Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DH85868993 (talk | contribs) at 04:41, 24 March 2008 (→Ferrari road car timelines: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Talkbottom

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, 59

Upcoming automobiles Templates on archived pages

Is there any need for category templates to be shown on archived discussion pages, and is there any way to block the category from being used but still allowing the template to be viewed on the page.

The talkpage concerned is the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 3 one which shows up in the Category:Upcoming automobiles page.

If anyone has any solutions please could they post a reply on my usertalk page, thanks Dreamweaverjack (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AMC

Would anybody be interested in starting an AMC related task force/wikiproject? RC-0722 /_kills 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! — CZmarlin (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Count me in as well. I'm the editor/publisher of "American Motors Cars" Magazine, and am a sponsor of the "AMCyclopdia" (www.amcyclopedia.org). We;re trying to get as much info as possible on the AMCyclopedia site, but the couple of us doing most of the info adding really don't have a lot of time. Farna (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybach Exelero

I need a user to rate the article Maybach Exelero. If the rating isn't that great, I'm going to bring it up to speed. Contact me when you do. The link is here. Thanks -- Carerra 22:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

rated now --— Typ932  09:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hardtop questions

Hi folks, the hardtop questions # 2, 3 and 4 I posted seven months ago feel orphaned and so abandoned. Anyone up to bail 'em out from being locked behind unacknowledged question marks? Pleeeze (sob) ... joeditt (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has "Reference Desks" for answering user questions that aren't covered in articles. The talk pages (such as this one) are not there for asking questions about the world in general - they are there for discussing the writing of the article they are related to. I answered your first question more out of courtesy than anything - but you're asking in an inappropriate place - and hence there is no guarantee (or even, likelyhood) of getting an answer. So...head over to Misplaced Pages:Reference desk (or, perhaps most appropriately: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Miscellaneous because there is no particular section for Automotive questions). There are a bunch of very knowledgeable people there - they'll either provide an answer from their own knowledge - or they'll use their wicked search skillz to dig an answer out from Misplaced Pages or the Internet in general. Good Luck! SteveBaker (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Userboxes

I created an alternate userbox for the Project, just in case some people don't like the current one. The code is: {{User:224jeff6/Userbox/WP Automobile Bugatti}}
and the end result is:

This user is a member of WikiProject Automobiles.

I'm going to make 3 more very soon. If you have any feedback on the box, contact me on my talk page. -- 224jeff6 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

commented on ur talkpage --— Typ932  09:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Holden

Hi, just letting you all know that the Holden article is now a featured article, bringing the total up to 11. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome job on that to all of its contributors, by the way. It's an excellent piece of work. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cruise (automotive)

I came across this whilst checking on a anon IP spammer contribution history, when this user was caught spamming on the Max Power (magazine). When I came across it, it was poorly written, cluttered with spam, not to mention that too much original research, would placing this article on CDS or Prod be a good idea as nothing on this have been verified for almost 2 years upto now. Willirennen (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That really could do with extensive re-writing... I particularly find this part ammusing: 'most cruise locations are also in close proximity to fast food restaurants such as McDonald's or Burger King.' A great deal of what's in seems to be based on assumptions and stereotypes. The subject of the article doesn't particularly interest me but I'd be quite happy to rewrite at least some of it. Can anyone else lend a hand in cleaning it up? Norman22b (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Lancer Evo

I am a major contributor to this article and I would like to have a rating assigned to it so I can bring it... you know up to "speed" no pun intended. Respond on my talk page! Thanks! --Carerra 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Crash test dummy at FAR

Crash test dummy has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't de-list the article from FA because of the lead paragraph or the photo issues neither problem is at all severe. But the lack of inline referencing is pretty horrific for any article - let alone an FA. I think a bit of 'grunt work' would allow more of the facts in the article to be referenced from the existing "Footnotes" sources - and doubtless a detailed study of the works listed under "References" would allow many of them to be used as inline citations to back up specific facts. With both sets of sources converted to inline cites - I think that enough of the article could be properly referenced to allow it to keep it's coveted gold star. Sadly, I don't have the time to attack that right now - but this is easy stuff, I'm sure someone will take it up. SteveBaker (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Help the Chevrolet Corvette.

