandable. More than that, ''it is already codified'' as a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Units|convention]] within this project, so the issue is already resolved. If you come across "CID" in an article, change it to in³ and if you think it's likely to be challenged, link in your edit summary to [[WP:AUN]], the shortcut I've just created to the relevant units conventions.
* ''[[The Devil's Rejects]]''
* ''[[The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film)|The Hills Have Eyes]]''
* ''[[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]''
* ''[[Superman Returns]]''


===Best Horror movie===
:Of greater annoyance to me is the continued unsupportable and inappropriate use of '''ft·lbf''' for torque in automotive articles, rather than the correct unit, which is '''lb·ft'''. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 00:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


* ''[[The Devil's Rejects]]'' (Winner)
::Thanks, and sorry for bringing up an old topic.
* ''[[Land of the Dead]]''
* ''[[Haute Tension|High Tension]]''
* ''[[The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film)|The Hills Have Eyes]]''
* ''[[Hostel (film)|Hostel]]''


===Best Fantasy movie===
::As for the ft-lbf, thank you! That bugs me so much, but every time I tried to fix it someone would revert it, so I finally just gave up.


* ''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest]]'' (Winner)
:::This came up before and it seemed to me that things were moving in the direction of using "CID" (as shown [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Cubic_inches|here]]). Personally, I don't see a problem with either one.
* ''[[Batman Begins]]''
:::As for ft·lbf: let us purge that from Wikipedia's automotive pages forever. I can't even recall why it was instituted in the first place, and I can't find the discussion on it (although I seem to recall contributing to said discussion... hmm.) --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
* ''[[Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire]]''
* ''[[King Kong (2005 film)|King Kong]]''
* ''[[Superman Returns]]''
* ''[[Tim Burton's Corpse Bride]]''


===Best Science Fiction movie===
::::It seems to me that the use of in³ is in error with respects to automotive articles. I searched many major automotive websites and couldn't find a single use of in³. Here's what I found:


* ''[[V for Vendetta (film)|V for Vendetta]]'' (Winner)
::::Ford uses both CID and cu.in. [http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/features/specs/], [http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/ranger/features/specs/], [http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/eseries/features/specs/], [http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/expedition/features/specs/], [http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/explorer/features/specs/], [http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/], [http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/features/specs/], [http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/sporttrac/features/specs/]
* ''[[Aeon Flux (film)|Aeon Flux]]''
* ''[[A Scanner Darkly (film)|A Scanner Darkly]]''
* ''[[Serenity (film)|Serenity]]''
* ''[[War of the Worlds (2005 film)|War of the Worlds]]''


===Best TV Show===
::::GM and Victory motorcycles use the abbreviation ci: [http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2006/Spec%20Sheets/90%20Degree%20V6%203800/2006%2090%20degree%20V6%20(L26)%203800.pdf], [http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2009/Spec%20Sheet/Fam%201/09_LXV_n.xls], [http://www.polarisindustries.com/en-us/Victory/2009/Custom-Cruisers/Jackpot/Pages/Specs.aspx]


* ''[[Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)|Battlestar Galactica]]'' (Winner)
::::Chrysler tends to spell out cubic inches: [http://www.jeep.com/bridge/vehsuite.html?app=vehiclespecs&family=wrangler&model=Technical&zipcode=10101&year=2008], [http://www.dodge.com/bridge/vehsuite.html?app=vehiclespecs&family=avenger&model=Technical&zipcode=10101&year=2008]
* ''[[Doctor Who]]''
* ''[[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]''
* ''[[Masters of Horror]]''
* ''[[Smallville (TV series)|Smallville]]''


===Best Sequel===
::::Other websites that have used CID: [http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/930254 sae.org], [http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2002/February/Day-07/i2874.htm epa.gov], [http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/dbac9f343c541144852565330061e368?OpenDocument epa.gov], [http://www.newdodgeorderform.com/My_Homepage_Files/Download/Truck_Drivelines2005%20(1).pdf newdodge], [http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html allpar mopar], [http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/0803st_1949_chevrolet_3100/truck_specifications.html fourwheeler magazine], [http://www.dodgeram.org/tech/gas/specs/5_9v8.htm dodgeram.org].


* ''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest]]'' (Winner)
::::Other websites that use cu in: [http://www.harley-davidson.com/wcm/Content/Pages/Specs/full_specs/full_specs_09_popup.jsp?locale=en_US&dwp=&market=US&model=fltrse harley-davidson], [http://chilton.cengage.com/samples/pdf/1418006009_1.pdf chilton], [http://www.chiltondiy.com/pvt/ContentDelivery.aspx?ca=Maintenance], [http://www.classichemi.com/392hemi.shtml classichemi]
* ''[[Batman Begins]]''
* ''[[The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film)|The Hills Have Eyes]]''
* ''[[Saw II]]''
* ''[[Superman Returns]]''


===Best Remake===
::::So that begs the question: If the big three American auto companies don't use in³ for cubic inch displacement of engine size and many other auto-related website don't use in³, why does wikipedia's auto articles? If the arguement to use in³ and not CID, is for valid encyclopædic reasons then why is the auto standard cc used instead of the encyclopædic standard--cm³? CID is very common among automotive literature and manufactures and that is what the wiki articles should be based on. If CID needs an extra second to have a person who may not be able to ascertain what it stands for, then that is what hyperlinking to first occurrence is for ([[Cubic inch displacement|CID]]). For folks like us, we may not know what kpc in this sentence: ''The center of the Milky Way is about {{nowrap|8 [[Parsec|kpc]]}} from the Earth, and the Milky Way is about 30 kpc across...'', but the space editors left me a link to follow if I don't know.


* ''[[King Kong (2005 film)|King Kong]]'' (Winner)
::::After some reading, it looked as if everyone was in favor of changing the convention to CID but no one ever put the trigger on that. I think it is clear if anything that in³ should not be used so I say we should be bold and standardise on CID. Thanks Scheinwerfermann for pointing me to this discussion. [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
* ''[[Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005 film)|Charlie and the Chocolate Factory]]''
* ''[[The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film)|The Hills Have Eyes]]''
* ''[[The Omen (2006 film)|The Omen]]''
* ''[[War of the Worlds (2005 film)|War of the Worlds]]''


===Best Superhero===
So, considering the rpm vs. RPM discussion below, if we switch it's going to be '''cid''' then? --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 21:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
no
* [[Brandon Routh]] as [[Superman]], ''Superman Returns'' (Winner)
* [[Christian Bale]] as [[Batman]], ''Batman Begins''
* [[Chris Evans (actor)|Chris Evans]] as the [[Human Torch]], ''[[Fantastic Four (film)|Fantastic Four]]''
* [[Hugh Jackman]] as [[Wolverine (comics)|Wolverine]], ''[[X-Men: The Last Stand]]''
* [[Famke Janssen]] as [[Jean Grey|Phoenix]], ''X-Men: The Last Stand''


===Best Comic-to-Screen adaptation===
:I think literature favors the all caps, but if consistency with the rpm vs. RPM discussion below is desired, the lowercase version would still be a step in the right direction. We could argue lowercase vs all caps for this abbreviation some other time. [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 03:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
* ''[[X-Men: The Last Stand]]'' (Winner)
* ''[[Batman Begins]]''
* ''[[A History of Violence (film)|A History of Violence]]''
* ''[[Superman Returns]]''
* ''[[V for Vendetta (film)|V for Vendetta]]''


===Most Memorable Mutilation===
::'''Oilpanhands''', I'm sure you're not acting in bad faith, but posting a whackload of links from a single website (fordvehicles.com) to create the impression of massive, widespread support for your position tends to make you look disingenuous. Likewise, citing [[WP:RS|unreliable]] sources such as auto enthusiast/blog sites doesn't do much to advance your position. I would also caution you not to misinterpret the "[[WP:BOLD|be bold]]" principle, which does not give licence to bulldoze conventions you don't happen to agree with.


* The eye removal, ''[[Hostel (film)|Hostel]]'' (Winner)
::You ask a good question as to why we use in³ rather than CID, but cc rather than cm³. The two situations aren't quite as directly comparable as they might seem. Both cc and cm³ are universally and unambiguously understandable (and understood) to refer to cubic centimetres, but CID — as you have noted — requires elucidation. Surely, as you say, we could link to the explanatory article, but...why make things unnecessarily complicated this way? CID verges on [[WP:JARGON|jargon]], and we have an accurate and correct non-jargon unit (in³) readily and immediately understood to refer to cubic inches, without need of any explanatory link. ''That'' is what makes in³ the better choice. Me, I started out preferring CID, but this particular point convinced me that in³ is preferable.
* Eaten alive, ''[[Land of the Dead]]''
* Stabbed in a pit of [[syringe]]s, ''Saw II''
* Suicide by shotgun, ''The Hills Have Eyes''
* Vaporized by aliens, ''War of the Worlds''


===Most Heroic Performance===
::As for why we use in³ when the automakers appear to use CID on their websites and in their brochures, well, that's because we're writing an encyclopædia here, not a promotional website or sales brochure. Different writing tasks call for different writing styles.


