| Revision as of 16:36, 4 September 2024 editRally Wonk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,161 edits →Recent undiscussed page moves: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:45, 9 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 59) (bot | ||
| (65 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
| {{talk header|wp=yes|search=yes |
{{talk header|wp=yes|search=yes}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 90K | |maxarchivesize = 90K | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| I feel, one of the key article of this wikiproject, ] needs a good revision and copy edit. I would love to help in the process as much as viable. Being a civil engineering student I am unknown of some key terms. In addition, i see the need of forming a new article ] much famous in South asian countries including ] and ] to flourish the information regarding the subject and make the area of study open to fellow readers.] (]) | I feel, one of the key article of this wikiproject, ] needs a good revision and copy edit. I would love to help in the process as much as viable. Being a civil engineering student I am unknown of some key terms. In addition, i see the need of forming a new article ] much famous in South asian countries including ] and ] to flourish the information regarding the subject and make the area of study open to fellow readers.] (]) | ||
| == EV battery suppliers added to WikiProject? == | |||
| == Idea == | |||
| Automotive suppliers such as ] and ] are part of the Automotive WikiProject, despite not producing cars themselves. Should battery companies like ], which are most prominent for their supply of automotive battery cells and technologies, also be added to this WikiProject? Additionally, should companies like ], ], and ], who are not primarily based in EV battery supply but are still major players in the space, also be added to the WikiProject? ] (]) 18:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I was thinking of creating a list of what we'd consider "reliable" and "unreliable" sources on the WP Automobiles project. Pinging such editors as {{ping|Andra Febrian|Mr.choppers|Stepho-wrs}} to see their opinions on this. ]] 04:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:In my opinion they should be added, does anyone have any objections? ] (]) 18:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Seems to be a no-brainer with no downside. ] (]) 16:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I feel like ], ], and ] would be top-tier reliable, while Carsales and Autoblog might be on the concerning-spec, and blogspot and Best Selling Cars Blog would be unreliable. ]] 16:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think ] is largely sufficient, to be honest. If anything, I'd like to add a note regarding those spec compilation sites (, , and - in order of reliability IMHO) can be trusted for basic specifications but are considered to be of less weight than reliable, secondary sources. Same thing for manufacturers' publications - fine to verify specs, dates, etcetera, but not for anything contentious or any value statements. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 18:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| ::::Same, let's just follow ]. Most of the the well-known car magazines are very reliable sources. The compilation sites I don't trust much - some of them have merely scraped data/images from my own site and I'm reasonably sure they do no fact checking of their own. Non-car magazines (eg New York Times) are fine for very basic facts but are usually not written by or for car enthusiasts - more like telling rich readers which car makes this year's best image statement. Manufacturers are also fine for basic facts (eg wheelbase, engine size, release dates but not power, emission or fuel economy figures) - as always, if there is a buck to made for "enhancing" the truth then it will be stretched within an inch of its life. | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not seeing a ''big'' problem with choosing reliable sources. Is this a major issue that you are seeing? <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">] <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">] </span></span> 00:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| :::::I'm gonna go against the grain here and say I actually think this is a decent idea since i've found many larger general sources which are considered reliable by WP:RS such as the NYT to be less reliable and substantially less detailed than smaller and less established enthusiast run news sites and blogs, and certainly less reliable than established enthusiast sites and magazines. There are also a handful of semi well established car news sites which seem to have suspect reliability but are cited in many articles. Off the top of my head, HotCars comes to mind, as its basically a quantity over quality content farm. ] (]) 20:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Late resp: I was just thinking about something like ], which would help editors choose between what sources to and not to use ]] 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree. This discussion so far has been about magazines and newspapers which are not exactly scientific studies, they're chat at the end of the day and often based on or consisting of paid material even if the final text is written by the publication. A decidedly reliable source can repeat the same press release as a decidedly unreliable source, doesn't change anything about the quality of the information. Unreliable claims should be made on case basis, and if a source can be found that is questionable without a reliable one being found by the editor, than the substance of the article should be considered more than putting a list together somewhere else. ] (]) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Two articles with the same scope == | |||
| == Engine Charts == | |||
| Just wondering, why do we have two articles about the list of automobile manufacturers in China: ] and ]? Should we merge it? Pinging {{ping|Infinty 0}} as the creator of the latter article. | |||
| Hello! Remodeled The Engine Charts for the ] To make it slightly more compact and a bit easier to read. Please give your opinion on this: ] ] (]) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A little bit context by the way, ] is apparently a spin-off of ] after these sections were due to " citation and improper synthesis", can't see why it should be an own article if it was apparently not proper enough to be in an article. ] (]) 16:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| =={{noredirect|Pilot (automobile)}}== | |||
| {{la|Pilot (automobile)}} contains 3 different unrelated topics. That's a problem, since it is not a topic article, but a grabbag of independent topics that share a name. There are also other automobiles not in this article called Pilot listed at ]. | |||