The article on the Corvette needs to be cleaned up and if people could help me do it that would be great. I am a huge Corvette fan and would like to see this article with clear information and an easy to read lay out. Thank you very much to those of you who will help me. LAZZO (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Year linking

I need opinions (or is it there any automboile project rule?) how is year linking used in car articles, I have been removing those because they usually dont give any more meaninfull info about certain car model. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates that question is discussed in User talk:Teutonic Tamer --— Typ932  12:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Year linking has been seen as "A Bad Thing" for many years. Even the somewhat-useful idea of linking entire dates in order that user-preferences on data presentation can be maintained has fallen from favor. So by all means, keep removing those links wherever you find them! What is (perhaps) more useful is to use categories like Category:Vehicles introduced in 1959 which provide more intelligent back-linking from the year to what was new in that year. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree! Where, exactly, is the policy which states that year linking is "a bad thing"??? From what I can see, the policy is still to link years. The template page Template:Infobox Automobile makes no specific instruction to NOT link dates. Furthermore, the layout page Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts specifically DOES include date links in both the body text AND the infobox. The conventions page Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions makes no specific comment on not linking dates. This discussion started because User:Typ932 started by needlessly removing links on Fiat 131 (along with other similar edits I have made), without actually adding anything of positive or constructive value to the article! It was discussed on User talk:Typ932#Fiat 131 and User talk:Teutonic Tamer#Year links, but Typ932 has yet to provide any concrete answers to either my request for the formal policy, nor anything to counter my very valid reason for date linking. This BS has basically wasted most of my day when I could have been actively contributing to the article, rather than this "fire fighting". Cars are usually developed when certain fashions, fads, political, and other world influences prevail, and linking the date provides the reader to look at those prevailing issues - therefore, according to this Misplaced Pages:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates - dates should be linked. At the end of the day, no one is force to click on any year links - so what is the problem? Furthermore, whilst using categories of vehicle introdued in 19** is an excellent tool, this simply restricts the reader to research similar cars, and nothing else! Yours, frustrated... -- Teutonic Tamer 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that articles are full of meningless links if every word is linked, if you look other car articles almost all have been cleared from infoboxes, so now we should add links to every article?? if somebody want see what happened year 1987 it isnt big task to write that in go box... but Ill wait what will others say about this and those automobile project conventions arent up to date anymore, seems that this group has been quite inactive lately... --— Typ932  18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm . . . who said anything about if every word is linked??? This discussion is ONLY about linking dates, and nothing else! Fair enough, if you do find an article with an obsessive quantity of meaninless links, then delete them. However, as I have repeated stated, dates are meaningful, and do aid the reader to further their understanding of the subject matter. The fact that you have been clearing them from the infoboxes is clearly AGAINST the current policy. Concern about Misplaced Pages "automobile conventions" being out of date is not an excuse to "do your own thing" - if you are so pasionate about changing the policies, then raise the issue in the appropriate section, and allow the administrators to define and set in place any new or revised policies.

The fact that Misplaced Pages is such a valuble and efficient tool, is down to the fact that it actively encourages links - so usining your logic - removing links from dates completely goes against the fundamental ethos. Remember, some people don't even know how to type a URL (or part of) in the address bar of their web browser, and can only navigate the interweb by way of embeded links! -- Teutonic Tamer 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Autoformatting_and_linking says: "Do not put square brackets around dates when...not relevant to the current context (WP:CONTEXT).

WP:CONTEXT says: Only make links that are relevant to the context.

• Provide links that aid navigation and understanding.
• Avoid obvious, redundant, and useless links.

...links to years are certainly "obvious" - and I'd certainly argue "useless"...but more importantly, it goes on to say:

'It is counterproductive to hyperlink all possible words. This practice is known as "overlinking". A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following....and later...Misplaced Pages has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic.

This is not described in the Automotive style pages because we defer to the MOS in such matters. I've put enough articles through FA - and I can assure you that the current trend is to remove year links. SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, kindly keep the content of your discussion to linking dates only. Linking dates is clearly NOT defined as "overlinking", so your comment on that issue is completely irellevent.

As I have repeatedly stated, linking dates positively DOES "aid navigation", and it positively does help with "understanding" the subject matter of automobiles. Take the de-facto textbook "Hillier, V.A. (Editor) (2004). Hillier's fundamentals of motor vehicle technology. 5th ed Book 1. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. ISBN 0748780823. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)" - it constantly refers to individual years, along with decades (such as 1980s) to clealy add valuble insight in the subject matter. Regarding your comments with specific regard to linking individual "days of the year", "centuries", or "millennia" - again, this is irellevent, because this has not been an issue, and has not been discussed.