* [[Johnny Depp]] as [[Captain Jack Sparrow]], ''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest]]'' (Winner)
::This present discussion is also not directly comparable to the ''lb·ft'' vs. ''ft·lbf'' debate, even though a similar argument ("the automakers all use lb·ft") gained great traction in that discussion. The difference is that we were talking about a correct unit (lb·ft) versus an incorrect unit (ft·lbf) to describe torque.
* [[Christian Bale]] as [[Batman]], ''Batman Begins''
* [[Viggo Mortensen]] as Tom Stall, ''A History of Violence''
* [[Edward James Olmos]] as Commander [[William Adama]], ''Battlestar Galactica''
* [[Hugo Weaving]] as [[V (comics)|V]], ''[[V for Vendetta (film)|V for Vendetta]]''


===Scream Queen===
::All that said, if consensus develops to change from in³ to CID, the correct form is all caps, because CID is a noun abbreviation; an acronym. The reason rpm, mph, mpg and suchlike are in lowercase letters is because they are adverbial expressions of compound units. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


* [[Kate Beckinsale]] as [[Selene (Underworld)|Selene]], ''[[Underworld: Evolution]]'' (Winner)
:::If I was acting in bad faith, I wouldn't have posted any examples other than what would be my position to use 'CID'. What I did post, showed cu in, ci, cid, and, CID being used by American automotive and motorcycle manufactures, government, magazines, repair manuals, and yes 3, what you call, unreliable enthusiast/blog websites (Here's two other more reliable sources taken from the {{nowrap|ft lbf}} discussion below: [http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/lotus/elise/2008_lotus_elise_sc_220/2008_lotus_elise_sc_short_take_road_test+type-reviews_by_make+t-specs+page-2+mode-collection+id-279.html C&D], [http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=126177/pageId=138717 Edmunds]). I tried to place them in such an order to show reliability of source. There are more examples from Ford because they use {{nowrap|cu in}} for some products and CID for others. What I did not find was any of them using in³ and this encyclopædia should be based on the literature available.
* [[Asia Argento]] as Slack, ''Land of the Dead''
* [[Evangeline Lilly]] as [[Kate Austen]], ''[[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]''
* [[Natalie Portman]] as [[Evey Hammond]], ''V for Vendetta''
* [[Naomi Watts]] as Ann Darrow, ''King Kong''


===Most Vile Villain===
:::If encyclopædic correctness trumps automotive writing style, then why even have an automotive style convention? Shouldn't a whole encyclopædia convention dictate that all articles use stuff like 3,136 cm³; complete with the proper SI symbol and comma separation and not how automotive writing style dictates-- 3136 cc. It is absurd to think that we need strict automotive style writing for somethings but we should abandon it and leave in erroneous ways of conveying information because we're afraid that a layman can't fathom what 426 CID (6,980 cc) would be from the context of the text surrounding it. For automotive articles, forcing the use of a clearly demonstrated symbol that is unused by the auto industry and its literature (from high brow Edmunds to Joe Sixpack's [http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_0804_small_block_mopar_engine/index.html HotRod mag]), only sours the article for the bulk of automotive article readership. in³ stands out in these articles as improper in much the same way that mi/h, mi/gal, and lb/in² would be improper to most of us in automotive contexts as well.


* [[Leslie Easterbrook]], [[Sid Haig]], [[Bill Moseley]] and [[Sheri Moon Zombie]] as the Firefly Family ([[Mother Firefly]], [[Captain Spaulding (Rob Zombie)|Captain Spaulding]], [[Otis B. Driftwood]] and [[Baby (Rob Zombie)|Baby]] respectively), ''[[The Devil's Rejects]]'' (Winner)
:::Scheinwerfermann, you asked me to contribute to this discussion as to why the "convention is in error, and" ... "provide valid reasons why CID should be the convention". If I've done anything, I've showed that the convention ''is'' in error and we should adopt a new way of abbreviating cubic inch. So if the consenus is between CID vs. in³... I'll be the first to vote for CID.
* [[Tobin Bell]] as [[Jigsaw Killer|Jigsaw]], ''[[Saw II]]''
* Sir [[Ian McKellen]] as [[Magneto (comics)|Magneto]], ''[[X-Men: The Last Stand]]''
* [[Cillian Murphy]] as [[Scarecrow (comics)|Scarecrow]], ''[[Batman Begins]]''
* [[Philippe Nahon]] as The Killer, ''[[Haute Tension|High Tension]]''


===Breakout Performance===
:::*CID >>> [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


* [[Jennifer Carpenter]] as [[Emily Rose]], ''[[The Exorcism of Emily Rose]]'' (Winner)
::::This whole thing with defining standards is a major reason why I've nominated certain templates for deletion already. Us as a WikiProject or individuals can not standardize something that already has standards or guidelines in place within Wikipedia as a whole. The proper abbreviation for cubic inch should absolutely never be "in³" as per [[WP:MOS]] nor should it really be "CID". It should be "cu in" with "cid" maybe being acceptable. Again, WP or individuals or Scheinwerfermann can not be overwriting Wikipedia standards. If some of these templates followed [[WP:MOS]] or {{tl|convert}} more closely, you'd hear a lot barking from me on these fronts. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 06:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
* [[Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje]] as [[Mr. Eko]], ''Lost''
* [[Tricia Helfer]] as [[Number Six (Battlestar Galactica)|Number Six]], ''[[Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)|Battlestar Galactica]]''
* [[Brandon Routh]] as [[Superman]], ''[[Superman Returns]]''
* [[Katee Sackhoff]] as [[Kara Thrace|Starbuck]], ''Battlestar Galactica''


===The "Holy Sh!t"/"Jump-From-Your-Seat" Award===
Per [[Wikipedia:MOS#SI_symbols_and_unit_abbreviations|MOS:SI symbols and unit abbreviations]]: "''Squared and cubic metric-symbols are '''always''' expressed with a superscript exponent (5 km<sup>2</sup>, 2 cm<sup>3</sup>); squared imperial and US unit abbreviations '''may''' be rendered with sq, and cubic with cu (15 sq mi, 3 cu ft).'' They keyword being "may." So, according to [[WP:MOS]], it appears to me that the preferred unit is expressed with a superscript exponent and an alternative for English units is written abbreviations.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 06:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


* The eye removal, ''[[Hostel (film)|Hostel]]'' (Winner)
:Yes, I stand corrected here, but there is still an MOS violation in these templates.
* Alien pods emerge from the Earth, ''[[War of the Worlds (2005 film)|War of the Worlds]]''
* Do not use the Unicode characters ''²'' and ''³'', but rather write <nowiki><sup>2</sup></nowiki> and <nowiki><sup>3</sup></nowiki> to produce the superscripts ''<sup>2</sup>'' and ''<sup>3</sup>''.
* The diner shootout, ''[[A History of Violence (film)|A History of Violence]]''
:Again, it's these small things that definitely get me hot because you ''know'' oversights like this absolutely do not happen with {{tl|convert}}. Again, I'm just looking for consistency. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
* The [[Space Shuttle]]/[[Boeing 777]] rescue, ''[[Superman Returns]]''
* The train sequence, ''[[Batman Begins]]''


===Best Rack on the Rack===
::Yes, you're right that it needs to be in superscript. I actually learned that just now when I was looking it up and am happy because it makes it easier to read and add. Definitely understand where you're coming from on consistency.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 06:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


* [[Vampirella]] (Winner)
::EDIT-Just changed the [[Template:Auto L]] and [[Template:Auto CID]] templates over to superscript, and for some reason it's still the same size as the unicode letters.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
* [[Emma Frost]]
* [[Lady Death]]
* [[Power Girl]]
* [[Wonder Woman]]


===Miscellaneous===
:::Did you clear ur cache, I think it is smaller now --&mdash; [[User:Typ932|<font face="Comic Sans MS Bold" size="1.9" color="blue">Typ932</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Typ932|<font color="#32CD32">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Typ932|<font color="#D3D3D3">C</font>]]</sup>&nbsp; 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


* The [[Comic-Con]] Icon Award went to [[Frank Miller (comics)|Frank Miller]].
::::'''Oilpanhands''', please let's tone down the accusations about who's running roughshod over what, because they really aren't productive. Let's all try to keep the discussion cool and rational, [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], and demonstrate genuine concern and action towards the betterment of the project. Onward and upward, please, eh? It's clear you don't like the in<sup>3</sup> convention, but your claim that it is "erroneous" just isn't correct, for in<sup>3</sup> is a valid, accurate abbreviation for "cubic inches". This is not a discussion of whether in<sup>3</sup> is a valid abbreviation for ''cubic inches''; it is, indisputably. This is a discussion of whether in<sup>3</sup> or CID is the preferable abbreviation for use in this project. So far — from my perspective, at least — you haven't engaged or addressed the reason why universal in<sup>3</sup> is superior to jargon CID. Continuing to argue without addressing that crucial point is not likely to gain much traction for your position.
* The Mastermind Award went to [[Robert Rodriguez]] and [[Quentin Tarantino]] for ''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''.
* The Scream Rock Immortal Award went to [[Ozzy Osbourne]].
::::'''Roguegeek''' and '''Flash176''', it looks like we're moving forward productively here with discussion and action on superscript vs. unicode; good catch on that. I've changed [[Template:Auto Lrev]] to superscript.—[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
* Rock groups [[KoЯn]], [[My Chemical Romance]] and [[Avenged Sevenfold]] performed.