| -- ] (]) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion-moved|Talk:Pilot (automobile)}} ] (]) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:I think one can be deleted or merged. ]] 17:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :Agree, merge. ] (]) 18:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose. | |||
| :The article of ] is more about the development of China's automobile industry at the macro perspective, focusing more on China's industry policies, development status and history in chronological order. | |||
| :The article of ] is more about the current situation of Chinese manufacturers at more micro perspective. China is different from most countries in the world which has the world's largest automobile industry and market (larger than the United States and Europe combined), and more than 10 major manufacturers and more than 140 automobile brands as numerous as the stars, which deserves the spotlight. The two articles have different perspectives, themes, and logic, so the spin-off is necessary. | |||
| :As for the problem of citations, it has been updated in the ]. It is welcome for anyone who disagrees to challenge it at the specific description. | |||
| :The article of ] is even more different. It is a list-type article, which is more about listing the facts as briefly and completely as possible. There should be an article to depict a more detailed and focused portrait of Chinese automobile manufacturers, like the general introductions, their positions in the landscape of automobile market, and conclusion of their different characteristics, which is exactly the purpose of the article of ]. ] (]) 00:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If each of the manufacturers and/or brands are notable, they should have their own articles. ] (]) 13:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not each, but major ones. There are 12 major manufacturers in China, each with an annual production of more than 500,000 units, and four of them are above 2 million unit per year, and they do need a overview information to help readers understand the current layout and landscape of Chinese auto market. ] (]) 13:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Merge''', no real difference in scope. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 16:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| == Before I start a massive RM == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 22:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I've been wondering for ages why articles about EVs in regions are all called "plug-in electric vehicle in X", for instance ]. I don't think that's the ] (anymore?), and people almost uniformly refer to these cars as EVs now. Before I open a RM with , I thought I would ask here. ] (]) 20:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Datsun 510== | |||
| :You may want to consider that an EV is technically any vehicle that is driven purely by electric motors and that the electricity may come from different sources. Sources may include purely batteries (PEV or battery EV), fuel cells (FCEV), a petrol engine (series hybrid or electric drivetrain), solar power and others. Add in petrol powered range extender options that can charge batteries but not fast enough to power the vehicle in motion. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">] <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">] </span></span> 00:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I nominated this ], on the clear grounds that the title doesn't meet the guidelines for cars sold internationally under a wide range of names. Calling it Datsun 510 is americentric and also leads to confusion since the "510" name was also used on the Violet/Stanza (A10) in North America. ] should be a disambiguation page like ] and ]. Please review ] and weigh in ]. Best, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 16:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is that true? The as relying on batteries. Similarly, as a BEV + plug-in hybrids. The Misplaced Pages article on ] uses a 1996 source for its definition on the other hand. ] (]) 08:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::But that is a US only definition. Remember that Misplaced Pages is international. Australia defines 4 types of EV - BEV, PHEV, FCEV and regenerative hybrids. See https://arena.gov.au/renewable-energy/electric-vehicles . Other countries may differ again. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">] <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">] </span></span> 09:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with Stepho - the current titles are clearer and more understandable internationally. --] (]) 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == First == | |||
| After 20 years of this project being open, our ] has been promoted! It is ] for anyone who's interested. ]] 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 17:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| Hi people of the project, could i ask if you all consider '']'' a reliable source? ]] 11:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's pretty spotty. I think it was discussed at RSN a while back. They were big on Tesla a while back (sycophant level) but that enthusiasm may have waned. A large portion of their content comes from a single author. If they are the best source you have it's probably content that we should question. ] (]) 11:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's fine for basic facts. I generally trust Fred Lambert's articles. As with any magazine, take care when they give opinions. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">] <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">] </span></span> 23:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. Could i also get some opinions on ''Top Speed''? ]] 08:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Top Speed the magazine is excellent. The TV show is utter crap presented by clowns for laugh value only. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">] <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">] </span></span> 10:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you're referring to ] and the ]. I'm talking about Top Speed. Are we referring to the same thing? ]] 10:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oops, you're right. I was thinking of Top Gear. I have no opinion on Top Speed. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">] <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">] </span></span> 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Tesla Model S == | |||