Furthermore, the "Automotive style" pages certainly do not defer to the generalistic MoS. Where specific subject area styles and protocols are developed which may differ from the MoS, then these specific styles should be followed, even if they are at odds with the MoS - else why would the specialist protocols be still listed. The fact that you personally remove year links does not make it the standard Misplaced Pages policy, even if you personally feel it is the "current trend". The Automotive style policy which is currently valid is to still link dates, rgds. -- Teutonic Tamer 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a warning in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links) about overlinking and it specifically warns against linking years unless there is good reason. There are some articles, not just automobile ones, where every time a year is mentioned it is linked, this is clearly overlinking but to say that years should never be linked is clearly over prescriptive. My inclination is never to link years or dates unless there is a very good reason. If the issue here is that date linking is not covered in the Automobile Conventions page then that can easily be changed to bring it into line with Misplaced Pages general practice. Malcolma (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cadillac Bus

An article called Cadillac Bus has been created by User:Texushotel which appears to be a hoax. I'm not familiar with the auto industry, and was wondering if somebody knowledgeable from this wiki project could confirm it is a hoax. Your help would be appreciated. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to be an expert - there are zero relevent Google hits for "LX4000 Cadillac" and no mention of it on the Cadillac web site. This needs to be speedy-deleted. SteveBaker (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a hoax isn't a suitable reason for speedy deletion, speedy deletion was refused. It stands for five days... Rich257 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of cars put up for AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cars)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cars Paul foord (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Defunct state

I've been making adds here, & had a thought. Clymer reproduces quite a few ads, & there's often enough in them to start a stub page. Somebody who lives in the cities some of these cars were built might be able to find ads in back issues of the local newspaper on microfilm at the local library & do the same. Trekphiler (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are history

Looking at automotive industry, I don't see historical production figures. Are there any? For instance, 1915 {U.S. only?} was 825930, 1916 (U.S. only?) was 1525578, 1917 (U.S. only?) was 1745792, 1918 (U.S. only?) 943436, per Floyd Clymer, Treasury of Early American Automobiles, 1877-1925 (New York: Bonanza Books, 1950), p.166, 173, & 181. Also, the first wrecker was introduced 1917, p.173. Trekphiler (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2008 & 06:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is couple of years, which I used for Automobile industry in Italy article.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_roaring13.html — Typ932  07:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Trekphiler (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?

I hope I'm not stepping on any toes with this, but I moved ] to ] to free up ] as a seperate dab page, since there are a few cars with the same name. Trekphiler (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Return of the Supercar category

Looks like Teutonic Tamer has added the Supercar category. This had previously been removed, see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_11#Supercar_eradication. I assume this should be removed again. swaq 18:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, TT has his own opinions concerning things that sometimes run contrary to achieved consensus (see the year linking dispute above). I wonder if this supercar question will escalate again or will ever go away. --328cia (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (a Teuton, BTW)

I think the cat should probably be nominated for deletion again, unless anyone has a good reason not to. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

TT has some weird habit to add all kind of extra words like trademark ®, super, hypercar etc, but we have to remember this is Encyclopedia not some fan page. I think everybody more familiar with this Automobile project are well informed the way to write but new users dont know everything... --— Typ932  19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, he´s doing a lot of good things, too, like the recent Ford Fiesta clean-up; and I love the little flag icons he´s adding to the infoboxes. --328cia (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that flag thing should be take under conversation here also, as there is quite many articles which have those in infoboxes, this should be general concensus to use or not use those flags, that we get similar infoboxes to every page. --— Typ932  19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_22#Category:Supercar swaq 16:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 11 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari road car timelines

I notice a lack of consistency between the two Ferrari road car timelines. Consider the models listed for 1968: {{Early Ferrari vehicles}} lists 365 GTC, 275 GTB/4, 365 GTS and 365 GT, whereas {{Ferrari vehicles}} lists 365 GTB/4 Daytona, 365GT and Dino 206. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to make corrections myself. Another point to note: {{Ferrari vehicles}} is trancluded twice into the Ferrari article (once at the bottom of the article and once in the "Road Cars" section). Also, is there any reason why {{Early Ferrari vehicles}} ends at 1968 rather than 1969 (i.e. the end of the 1960s)? DH85868993 (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject Automobiles participants