==2007 Nominees/Winners==
I cleared my cache, history, etc. The superscript still isn't working for me in the two templates I changed, but the one Scheinwerfermann fixed works just fine. Does the 3 appear in superscript on [[Template:Auto L]] and [[Template:Auto CID]] to you guys? If so, then that's fine, I just want to make sure it's only my computer having this problem and not everyone.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
===The Ultimate Scream===
:I am definitely seeing superscripts in all three templates. I have often found that my browser (usually Firefox) will hang tenaciously onto an old template edit no matter how many times I clear or bypass the cache. I usually just toss the URL into another browser to see if the change has taken hold, and usually it has. Once I wait a day or so, my regular browser lets drop the old version and shows me the new version. I don't know why this is so, but it is. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
*''[[28 Weeks Later]]''
*''[[300 (film)|300]]'' (winner)
*''[[Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining)|Battlestar Galactica]]''
*''[[The Descent]]''
*''[[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)|Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix]]''
*''[[Heroes (TV series)|Heroes]]''
*''[[Pan's Labyrinth]]''
*''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End]]''
*''[[Spider-Man 3]]''
*''[[Transformers (film)|Transformers]]''


===Best Horror movie===
::Ok, thanks for the tip. I wanted to make sure it was just me before I edited the templates anymore, but since I'm using Firefox, I guess I'm good to go.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
*''[[28 Weeks Later]]'' (winner)
*''[[1408 (film)|1408]]''
*''[[The Descent]]''
*''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''
*''[[The Host (film)|The Host]]''
*''[[Hostel Part II]]''


===Best Fantasy movie===
:::[[WP:PURGE]] '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 04:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*''[[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)|Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix]]''
*''[[Pan's Labyrinth]]'' (winner)
*''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End]]''
*''[[Spider-Man 3]]''
*''[[Stardust (2007 film)|Stardust]]''


===Best Science Fiction movie===
::::Scheinwerfermann, read my post again, please. At no point did I accuse you (or anyone) of anything. I was replying to your post above that one as completely as I could and I certainly didn't think that I was coming across as hot-headed in my tone as your most recent posting implys.
*''[[Children of Men]]''
*''[[The Fountain]]''
*''[[The Prestige (film)|The Prestige]]''
*''[[Sunshine (2007 film)|Sunshine]]''
*''[[Transformers (film)|Transformers]]'' (winner)


===Best TV Show===
::::Any physics professor will tell you, the abbreviation in3 is a valid abbreviation for cubic inches, but is it the most common abbreviation and is it appropriate for use in automotive writings? My main point is that in3 maybe fine for your physics report, but as I've shown above, six different ways to Sunday, that in3 is not used in automotive writings.
*''[[Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining)|Battlestar Galactica]]''
*''[[Doctor Who]]''
*''[[Heroes (TV series)|Heroes]]'' (winner)
*''[[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]''
*''[[Masters of Horror]]''


===Best Sequel===
::::Now is in³ the most common abbreviation for cubic inches? No, it is not. The most common and most universal abbreviation, indisputably, without a doubt is "cu in". Just for fun, check out these google searches [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=wmO&q=351+in%C2%B3&btnG=Search 351 in³] vs. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=bSj&q=351+cu+in&btnG=Search 351 cu in]. The automatic google converter doesn't even recogise in3 (it tries to convert it as inches), but it does recogise and convert cu&nbsp;in to 5.75...litres. Also, compare the hits: 2,750 for in3 vs. 6.6 million. And guess what? As demonstrated by me, automotive literature uses this abbreviation.
*''[[28 Weeks Later]]''
*''[[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)|Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix]]''(winner)
*''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End]]''
*''[[Saw III]]''
*''[[Spider-Man 3]]''


===Best Superhero===
::::You ask me to explain why CID is better for ''this project'' over in3. This is the automotive project and it does appear that this project has a writing style guide that sometimes contradicts the main style guide that flash176 and roguegeek linked to (using cc and no commas in numbers). So I would think that the ''automotive way'' of abbreviating cubic inch displacement would be warranted and appropriate for this project. And the argument that an article should be written for the clueless just lowers the quality of the whole article. I can't imagine that someone would be so clueless as to not know what is meant by CID in an automotive context, especially considering that every time that they read it, it is accompanied by either cc or litre conversions-- 392 CID (6,420 cc).
*[[Michael Chiklis]] as [[Thing (comics)|The Thing]], ''[[Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer]]''
*[[Chris Evans (actor)|Chris Evans]] as [[Human Torch]], ''[[Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer]]''
*[[Tobey Maguire]] as [[Spider-Man]], ''[[Spider-Man 3]]'' (winner)
*[[Masi Oka]] as [[Hiro Nakamura]], ''[[Heroes (TV series)|Heroes]]''
*[[Milo Ventimiglia]] as [[Peter Petrelli]], ''[[Heroes (TV series)|Heroes]]''


===Best Comic-to-Screen adaptation===
::::I think I've made it perfectly clear that in3 is a very poor choice for automotive writings and should not be used. That leaves us with the choice of most common abbreviation: "cu&nbsp;in" and the most automotive appropriate: "CID"! While I prefer "CID" in automotive contexts over "cu&nbsp;in", at least I can formulate an argument for using "cu&nbsp;in" in automotive writings. I can not do the same with in3. [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 04:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*''[[300 (film)|300]]'' (winner)
*''[[Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer]]''
*''[[Ghost Rider (film)|Ghost Rider]]''
*''[[Spider-Man 3]]''
*''[[TMNT (film)|TMNT]]''


===Scream Queen===
"''Just for fun, check out these google searches [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=wmO&q=351+in%C2%B3&btnG=Search 351 in³] vs. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=bSj&q=351+cu+in&btnG=Search 351 cu in]. The automatic google converter doesn't even recogise in3 (it tries to convert it as inches), but it does recogise and convert cu&nbsp;in to 5.75...litres.''"
*[[Kate Beckinsale]], ''[[Vacancy (film)|Vacancy]]''(winner)
*[[Rosario Dawson]], ''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''
*[[Jordana Brewster]], ''[[The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning]]''
*[[Bijou Phillips]], ''[[Hostel Part II]]''
*[[Rose McGowan]] ''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''
*[[Mary Elizabeth Winstead]], ''[[Black Christmas (2006 film)|Black Christmas]]''


===Scream King===
That's because computers don't see text/numbers the way we do. You have to enter it as [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=351+%22in^3%22&btnG=Search 351 in^3].
*[[John Cusack]], ''[[1408 (film)|1408]]''
*[[Samuel L. Jackson]], ''[[Snakes on a Plane]]''
*[[Shia LaBeouf]], ''[[Disturbia]]'' (winner)
*[[Angus Macfadyen]], ''[[Saw III]]''
*[[Freddy Rodriguez]], ''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''
*[[Luke Wilson]], ''[[Vacancy (film)|Vacancy]]''


===Most Vile Villain===
"''I can't imagine that someone would be so clueless as to not know what is meant by CID in an automotive context, especially considering that every time that they read it, it is accompanied by either cc or litre conversions-- 392 CID (6,420 cc).''"
*[[Sergi Lopez]] as Captain Vidal, ''[[Pan's Labyrinth]]''
*[[Michelle Pfeiffer]], ''[[Stardust (2007 film)|Stardust]]''
*[[Zachary Quinto]] as [[Sylar|Gabriel Gray/Sylar]], ''[[Heroes (TV series)|Heroes]]''
*[[Kurt Russell]] as Stuntman Mike, ''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''
*[[Rodrigo Santoro]] as [[Xerxes]], ''[[300 (film)|300]]''
*[[Tobin Bell]] & [[Shawnee Smith]] as [[Jigsaw Killer]], ''[[Saw III]]''
*[[Thomas Haden Church]] as [[Sandman (Marvel Comics)|Sandman]], ''[[Spider-Man 3]]''
*[[Topher Grace]] as [[Venom (Eddie Brock)|Venom]], ''[[Spider-Man 3]]''
*[[Ralph Fiennes]] as [[Lord Voldemort]], ''[[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)|Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix]]''(winner)
=== Most Memorable Mutilation===
*Battle vs. the Immortals, ''[[300 (film)|300]]''
*Cranial surgery, ''[[Saw III]]''
*Dismembered in car crash, ''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''(winner)
*Eaten alive by cannibal, ''[[Hostel Part II]]''
*Mouth sliced open and sewn back together, ''[[Pan's Labyrinth]]''


===Breakout Performance===
Then you've never been around mechanically-challenged people. Unfortunately, tons of people don't have the first clue about cars and *might* make the jump that CID would equal engine size, but those who don't know anything about cars (and I'm guessing a significant percentage of these articles' readers) will have no idea what CID stands for. Whereas in<sup>3</sup> is a basic unit that students are taught early in grade school and anyone should be able to recognize and understand it. Just like L for liters.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*[[Claire-Hope Ashitey]], ''[[Children of Men]]''
:'''Oilpanhands''', I'm asking you again to please [[WP:CIVIL|mind your tone]]. You are being strident, shrill, and insistent. That's not a good strategy to [[How to Win Friends and Influence People|win friends and influence people]]. Please read over this thread and pay attention to the difference between your tone and that of the other participants in the discussion. And let's please use the actual abbreviations we're discussing. Nobody's proposed using '''in3'''; the discussion is whether to use '''''CID''''' or '''''in<sup>3</sup>'''''.—[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*[[Zoe Bell]], ''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''
*[[Megan Fox]], ''[[Transformers (film)|Transformers]]''
*[[Lauren German]], ''[[Hostel Part II]]''
*[[Shauna MacDonald]], ''[[The Descent]]''
*[[Hayden Panettiere]], ''[[Heroes (TV series)|Heroes]]''(winner)
*[[Rodrigo Santoro]], ''[[300 (film)|300]]''


==="Jump-From-Your-Seat" Scene of the Year===
::Fact: "CID, cid, cu in" are the common abbreviations for cubic inch (displacement) in automotive writing.
*Attack of the Uber Immortal, ''[[300 (film)|300]]''
::Fact: Not everyone knows what "CID" stands for ("cu in" seems like a basic unit to me, however; I think I've seen far more "cu in" in grade school than "in³".).
*Final battle: [[Megatron]] vs. [[Optimus Prime]], ''[[Transformers (film)|Transformers]]'' (winner)
*Mid-Air battle: Spider-Man vs. [[Harry Osborn|The New Goblin]], ''[[Spider-Man 3]]''
*The rain of arrows, ''[[300 (film)|300]]''
*Zombie attacks glass window, ''[[28 Weeks Later]]''


===Miscellaneous===
::Why not add a parameter to the Auto CID template that, for the first occurrence of the unit, will link the reader to [[cubic inch displacement]]? That way, not only will it follow the format of automotive writing, it will inform a reader who doesn't know what it means. That way, when they click on a reference or an external link and see "CID," they'll know what it means. --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
* The [[Comic-Con]] Icon Award went to [[Neil Gaiman]].
* The Hero Award went to [[Harrison Ford]].
* The Scream Rock Immortal Award went to [[Alice Cooper]].
* Performances included Avenged Sevenfold and the collaboration of [[Alice Cooper]], [[Rob Zombie]] and [[Slash (musician)|Slash]].
<!---if anybody wants to complete:
BEST COMIC BOOK
*''[[30 Days of Night]]''
*ALL-STAR SUPERMAN
*THE BOYS
*''[[Ultimate Fantastic Four]]''
*''[[Y: The Last Man]]''


SEXIEST SUPERHERO
:::'''Scheinwerfermann''', it was ''you'' who asked me to come here and explain the reasons why the in<sup>3</sup> should be changed. I did so and I even thanked you for pointing me to this discussion. Then, you replied to them by saying that I appeared to be arguing in bad faith, being disingenuous and bulldoze conventions. To which, I replied to that in a civil tone and explained how I wasn't and why I used more examples from Ford and I even provided two more examples from more reliable sources to off-set some of the less reliable sources. Then, you come back with this "''tone down the accusations about who's running roughshod over what, because they really aren't productive. Let's all try to keep the discussion cool and rational''" stuff. Which left me puzzled? I replied to that and I get more of the same from you. Shrill...no. Strident and insistent...that in<sup>3</sup> is incorrect in this usage. Yes and I've given plenty reasons why. Am I insistent that my preferred method of CID in automotive writings be used? No, not necessarily, I think I've made a pretty good argument '''for using cu&nbsp;in''' as it is the most common abbreviation and it's used in automotive literature. Sir, I think that you were angry with me long before I ever typed a word on this page and you've let that angry come through by constantly saying that I am not using a civil tone, which just isn't true. It is your tone that has been different from everyone. Also, using in3 was a typographical error on my part--I forgot the sup modifiers. [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 18:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*JESSICA ALBA, ''[[Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer]]''
|}
*ALI LARTER, ''[[Heroes (TV series)|Heroes]]''
*HAYDEN PANETTIERE AS CLAIRE BENNET, ''[[Heroes (TV series)|Heroes]]''


FANTASY FOX
{| class="collapsible collapsed" width=100%
*JESSICA BIEL, ''[[The Illusionist]]''
!Sept 26 section break
*KIRSTEN DUNST, ''[[Spider-Man 3]]''
|-
*LENA HEADEY, ''[[300 (film)|300]]''
|
*KEIRA KNIGHTLEY, ''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: At World'sEnd]]''
This conversation is slowly losing its control and direction. Let's find some consensus here soon since it is such an important and widely used measurement on the vast majority of automotive related articles. Vote anyone? I'll go first. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*EVANGELINE LILLY, ''[[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]''
*EVA MENDES, ''[[Ghost Rider (film)|Ghost Rider]]''
*SIENNA MILLER, ''[[Stardust (2007 film)|Stardust]]''


FANTASY HERO
*'''CID''' '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*GERARD BUTLER, ''[[300 (film)|300]]''
*'''CID''', with my compromise (of sorts) above. --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*JOHNNY DEPP, ''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: At World'sEnd]]''
*'''CID''' [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 03:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
*MATTHEW FOX, ''[[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]''
*EDWARD NORTON, ‘’[[The Illusionist]]''
*DANIEL RADCLIFFE, ''[[''[[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)|Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix]]''


SCI-FI SIREN
:'''Roguegeek''', are you trying to poll for a decision or just trying to figure out where everyone stands? If it's the latter, I don't have a problem with that, but if the former, please remember that [[Wikipedia:!VOTE#Policy_and_guidelines|Wikipedia isn't a democracy]] and polls are not binding. That said, I still prefer:
*CLARE-HOPE ASHITEY, ''[[Children of Men]]''
*MEGAN FOX, ''[[Transformers (film)|Transformers]]''
*SCARLETT JOHANSSON, ''[[The Prestige (film)|The Presige]]''
*KATEE SACKHOFF, ''[[Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining)|Battlestar Galactica]]''
*RACHEL WEISZ, ''[[The Fountain]]''


SCI-FI STAR
*'''in<sup>3</sup>'''--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 03:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
*CHRISTIAN BALE, ''[[The Prestige (film)|The Presige]]''
::Yup, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&diff=237510944&oldid=237467420 I am aware] of this. Considering the discussion collapsed above, I'm polling to see a comprehensive list of where everyone stands. Again, it's pretty important to come to a consensus quickly on this one. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 07:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
*[[Hugh Jackman]], ''[[The Fountain]]''
:::Gotcha. Figured it was such, just making sure. :) And yes, we do need to come to a consensus as soon as possible.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 08:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
*[[Shia LaBeouf]], ''[[Transformers (film)|Transformers]]''
*CILLIAN MURPHY, ''[[Sunshine (2007 film)|Sunshine]]''
*CLIVE OWEN, ''[[Children of Men]]''


BEST CAMEO
*'''in<sup>3</sup>''' —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 04:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
*DAVID BOWIE, ''[[The Prestige (film)|The Presige]]''
*'''in<sup>3</sup>''' - [[User:PrinceGloria|PrinceGloria]] ([[User talk:PrinceGloria|talk]]) 05:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC) (I never really voiced my opinion here, but from a layman's view that's preferable)
*JAY HERNANDEZ, ''[[Hostel Part II]]''
*'''in<sup>3</sup>''' - --&mdash; [[User:Typ932|<font face="Comic Sans MS Bold" size="1.9" color="blue">Typ932</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Typ932|<font color="#32CD32">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Typ932|<font color="#D3D3D3">C</font>]]</sup>&nbsp; 07:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
*KEITH RICHARDS, ''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: At World'sEnd]]''
*'''in<sup>3</sup>''' <small>[[User:OSX|OSX]] ([[User talk:OSX|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OSX|contributions]])</small> 08:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
*QUENTIN TARANTINO, ''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''
*BRUCE WILLIS, ''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''


BEST DIRECTOR
I'm really quite surprised by how many editors like '''in<sup>3</sup>'''. Just doing a simple Google search yields the following results:
*MICHAEL BAY, ''[[Transformers (film)|Transformers]]''
*"350 cu in" - [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="350+cu+in" 24,800 results]
*DANNY BOYLE, ''[[Sunshine (2007 film)|Sunshine]]''
*"350 CID" - [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="350+CID" 130,000 results]
*ALFONSO CUARON, ''[[Children of Men]]''
*"350 in<sup>3</sup>" - [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="350+in³" 2,600 results]
*GUILLERMO DEL TORO, ''[[Pan's Labyrinth]]''
I know this isn't the perfect way to survey something like this, but I would think it's still a fairly decent way to determine what the popular conventions would be. Thoughts? '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 09:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
*NEIL MARSHALL, ''[[The Descent]]''
|}
*ELI ROTH, ''[[Hostel Part II]]''
*ZACK SNYDER, ''[[300 (film)|300]]''
*SAM RAIMI, ''[[Spider-Man 3]]''
*QUENTIN TARANTINO & ROBERT RODRIGUEZ, ''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]''


BEST SCREAM-PLAY
{| class="collapsible collapsed" width=100%
*''[[300 (film)|300]]'', WRITTEN BY ZACK SNYDER & KURT JOHNSTAD
!Solution that might satisfy both needs
*''[[Children of Men]]'', WRITTEN BY ALFONSO CUARON, TIMOTHY J. SEXTON, DAVID
|-
ARATA, MARK FERGUS & HAWK OSTBY
|
*''[[Grindhouse (film)|Grindhouse]]'', WRITTEN BY ROBERT RODRIGUEZ, QUENTIN TARANTINO, JEFF
Fact: "CID, cid, cu in" are the common abbreviations for cubic inch (displacement) in automotive writing.
RENDELL, ELI ROTH, EDGAR WRIGHT & ROB ZOMBIE
Fact: Not everyone knows what "CID" stands for ("cu in" seems like a basic unit to me, however; I think I've seen far more "cu in" in grade school than "in³".).
*''[[The Descent]]'', WRITTEN BY NEIL MARSHALL
*''[[Pan's Labyrinth]]'', WRITTEN BY GUILLERMO DEL TORO
*''[[Sunshine (2007 film)|Sunshine]]'', WRITTEN BY ALEX GARLAND


BEST F/X
Why not add a <code>link=yes</code> parameter to the Auto CID template that, when needed, will link the reader to [[cubic inch displacement]]? After all, if someone clicks on an external link or a reference they'll likely see "CID." If they don't know what it means, there's confusion. Looking at it from that perspective I'd say it makes the most sense to follow the style of automotive writing, and add a wikilink so those who don't understand it can learn. We do that with engine configurations, drivetrain layouts, etc, so why not with this? --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
*''[[300 (film)|300]]''
:I don't necessarily dislike or reject the idea, but I don't agree that it satisfies "both needs", and I regard it as inferior to the present in<sup>3</sup> convention. This is primarily for reasons of simplicity; '''in<sup>3</sup>''' is a basic, universally-understood unit abbreviation requiring no explanation, no linking, no elucidation of any kind. '''CID''' is a jargon term that ''does'' require elucidation by means of a link or parenthetical note. I think that in itself is a compelling reason to stick with the simpler, self-explanatory '''in<sup>3</sup>''', and it is on that basis I am support '''in<sup>3</sup>'''.
*''[[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)|Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix] (film)|]]''
:It also seems to me that enabling this flag would call for more work on the part of editors building articles — who must use the flag when inserting the relevant template — and additional work for those editors who will have to insert the (missing) flag as part of cleanup efforts in the many articles with no linked instances of '''CID'''. This is really just another aspect of the simplicity factor: do we keep the current convention which requires only one simple instruction ("We use '''in<sup>3</sup>'''") and permits uniform use of all applicable templates, or do we adopt a new convention which requires more complex instructions ("We use '''CID''', and we link the first instance per article or section depending on article length and individual editor philosophy on how often to link, and then we deal with the resultant edit wars and talk-page squabbles when a once-per-article and a once-per-instance editor clash") as well as calling for more complicated template usage ("don't forget to set the link flag the first time you use the template, but not on subsequent uses")?
*''[[Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End]]''
:With that on the table, I don't see this as a life-or-death matter, and I'm interested to know whether the <code>link=yes</code> flag could be easily integrated into ''all'' of the '''Auto''' and '''Convert''' templates used for engine displacement without causing new problems. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 22:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
*''[[Spider-Man 3]]''
::To me, the entire point of auto templates is for simplicity, so I'm against creating more modifiers for it. That's pretty much what convert is for. I am a little confused as to to the rationale used here, though. Ok, I understand CID is a measurement use almost exclusively in the auto industry and, therefore, would need some explanation linked to it. If that's the reason not to use it, it's inconsistent to why ''lb•ft'' was used over ''ft·lbf'' since ''lb•ft'' is almost exclusively used in the auto industry and ''ft•lbf'' is the more universally accepted term for torque. Could you clarify the reason for the discrepancy? Again, it's these little inconsistencies that I really have a problem with. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 00:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
*''[[Transformers (film)|Transformers]]''
:::I disagree with the premise of your question; I think you'd have a difficult time backing your statement that ft·lb is more universally accepted than lb·ft. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I did some reading and found this passage regarding displine specific units of measurement in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNITS#Units_of_measurement MOS]:


BEST FOREIGN MOVIE
:::::''Since some disciplines use units not approved by the BIPM, or may format them in a way that differs from BIPM-prescribed format, when such units are used by a clear majority of the sources relevant to those disciplines, articles should follow this (e.g., using cc in automotive articles and not cm<sup>3</sup>). Such use of non-standard units are always linked on first use.''
*CELLO (SOUTH KOREA)
*DEATH NOTE (JAPAN)
*''[[The Host (film)|The Host]]''(SOUTH KOREA)
*INITIAL D (HONG KONG)
*''[[Pan's Labyrinth]]''(SPAIN)


BEST COMIC BOOK WRITER
::::This would fall inline with what we've been saying about the relevant sources not using in<sup>3</sup> and ft·lbf. We can use CID and lb·ft because they are what are used in automotive literature. And as Sable and the MOS stated, they are always linked on first use. Therefore, Sable232's solution is reasonable to all. [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 03:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
*BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS, [[Civil War (comics)|Civil War]]: THE INITIATIVE/DAREDEVIL/NEW AVENGERS
'''Oilpanhands''', I'm glad to see you're making an effort to engage in this conversation in a less combative, less strident manner. However, your assertion "Sable232's solution is reasonable to all" is inappropriate; it is not for you to presume to speak for others. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 04:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
*GARTH ENNIS, PUNISHER: MAX/THE BOYS/[[Ghost Rider]] /CHRONICLES OF
:'''Scheinwerfermann'''. The manner in which you conduct yourself toward me is amazing! You're amazing! You really are! You must be a lawyer or politician in the real world. Is anyone else seeing this? [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
WORMWOOD/MIDNIGHTER
::I'm neither a politician nor a lawyer, but our respective professions IRL aren't relevant to our activities here on Wikipedia. All it would take to look coöperative instead would be a minor change to how you phrase things. Something like "the proposal seems reasonable to me" would've been fine, but when you assert that something is "reasonable to all", that's presumptive and verges on implied [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]]. Let's all please keep some perspective in mind: each of us is smart enough to operate a computer and gravitate towards an encyclopædia; none of us is dumb, we just have differing opinions. This isn't the forum for a shouting match or catfight; that won't resolve the question at hand. At the moment it looks like there's no consensus to change the convention from '''in<sup>3</sup>''' to '''CID''', and that may remain the case for now. These kinds of things work like that sometimes. Or, consensus may develop to change to '''CID''', or to do something else. Harranguing and presuming won't move the ball in any useful direction.
*FRANK MILLER, ALL-STAR BATMAN & ROBIN, THE BOY WONDER/FRANK MILLER'S
ROBOCOP
*ALAN MOORE, ''[[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]''GIRLS/YUGGOTH CULTURES
*BRIAN K. VAUGHN, EX MACHINA/RUNAWAYS/''[[Y: The Last Man]]''


BEST COMIC BOOK ARTIST
::You've quoted a completely relevant portion of the [[WP:MOS|MOS]], but take note of the word '''''may''''' (not "shall" or "will" or "must"). That means Sable232's proposal would comply with MOS provisions if that's the way consensus develops, but we are not ''required'' to adopt Sable232's proposal. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 15:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
*JOHN CASSADY, ASTONISHING X-MEN
*DARWYN COOK, THE SPIRIT
*PIA GUERRA, ''[[Y: The Last Man]]''
*STEVE MCNIVEN, [[Civil War (comics)|Civil War]]
*BEN TEMPLESMITH, WORMWOOD: GENTLEMAN CORPSE/FELL


BEST SCREEN-TO-COMIC ADAPTATION
:::'''Scheinwerfermann''', Oilpanhands did some good research and found info that directly pertains to the issue we're discussing. Please remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and try to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Now in dealing with the inconsistencies I'm finding in the torque and displacement discussions, here's my issue. In reading the discussion below on torque values, lb•ft is widely used in the automotive industry and it is for that reason that we're going with it. That same rationale should be used here. CID or cu&nbsp;in is the ''more widely used'' term and it is for that reason, we should be going with them instead of in<sup>3</sup>. These are the only two options I see us going with:
*28 DAYS LATER: THE AFTERMATH
::::1. '''CID''' ''(or '''cu in''')'' and '''lb•ft'''
*ARMY OF DARKNESS
::::2. '''in<sup>3</sup>''' and '''ft•lbf'''
*FRANK MILLER'S ROBOCOP
:::Any other mixture and the rationale is inconsistent. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
*GEORGE A. ROMERO'S NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD:
BACK FROM THE GRAVE
*THE HILLS HAVE EYES: THE BEGINNING


MOST SHOCKING COMIC BOOK TWIST
I'm leaning towards putting in a [[WP:RFC]] right now to open up this discussion to a whole lot of non-automotive editors. Thoughts? '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
* ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND DOROTHY FROM OZ HAVE LESBIAN SEX!, LOST GIRLS
*CAPTAIN AMERICA DIES!, CAPTAIN AMERICA
*PETER PARKER REVEALS THAT HE IS SPIDERMAN!, [[Civil War (comics)|Civil War]]
*SABRE-TOOTH IS BEHEADED BY WOLVERINE!, WOLVERINE
*SUPERMAN KAL-EL IS KILLED BY SUPERBOY-PRIME!, INFINITE CRISIS
--->


==External links==
:No, the rationale isn't inconsistent. '''Ft•lbf''' isn't a valid automotive unit and not immediately recognizable; '''in<sup>3</sup>''', '''CID''', '''cu in''', and '''lb•ft''' are. '''Ft•lbf''' was confusing to me when I first saw it, as I'm sure it would be to many readers from (North) America. We're contending that '''CID''' could cause the same problem.
*[http://www.spike.com/network/spike Spike Official site]


[[Category:Comics awards]]
:As for bringing in other editors, I'm not sure. Part of me says it would be beneficial to have people with a fresh perspective, but the other side wonders if they would really be much help if they're not familiar with the subject matter.
[[Category:American film awards]]
[[Category:Media science fiction awards]]
[[Category:American television awards]]
[[Category:Horror awards]]
[[Category:Awards established in 2006]]


[[de:Scream Award]]
:I also have a question. If we fail to reach a consensus about changing a convention, shouldn't it stay as it is, not be argued about until enough people can be found who want to change it? I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do, Roguegeek, I'm only asking because I'm far from an expert in Wikipedia.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
|}

{| class="collapsible collapsed" width=100%
!1 October
|-
|
I'm happy we're not using ft•lbf. lb•ft is a much more common term in the industry. This being the case, I'm very puzzled as to why '''cu in''' or '''CID''' is being rejected here in favor of '''in<sup>3</sup>'''. We chose to use lb•ft because it's a common abbreviation for [[foot-pound force]] ''and'' is widely used in the auto industry. Makes complete sense. Reapplying this same rationale and I have this. I choose to use '''cu in''' because it's a common abbreviation for [[cubic inch]] (as per that article) ''and'' is widely used in the auto industry. The same could be said for CID since the [[cubic inch]] article clearly states this is an acceptable unit. So with that rationale reapplied to '''in<sup>3</sup>''', I have this. Although '''in<sup>3</sup>''' is a common abbreviation for [[cubic inch]], it is not a widely used abbreviation in the auto industry and, therefore, do not choose to use it. Am I missing something? Do I have to draw it out? Ok, I will.
:{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !!in<sup>3</sup> !!cu&nbsp;in !!CID
|-
!common universal abbr. ||yes ||yes ||yes
|-
!common auto abbr. ||no ||yes ||yes
|}
And yes Flash, it shouldn't change if a consensus can't be reached. Also keep in mind I'm not the person that started this conversation by any means and I'm definitely not the only one thinking this needs to get changed. Ultimately, I think there aren't enough editors looking at this issue right now and I don't think they need to be automotive related to understand it. If we find we can't reach a consensus, I think the only way we can deal with it is putting in the [[WP:RFC]]. Thoughts? '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:'''Roguegeek''', I'm sorry you disagree with my position, but please don't let that colour your perceptions, eh? If you'll please review the whole thread, you'll see I have never questioned '''Oilpanhands'''' faith, only his tone, and that even when I object to his tone, I have carefully avoided [[WP:NPA|attacking]] him personally. I disagree with his position, but I stand up for his right to it, and in fact I'm the one who pointed him here to join the consensus-building process, and I did so ''knowing'' he and I disagree. Moreover, just earlier today — as you can see — I specifically stated that he'd read and cited a wholly relevant section of [[WP:MOS]], and agreed that it clears the way for using '''CID''' if consensus develops to do so. I would scarcely call that incivility or assuming bad faith; that's ''affirming'' his research and his participation in this discussion, not dismissing it.

:I agree with '''Flash176''' regarding your assertion that if we retain '''in<sup>3</sup>''', we must also use '''ft·lbf'''. I wrote about the difference between the two decisions close to the beginning of this thread; please review. Of course you may disagree with me — that's anyone's prerogative — but I just don't see any basis for tying '''CID''' vs. '''in<sup>3</sup>''' to '''lb·ft''' vs. '''ft·lbf'''. Remember, the MOS says we ''may'' use subject-specific unit abbreviations, not that we ''must'' or ''mustn't'' do so, and '''lb·ft''' isn't jargon (unlike '''CID''').

:I see benefits and drawbacks to an [[WP:RFC|RFC]] here. It'll certainly bring more eyes and more viewpoints! On the other hand, is it necessarily a good thing to allow "a whole lot of non-automotive editors" (as you say) to determine consensus on an aspect of the automobile project? We may want to look (and maybe [[WP:TEA|sit and have a cup of tea]]) before we leap. I don't see this as a battle royal with deep, wide, or dire implications to the quality of the automotive project. If we change to '''CID''', the sun will still rise in the East the next morning in my world and I'll happily carry on editing alongside you all. That's a long way of saying there are probably more pressing issues than this one. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::'''Roguegeek''', when did '''cu in''' become a third choice? I thought we were arguing '''in<sup>3</sup>''' vs '''CID'''? If we're considering cu in, I'll have to take some time to think about it because, to me, it and in<sup>3</sup> have similar qualities. Also, your table says that '''CID''' is a common universal abbreviation, as opposed to just being automotive related. Where have you seen CID used that wasn't in relation to engines?--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 01:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Scheinwerfermann, when I mentioned what I did about the RFC above, I meant I'm looking for a larger group of unbiased editors to weigh in on the subject. From what I see, there's only a handful of editor that are about to choose an abbreviation that appears in a very large amount of articles. I think the responsibility of this goes beyond the 5 or so active editors here. Who knows, maybe everyone does agree with '''in<sup>3</sup>'''. At least then there will be a clear consensus which is something that I don't think is possible right now. Furthermore, it will allow me, personally, to see many different viewpoint for in<sup3</sup> where, right now, I'm only seeing one.

:::Flash176, I see '''cu&nbsp;in''' being mentioned several times during this discussion, although it isn't mentioned in the title, so I can see where the confusion comes from. For me, if it's a choice between any abbreviation for [[cubic inch]], it should be '''cu&nbsp;in'''. It very much an appropriate abbreviation for cubic inch and is very much widely used in the industry as well which was what I was attempting to show above. ''("350 cu in" shows [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="350+cu+in" 24,800 results], "350 CID" shows [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="350+CID" 130,000 results], "350 in<sup>3</sup>" shows [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="350+in³" 2,600 results])'' Is this an abbreviation both you and Scheinwerfermann would be more inclined to use over CID? How about over in<sup>3</sup>? Thoughts? '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I know that you asked these questions of Roguegeek, but if I may interject some comments.

::::I think, I introduced '''cu&nbsp;in''' to show that it is much more common in everyday life than in<sup>3</sup> and that '''cu&nbsp;in''' is used in some automotive writings, whereas in<sup>3</sup> is not. My argument above was that in<sup>3</sup> is not appropriate in these articles, in the same manner that mi/hr, lb/in<sup>2</sup>, mi/gal, or rev/min are not appropriate. CID tends to be used when cubic inches are actually being displaced, such as in an engine or small hydraulic pumps ([http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/WhiteDriveProducts/Variable_Displacement_Hydraulic_Axial_Piston_Pumps/43433/0], [http://www.thomasnet.com/heading.html?cov=NA&what=CID+displacement+pump&heading=64590409&searchpos=22&cid=122453&navsec=products], [http://www.bostonweatherhead.com/products/pdfs/E-PUPI-MC003-E.pdf], [http://www.kudupump.com/Content/CoalBedMethane/PCPSystemsforUnconventionalGas.pdf], [http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/OurCompany/NewsandEvents/NewsList/CT_135676]) as opposed to an electrical box's volume ([http://www.smarthome.com/25402/Two-Gang-Deep-Wall-Box-34-6-Cubic-Inches/p.aspx]). I think, given the subject matter, CID would be the best choice for engines. Back to work I go... [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Roguegeek, since cu in was always mentioned with other examples, I thought it was just that, an example of how we could write it, not a suggested alternative, but that's neither here nor there. You never did answer my question about saying CID is a common universal abbreviation and where you've seen it outside of automotive/engine writings?

For me, the jury's still out on cu in vs. in<sup>3</sup>. I honestly believe part of the reason we don't see in<sup>3</sup> more is because it's so hard to replicate on a computer, so writers tend to use something easier to write out. I'm also still considering your proposal for [[WP:RFC]] and am currently leaning towards it.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
|}

===cu&nbsp;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&nbsp;in over CID since it's a common abbreviation for general volume and engine displacement. Out of in<sup>3</sup>, CID, and cu&nbsp;in, '''cu&nbsp;in''' is the ''only'' abbreviation that is common for both general volume and engine displacement. Thoughts? '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 18:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yep, while stuck in traffic this afternoon I found myself coming to your same point of view. '''cu&nbsp;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&nbsp;in''' bridges the gap between the benefits and drawbacks of '''in<sup>3</sup>''' and those of '''CID''', and so I would support a convention change to use '''cu&nbsp;in'''. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Very cool. I'd like to hear some of the other editor's chime in on looking at '''cu&nbsp;in''' as a possible abbreviation for [[cubic inch]] it would seem to fulfill both general volume and engine displacement. Thoughts? '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::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 in<sup>3</sup>.'' I still feel that in automotive articles CID is the most appropriate, however, '''{{nowrap|cu&thinsp;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?