| Hello contributors of the project, the article ], one of the most important electric vehicles of the 21st century, has been put up ], if you would like to leave your comments, they'd be highly appreciated. Much thanks, ]] 13:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC concerning an article which may be of interest to this project == | |||
| See ]. ] (]) 23:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I'd like to insight from a variety of editors. Would we call GoAuto, carsguide, drive.com.au, and carsales reliable sources? i plan to bring ] back to FA from which it ], and would like to make it one of the site's best articles. ]] 10:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I consider goauto.com.au and drive.com.au as completely trustworthy for facts and expert opinions. carsales.com.au is also trustworthy but only covers basic facts and does not offer opinions (expert or otherwise). <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">] <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">] </span></span> 11:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Stepho. Pinging more experienced editors like {{ping|Andra Febrian|Springee|Mr.choppers}} to see their thoughts on these sources ]] 12:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::All of them should be fine, I used them several times. ] (]) 17:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Trustworthy, but obviously not gilt-edged references like newspapers and learned journals and the like. Good luck! <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 17:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not familiar with those sources but in general if the sites appear to have some level of editorial oversight and if the claims in question are not controversial I would err on the side of use with caution. Looking at the sites it appears they do offer articles and they aren't just some enthusiast blog (not that some of those blogs aren't really good). Yeah, I would be OK so long as the claims aren't extraordinary/red flag. ] (]) 04:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Most car websites do have some kind of the editor's opinion of some sort. On the safe side just avoid the car review articles. ] (]) 08:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Splitting discussion for ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| An article that been involved with (]) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ({{no redirect|1= Stellantis North America}}). If you are interested, please visit ]. Thank you. ] (]) 14:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent undiscussed page moves == | |||
| For everyone's information, ] was recently moved to ], and ] was recently moved to ]. The former appears to be at least technically correct, as GM recently announced that they're now selling those vans as Chevrolets. The latter, the previous title was the result of an RM, but that discussion was from 2011. --] (]) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the latter, I think there should be a concistency within the project. Why does Pontiac, Plymouth, Mercury, Envoy, Geo use "(automobile)" but Mini, Rover, Sterling, Smart uses "marque"? Why MG is "MG cars"? Why is ] named like that, is it because "marque" is associated with British English? Then why are we using "(marque)" for Chinese brands? I think this should get sorted out... | |||
| :] (]) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It probably isn't possible to get a project-wide and trans-Atlantic consensus. If it was easy it would already have been done. | |||
| ::You might have already seen the various opposing thoughts in ], that you started. ] (]) 18:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't mind a regional consensus. If the decision is to use automobile in America and marque for RoW, then so be it. But this time we can't really say that the title "GMC (marque)" is an inappropriate title, other than the fact that it is an undiscussed move. ] (]) 07:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd support reversion to (automobile) if necessary. However, I think ], ] or ] <small>(whatever the article needs to be)</small> is better. ] (]) 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would recommend using natural disambiguators for marques that have them (e.g. Jaguar Cars or MG Motors). | |||
| ::Then: | |||
| ::* '''Marque''' in brackets for British and European marques which need to be disambiguated and don’t have any other possible way which would follow ]. | |||
| ::* '''Brand''' in brackets for North American marques with the same conditions as above. | |||
| ::] (]) 08:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What if there's another brand with the same name? For example, ]. ] (]) 08:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It’d need to be '''car brand''' in that specific circumstance then. ] (]) 08:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I personally use British English so I recognise marque as being in respect to an automobile brand. If that’s not agreeable to speakers of North American English, or it’s not considered appropriate for use on a North American auto marque. Then brand would make sense. ] (]) 08:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Marque can still be used for other vehicles and even products nothing to do with transport: , , , , , ... and so on. Although, it's fair that it isn't widely used. | |||
| ::Marque is more accurate than brand because it's the brand of the maker/manufacturer when models/model ranges, trim levels, performance specs, technologies are also usually always brands. ] has four brands in the name, whereas the manufacturer is (or was) ]. ] is an automobile marque spun off from the ] sub-brand which was inspired by the ] model. All brands. I'm not sure what GMC is, but the problem there is within the content of the article, not the disam naming. ] (]) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:45, 9 January 2025
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Automobiles and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | WikiProject Automobiles was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 26 September 2011. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about automobiles. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about automobiles at the Reference desk. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Article improvement
I feel, one of the key article of this wikiproject, Automotive engineering needs a good revision and copy edit. I would love to help in the process as much as viable. Being a civil engineering student I am unknown of some key terms. In addition, i see the need of forming a new article Automobile engineering much famous in South asian countries including Nepal and India to flourish the information regarding the subject and make the area of study open to fellow readers.Franked2004 (talk)
EV battery suppliers added to WikiProject?