:::{| class="wikitable"
|-
! [[Thin_space_character|Thin spaced]] !! &amp;nbsp;
|-
||191 {{nowrap|cu&thinsp;in}} (3136&nbsp;cc) ||191 cu&nbsp;in (3136&nbsp;cc)

|}

:::[[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 04:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I agree, let's go with '''cu in'''. I think it's a good compromise. IMO, thin space is a little bit better.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 06:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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 [[WP:MOSNUM|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 [[Template talk:Convert#Output with no comma?|here]]. Let's see if we have true consensus for ''cu&nbsp;in'' and not get unnecessarily fiddly with special spaces, eh? —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

: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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 15:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::The thin space can be placed within the nobreak/no wrap template <nowiki>{{nowrap|cu&amp;thinsp;in}}</nowiki>, but is the extra work worth it? Maybe not, but it might be on a template level like {{tl|Auto CID}}. As I stated, just something to think about. [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::No, I don't think it's worth the extra effort just to make the space like 1 or 2 pixels narrower.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 20:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::::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. --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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... [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 01:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:I pulled the trigger. [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::I corrected your ''&amp;thinsp;'' to ''&amp;nbsp;'' 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&nbsp;in rather than in<sup>3</sup>. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

===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&nbsp;L (althougth the real displacement was closer to 4.9&nbsp;L). And as shown by this example, sometimes the name of the engine differs from the volume being displaced. [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
: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&nbsp;cc --> 4.9&nbsp;litres. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::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&nbsp;cc should be used and not 4942&nbsp;cc (302&nbsp;cu&nbsp;in). A more up-to-date example would be "the vortec 5.3&nbsp;L has a displacement of 5328&nbsp;cc (325&nbsp;cu&nbsp;in)..." My take on the passage is that it prohibits the (325&nbsp;cu&nbsp;in) for some reason. [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 18:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::'''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&nbsp;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? —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 18:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Inappropriate--that's debatable. We have to look at who says it's inappropriate. A rule on wikipedia or [http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2009/Spec%20Sheet/Gen%20IV/2009%20Gen%20IV%20Truck/09_LH8_n.xls General Motors], [http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/hummer/h3/2009_hummer_h3t+tab-specs.html Car & Drive], and [http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=132572/pageId=149283 Edmunds]? Sources favour the use. Therefore, the convention seems ill conceived. [[User:Oilpanhands|Oilpanhands]] ([[User talk:Oilpanhands|talk]]) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== 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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 00:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

: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]]. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::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. --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

:::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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 01:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I also had never seen ft-lbf until I read it on Wikipedia. [http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/2009_aston_dbs_dp.pdf Road & Track uses lb-ft]. <font color="#9eee00">[[User:Swaq|swa]]</font><font color="#009eee">[[User talk:Swaq|q]]</font> 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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?--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
: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 --&mdash; [[User:Typ932|<font face="Comic Sans MS Bold" size="1.9" color="blue">Typ932</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Typ932|<font color="#32CD32">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Typ932|<font color="#D3D3D3">C</font>]]</sup>&nbsp; 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

::'''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 {{Auto CID|170}} slant-6 engine producing {{as standard equipment, while a 1999 [[Jeep Cherokee]] is said to have come with a {{Auto L|4.0}} 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 [[WP:RS|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 {{User|Lightmouse}}' 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. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/lotus/elise/2008_lotus_elise_sc_220/2008_lotus_elise_sc_short_take_road_test+type-reviews_by_make+t-specs+page-2+mode-collection+id-279.html Car and Driver], [http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/0808_2009_mercedes_benz_sl63_amg_roadster_review/price_and_specifications.html Automobile Magazine], and [http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=131832 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. <font color="#9eee00">[[User:Swaq|swa]]</font><font color="#009eee">[[User talk:Swaq|q]]</font> 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

::::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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
===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. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Automobile ==

[[Wikipedia:Release Version|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 [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/release-data/2008-9-13/HTML/ automated selection of articles for Version 0.7].

We would like to ask you to review the [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/release-data/2008-9-13/HTML/Automobile.s0.html 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 [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/problems.cgi 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 [[Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Copyediting|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 [[User:SelectionBot/0.7/A-6|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, [[User:SelectionBot|SelectionBot]] 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

== New displacement template (Auto Lrev) ==

{{User|Flash176}} 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:

<nowiki>{{Auto Lrev|318}}</nowiki> yields '''{{Auto Lrev|318}}'''

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. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== SSC Aero ==

Someone smarter than me edit the boxout, the SSC Aero is ''not'' rear engine. Wikipedia is full of noobs <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Doctor sponge|Doctor sponge]] ([[User talk:Doctor sponge|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doctor sponge|contribs]]) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The article was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SSC_Aero&diff=238806698&oldid=238772700 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 <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. <font color="#9eee00">[[User:Swaq|swa]]</font><font color="#009eee">[[User talk:Swaq|q]]</font> 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== 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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 06:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

: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 [http://www.clarityworksonline.com/articles/working-with-words/abbreviations-meanings-and-use here], [http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/abbreviations.htm here], [http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/abbreviations.htm here], [http://homepage.ntlworld.com/hitch/gendocs/abbr.html here], [http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/search.epl?q=uppercase here (search page for ''rpm'')], [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/12/ here (search page for ''rpm'')], [http://www.learningshortcuts.com/reviews/crsn51.html here (search page for ''mph'')], [http://www.reading.org/styleguide/abbreviations.html here (search for ''mph'')], and [http://home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/m.htm here (search ''mpg'')] for example. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

::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. &ndash; [[User:kierant|<font color="#006600">Kieran T</font>]] <sup>''(''[[User talk:kierant|''<font color="#006600">talk</font>'']]'')''</sup> 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

:::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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::::We've got support for lowercase over at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Uppercase/lowercase for unit abbreviations|MoS]]. I'll go ahead and add the convention. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

: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. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

== 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. --&mdash; [[User:Typ932|<font face="Comic Sans MS Bold" size="1.9" color="blue">Typ932</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Typ932|<font color="#32CD32">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Typ932|<font color="#D3D3D3">C</font>]]</sup>&nbsp; 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

: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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::Someone familiar with system could nominate them for deletion, if we reach consensus here... --&mdash; [[User:Typ932|<font face="Comic Sans MS Bold" size="1.9" color="blue">Typ932</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Typ932|<font color="#32CD32">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Typ932|<font color="#D3D3D3">C</font>]]</sup>&nbsp; 18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Also, the person who is doing this has already added at least one incorrect category, as the 2004 Corolla never received a facelift.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

* '''Delete''': completely useless. <small>[[User:OSX|OSX]] ([[User talk:OSX|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OSX|contributions]])</small> 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

* '''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.([[User:Regushee|Regushee]] ([[User talk:Regushee|talk]]) 18:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

* '''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. [[User:IFCAR|IFCAR]] ([[User talk:IFCAR|talk]]) 19:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

:: 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. <small>[[User:OSX|OSX]] ([[User talk:OSX|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OSX|contributions]])</small> 03:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:::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 --&mdash; [[User:Typ932|<font face="Comic Sans MS Bold" size="1.9" color="blue">Typ932</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Typ932|<font color="#32CD32">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Typ932|<font color="#D3D3D3">C</font>]]</sup>&nbsp; 07:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

: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? [[User:Malcolma|Malcolma]] ([[User talk:Malcolma|talk]]) 08:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

==[[Chevrolet Cavalier]], [[Chevrolet Malibu|Malibu]] & [[Chevrolet Impala|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. -- [[User:Bull-Doser|Bull-Doser]] ([[User talk:Bull-Doser|talk]]) 09:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:Where are you seeing all these pictures at? I count 10 Cavalier, 12 Malibu, and 29 Impala pictures in the articles.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

::As he said: '''on Wikimedia commons'''. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think we need a standard for category names. Here is a varying list of how categories appear over at the Commons.
* '''[[Commons:Category:Honda CR-V (1st generation)]]''': generation in parentheses.
* '''[[Commons:Category:Ford Taurus (1985–1991)]]''': production years in parentheses.
* '''[[Commons:Category:Subaru Outback III]]''': generation written in Roman numerals without parentheses.
* '''[[Commons:Category:Toyota Camry XV40]]''': generation code written without parentheses.
* '''[[Commons:Category:Holden VE Commodore]]''': model code written without parentheses in between make and model fields.
* '''[[Commons:Category:Honda Accord (2007, North America)]]''': year of introduction and market in parentheses.
* '''[[Commons:Category:GMT911]]''': stand-alone model code, without make and model fields.
* '''[[Commons:Category:Lancer Mk2]]''': model and generation (as Mk), without make.

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". <small>[[User:OSX|OSX]] ([[User talk:OSX|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OSX|contributions]])</small> 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

: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. [[User:IFCAR|IFCAR]] ([[User talk:IFCAR|talk]]) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

::I also count the [[Commons:Category:Toyota Highlander Hybrid]] category for hybrid vehicles. -- [[User:Bull-Doser|Bull-Doser]] ([[User talk:Bull-Doser|talk]]) 02:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

== Power templates TfD ==

FYI, {{tl|Auto bhp}}, {{tl|Auto Nm}}, {{tl|Auto PS}} and {{tl|Auto ihp}} are up for deletion. Discussion [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Power_templates|here]]. [[User:DH85868993|DH85868993]] ([[User talk:DH85868993|talk]]) 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

:I originally nominated these, but have since retracted the nomination. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

== [[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? --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 03:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

: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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 03:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:EDIT - After a quick search, the only site I found specifically referring to the '77-'79 T-Birds as Birds of a Feather was [http://www.ridelust.com/today-in-history-the-ford-thunderbird-takes-flight/ 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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

::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 [[WP:RS|reliably]] [[WP:CITE|sourced]]. Any fanboys decide to whine about it, I've got your back. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 03:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

== 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 [[Diplomatic Security Service|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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 01:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

: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. <font color="#9eee00">[[User:Swaq|swa]]</font><font color="#009eee">[[User talk:Swaq|q]]</font> 02:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

::For what it's worth, I'm from [[Cape Town]] and pretty much a car enthusiast. I got into cars by watching [[Top Gear (current format)|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. [[User Talk:Zunaid|Zunaid]] 08:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

:::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 --&mdash; [[User:Typ932|<font face="Comic Sans MS Bold" size="1.9" color="blue">Typ932</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Typ932|<font color="#32CD32">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Typ932|<font color="#D3D3D3">C</font>]]</sup>&nbsp; 10:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

::::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...[[User:Charles01|Charles01]] ([[User talk:Charles01|talk]]) 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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 [[:Image:20031207 rainycourtyard.jpg|panorama photography]]. Currently own [[:Image:1993ChevroletCamaroZ28-001.jpg|two]] [[:Image:2002ChevroletCamaroSS35-001.jpg|Camaros]] ''(come from a big Camaro family)'', a [[:Image:2006HondaCBR600RR-001.jpg|Honda CBR600RR]], [[:Image:1997SuzukiGS500E-001.jpg|Suzuki GS500E]], and just bought a [[:Image:HondaS2000-004.jpg|Honda S2000]]. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
: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 University|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 Sprint GT (Veloce)|Alfa Romeo GTV]] and with the art major I probably wont have the money for the [[Ferrari 308]]. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 00:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
== Too Much Clutter? ==

I was looking for articles to fix/add templates to and went into the [[Jeep Commander]]. User [[User:WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat|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?--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 05:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

: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 [[WP:AUN|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. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 14:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

:'''What is more''', {{User|WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat}} 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. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 14:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think the show/hide would work very well in dealing with our cluttered infoboxes. We should use it for dimensions. [[User:IFCAR|IFCAR]] ([[User talk:IFCAR|talk]]) 17:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

:::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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

::::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. --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== 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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2009_Ford_Flex_(1).jpg Ford Flex image] uploaded to the Commons via [http://www.flickr.com/photos/13524418@N07/1805230740/ Flickr], where it had [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en this tag]. According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Deprecated#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses this], it doesn't seem to be right. But hopefully someone else who's more familiar with these policies can address it. [[User:IFCAR|IFCAR]] ([[User talk:IFCAR|talk]]) 03:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
: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. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 09:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

: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. [[User:IFCAR|IFCAR]] ([[User talk:IFCAR|talk]]) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::<strike>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.</strike> 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. ;-) &ndash; [[User:kierant|<font color="#006600">Kieran T</font>]] <sup>''(''[[User talk:kierant|''<font color="#006600">talk</font>'']]'')''</sup> 11:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::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. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::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. &ndash; [[User:kierant|<font color="#006600">Kieran T</font>]] <sup>''(''[[User talk:kierant|''<font color="#006600">talk</font>'']]'')''</sup> 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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. —[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 15:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
: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. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 16:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::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? [[User:IFCAR|IFCAR]] ([[User talk:IFCAR|talk]]) 17:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichN#Close_those_nominations. this discussion] I'm having with editors over at Commons about this issue. Join in if you can. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:How about the scenario of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2009_Ford_Focus_Coupe_2.jpg 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? [[User:IFCAR|IFCAR]] ([[User talk:IFCAR|talk]]) 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::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. --[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] ([[User talk:293.xx.xxx.xx|talk]]) 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::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? --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Sable232''': The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Images|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:

<gallery>
Image:2009 Ford Focus Coupe 2.jpg|Ford Motor Company Picture
Image:05 Ford Focus ZX3.jpg|The current Focus Pic on the article by IFCAR
</gallery>

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:

<gallery>
Image:2009 Ford Flex (1).jpg|Ford Motor Company Picture #1
Image:2009 Ford Flex, (2).jpg|Ford Motor Company Picture #2
Image:2009 Ford Flex Limited.jpg|The current Flex Pic on the article by IFCAR
</gallery>

(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 [[Chevrolet Express|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?--[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] ([[User talk:293.xx.xxx.xx|talk]]) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

: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. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::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. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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?--[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] ([[User talk:293.xx.xxx.xx|talk]]) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: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. [[User:IFCAR|IFCAR]] ([[User talk:IFCAR|talk]]) 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::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 [[Wikipedia:Accessibility|Accessibility violation]].--[[User:293.xx.xxx.xx|293.xx.xxx.xx]] ([[User talk:293.xx.xxx.xx|talk]]) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::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. [[User:IFCAR|IFCAR]] ([[User talk:IFCAR|talk]]) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::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. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
==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? --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 04:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:The only way I know of is to add the caption in the "image" field after the image like this:
::<code><nowiki>|image = [[Image:Aptera Typ-1 Wallpaper.jpg|250px]]<br>Jason Hill's final Typ-1 design rendering.</nowiki></code> ([[Aptera Typ-1|seen here]])
:Automobile infoboxes don't have a "caption" field for some reason.[[User:Dusk Knight|<font color="#3E6A97" size="1"><b>~ Dusk Knight</b></font>]] 05:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::The captions appear when you put your cursor over the image. There's no need for a separate line. [[User:IFCAR|IFCAR]] ([[User talk:IFCAR|talk]]) 10:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::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. [[User:Malcolma|Malcolma]] ([[User talk:Malcolma|talk]]) 11:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::::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 <br> or space after the image tag that it works ok. --&mdash; [[User:Typ932|<font face="Comic Sans MS Bold" size="1.9" color="blue">Typ932</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Typ932|<font color="#32CD32">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Typ932|<font color="#D3D3D3">C</font>]]</sup>&nbsp; 11:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

:I agree with IFCAR. Image caption here is already at a useful capacity. Having it visible all of the time just makes no sense. '''[[User:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">roguegeek</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">talk</span>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Roguegeek|<span style="color:darkred">cont</span>]])</small> 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I like the captions appearing. The tooltip which appears when the mouse hovers is by no means reliable, depending on the browser being used. &ndash; [[User:kierant|<font color="#006600">Kieran T</font>]] <sup>''(''[[User talk:kierant|''<font color="#006600">talk</font>'']]'')''</sup> 14:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::'''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. --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 20:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::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. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 23:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not really a good infobox picture according to our convention :D [[User:PrinceGloria|PrinceGloria]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
: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. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2003-2004_Toyota_Matrix.jpg 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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 00:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::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. [[User:PrinceGloria|PrinceGloria]] ([[User talk:PrinceGloria|talk]]) 19:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::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 --&mdash; [[User:Typ932|<font face="Comic Sans MS Bold" size="1.9" color="blue">Typ932</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Typ932|<font color="#32CD32">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Typ932|<font color="#D3D3D3">C</font>]]</sup>&nbsp; 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::It's trivial to add a "caption" field which would allow a caption to be shown, as I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_Automobile&diff=243129339&oldid=239622025 just implemented]. I don't see why this should not be optional for those images where a caption may be useful. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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. [[User:PrinceGloria|PrinceGloria]] ([[User talk:PrinceGloria|talk]]) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:'''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.--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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. <span style="font-size:90%; white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;[[User:Mr_Grim_Reaper|'''Mr. Grim Reaper''']] at ''17:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)''</span>

: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. --&mdash; [[User:Typ932|<font face="Comic Sans MS Bold" size="1.9" color="blue">Typ932</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Typ932|<font color="#32CD32">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Typ932|<font color="#D3D3D3">C</font>]]</sup>&nbsp; 18:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::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.[[User:Dusk Knight|<font color="#3E6A97" size="1"><b>~ Dusk Knight</b></font>]] 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== 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.--[[User:Jordan 1972|Jordan 1972]] ([[User talk:Jordan 1972|talk]]) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles#Sister_projects|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 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Missions|WikiProject:Space Missions]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Airport|WikiProject:Airport]] don't really seem to tie in to our project. I'm thinking about reorganizing the list to appear like [[User:Flash176/Sandbox|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?--[[User:Flash176|Flash176]] ([[User talk:Flash176|talk]]) 19:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
: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 &mdash; and they can easily search for their favoured topics. &ndash; [[User:kierant|<font color="#006600">Kieran T</font>]] <sup>''(''[[User talk:kierant|''<font color="#006600">talk</font>'']]'')''</sup> 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:32, 10 October 2008

The Spike TV Scream Awards is the first awards show dedicated to the horror, sci-fi, and fantasy genres of feature films. The award ceremony was hosted by Grindhouse co-stars Rose McGowan, Marley Shelton and Rosario Dawson. The first Scream Awards were held on October 10, 2006, and the second were held on October 19, 2007, both in Los Angeles. The show was created by Executive Producers Michael Levitt, Cindy Levitt, and Casey Patterson.

Awards during the night included; Best Rack on the Rack (which went to Vampirella), The "Holy @%!?/Jump out of Your Seat" Award and Most Memorable Mutilation.

2006 Nominees/Winners

The Ultimate Scream

Best Horror movie

Best Fantasy movie

Best Science Fiction movie

Best TV Show

Best Sequel

Best Remake

Best Superhero

no

Best Comic-to-Screen adaptation

Most Memorable Mutilation

  • The eye removal, Hostel (Winner)
  • Eaten alive, Land of the Dead
  • Stabbed in a pit of syringes, Saw II
  • Suicide by shotgun, The Hills Have Eyes
  • Vaporized by aliens, War of the Worlds

Most Heroic Performance

Scream Queen

Most Vile Villain

Breakout Performance

The "Holy Sh!t"/"Jump-From-Your-Seat" Award

Best Rack on the Rack

Miscellaneous

2007 Nominees/Winners

The Ultimate Scream

Best Horror movie

Best Fantasy movie

Best Science Fiction movie

Best TV Show

Best Sequel

Best Superhero

Best Comic-to-Screen adaptation

Scream Queen

Scream King

Most Vile Villain

Most Memorable Mutilation

Breakout Performance

"Jump-From-Your-Seat" Scene of the Year

Miscellaneous

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&oldid=244471011"