Automotive suppliers such as Denso and Bosch are part of the Automotive WikiProject, despite not producing cars themselves. Should battery companies like CATL, which are most prominent for their supply of automotive battery cells and technologies, also be added to this WikiProject? Additionally, should companies like Panasonic, Samsung SDI, and EVE Energy, who are not primarily based in EV battery supply but are still major players in the space, also be added to the WikiProject? Needlesballoon (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion they should be added, does anyone have any objections? Needlesballoon (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to be a no-brainer with no downside. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Trim level (automotive)#Requested move 28 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trim level (automotive)#Requested move 28 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for American automobile industry in the 1950s
American automobile industry in the 1950s has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Two articles with the same scope
Just wondering, why do we have two articles about the list of automobile manufacturers in China: List of automobile manufacturers of China and Automobile manufacturers and brands of China? Should we merge it? Pinging @Infinty 0: as the creator of the latter article.
A little bit context by the way, Automobile manufacturers and brands of China is apparently a spin-off of Automotive industry in China after these sections were purged due to " citation and improper synthesis", can't see why it should be an own article if it was apparently not proper enough to be in an article. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think one can be deleted or merged. 750h+ 17:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, merge. Rally Wonk (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose.
- The article of Automotive industry in China is more about the development of China's automobile industry at the macro perspective, focusing more on China's industry policies, development status and history in chronological order.
- The article of Automobile manufacturers and brands of China is more about the current situation of Chinese manufacturers at more micro perspective. China is different from most countries in the world which has the world's largest automobile industry and market (larger than the United States and Europe combined), and more than 10 major manufacturers and more than 140 automobile brands as numerous as the stars, which deserves the spotlight. The two articles have different perspectives, themes, and logic, so the spin-off is necessary.
- As for the problem of citations, it has been updated in the Automobile manufacturers and brands of China. It is welcome for anyone who disagrees to challenge it at the specific description.
- The article of List of automobile manufacturers of China is even more different. It is a list-type article, which is more about listing the facts as briefly and completely as possible. There should be an article to depict a more detailed and focused portrait of Chinese automobile manufacturers, like the general introductions, their positions in the landscape of automobile market, and conclusion of their different characteristics, which is exactly the purpose of the article of Automobile manufacturers and brands of China. Infinty 0 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If each of the manufacturers and/or brands are notable, they should have their own articles. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not each, but major ones. There are 12 major manufacturers in China, each with an annual production of more than 500,000 units, and four of them are above 2 million unit per year, and they do need a overview information to help readers understand the current layout and landscape of Chinese auto market. Infinty 0 (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, no real difference in scope. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not each, but major ones. There are 12 major manufacturers in China, each with an annual production of more than 500,000 units, and four of them are above 2 million unit per year, and they do need a overview information to help readers understand the current layout and landscape of Chinese auto market. Infinty 0 (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If each of the manufacturers and/or brands are notable, they should have their own articles. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Electric vehicle warning sounds
Electric vehicle warning sounds has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Datsun 510
I nominated this for a move, on the clear grounds that the title doesn't meet the guidelines for cars sold internationally under a wide range of names. Calling it Datsun 510 is americentric and also leads to confusion since the "510" name was also used on the Violet/Stanza (A10) in North America. Datsun 510 should be a disambiguation page like Datsun 810 and Datsun 210. Please review WP:CARNAMES and weigh in here. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: