Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 17

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Daniel J. Leivick in topic Cars, sports, super or hyper
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

For vehicles that do not fall into the AKA/related debacle above, I have noticed that the related field is often used to point to other vehicles by the same manufacturer. E.g the Toyota Corolla E140 article says it is related to the Toyota RAV4. I've read elsewhere that the RAV4 was based on the Camry chassis, so we can't claim it is related except by saying that it is made by Toyota and maybe some of the available engines are common to both. I'm tempted to remove many of these tenuous relationships from a whole pile of Toyota articles. Comments? Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

When the Rav 4 came out, it was built on the Corolla chassis. I don't believe it's related to the E140, but it is related to the 8th generation model.--Flash176 (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Surely, before arbitrating on what counts as 'related' (and what doesn't) in an individual case, we'd need better evidence than having 'read somewhere'. If 'related' refers promarily to the 'chassis' and drive train, then someone needs to know which bits are common, and which bits would be common except for an extended sub-component etc. Or (better in the wiki context) to refer to a sufficiently detailed available source. (From experience, Toyota related workshop manuals aren't always too scrutable on some of this stuff, but maybe I just got unlucky there.) Given the level of common thinking and componentry (especially in terms of all the bits you don't see) between Volkswagen Golfs (and their Seat, Skoda and Audi derivatives) and Passats (and their ....) and even Polos, especially ten or so years ago before the company took greater care to differentiate to the maximum those bits you do see, maybe you can make an argument that virtually every model produced by VAG (Volkswagen-Audi-Skoda-Seat) since way before 2000 is 'related' to every other. From the Toyota specialist (or specialists) it would presumably be helpful to know what he means (they mean) by 'related' rather than simply getting into a reversing ding dong based on something you or I read someplace sometime. If you want to get into this issue with the Toyotas, how about a [citation needed] tag or two to try and find out what the contributor has in mind for these relationships?
Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to make Plymouth a dab page

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently, Plymouth is an article about a city in England. There is a proposal to change this to a disambiguation page and that the English city be moved to Plymouth, Devon. That is, anyone typing in Plymouth right now gets to the article about the city in England and I think they should be sent to the disambiguation page on which there are links to all references to Plymouth, including this page.

You can weigh in on the proposal here. -- Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories for electric automobiles

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

These categories are in a bit of a muddle! I was attempting to tidy-up the categories on a couple of electric car articles, but ended up going round in circles. We have, at least, the following:

What is the difference between an "All-electric vehicle" and a "Battery electric vehicle"? Which of the following categories: Electric vehicles, Battery electric vehicles, Electric cars, Production electric vehicles should the REVA G-Wiz be in?

I think that we need to standardise the terminology and design a consistent category hierarchy, which could/should also include branches for ICE, hybrid, etc. powered automobiles too, and to preferably be all rooted in Category:Automobiles. -- de Facto (talk). 14:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • IMHO there is nothing special about electrically powered vehicles, it is just another source of power. This would be like having a category for petrol- or diesel-powered vehicles, which would be hopelessly over-crowded and particularly useless. Picture this: most contemporary vehicles are already offered in petrol and diesel guise, in the near future most model lines will have a hybrid somewhere in the range, maybe hydrogen and all-electric as well. What is the use to the reader of listing e.g. the hypothetical VW Golf 8 in all 5 categories? The categories need to be heavily rationalised and pared down. Perhaps we can draw up a hierarchy on a sub-page and discuss/edit it until we agree. We could more easily see what problems would arise with various category schemes. Then take it to CfD for input. p.s. be careful using ICE when discussing cars, I thought you were talking about ICE. Zunaid 18:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Scrutineering?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

After accusations of vandalism & trolling, & fairly blatant POV pushing, by Andy Dingley here (with the excuse for inclusion here), let me try & do the right thing & ask for other opinions. (After my experience here, however, I have slim hope of being upheld.) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is this discussion taking place? roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Suggest comment here, tho there's crossposting here. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Danny Glover in the house?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since I'm not really sure where to post this, I'm going to float this here & hope somebody knows how to resolve it. This has gotten added 3 different times, now. I don't want to keep reverting because, frankly, it's beginning to bore me, & it doesn't look like the IP adding it is inclined to quit. (I'm tempted to ask if this is a 7 year old, or something.) Any help is appreciated. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a level-3 warning on the user's talk page. If he does it again, issue a level-4 warning. If he does it again, he can be blocked. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Morris Minor Ute/Pickup

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm guessing this Morris Minor Ute/Pickup is a 1952 Minor Series II? Image:Morris Minor Ute.jpg Image:Morris Minor Ute 1.jpg. Bidgee (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So it would appear, although in the sense of the 1952 release, as opposed to necessarily 1952 production of this particular example, which could of course be a few years later. Don't know if the facelift applied to pickups, or to Aussie/NZ models, at the same time (1956) as for the saloons, and in the UK? – Kieran T (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of marque logos at Wikimedia Commons

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Over at the Wikimedia Commons nominations have been proposed to delete two images; one of the Holden logo from the bonnet of a car; and the second of the Holden "V-Series" badge from the boot-lid of another.

I do not believe that either of these images should be deleted, and am hoping that Automobile project members can voice their support both here and at the Commons. Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure a photo of a logo can't be a free image any more than a photo of any other artwork could become my own work. It would certainly be nice to keep those images, but I don't think those who proposed deletion were wrong. It would probably make most sense to re-upload them into the English Wikipedia under fair use. IFCAR (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Could there not be a distinction between a photo that is almost entirely the logo, wherein it seems to be very much a derivative work, and a photo of say the front fascia of a car, the grill etc. which has the logo as part of it, but not the whole or only notable thing? The second photo does seem more obviously as one that is only a logo, but the first is the hood of the car. If there were more elements such as the grille or lights I think that would help its case. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I was reading the guidelines on the Commons, and their basic rule of thumb is if the picture would convey the same information without the copyrighted element included, it's okay. But both of these are clearly intended to illustrate that copyrighted element, indicated both by the focus of the photo and the filenames. IFCAR (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Former British Leyland template mashed up

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've just added the following to the talk page at Template talk:British Leyland:

This template has horribly lost its way. I've just seen it added to the Bristol page, and I note that it now includes Vauxhall, but not Ford. This is a mish-mash. I get the point that calling it "...British Leyland..." was too narrow, but it's totally changing its purpose to try to cover all... what? Cars sold in Britain it isn't. Cars made in Britain it isn't. Cars made by British owners it isn't. It isn't even comfortable British English to title it "automobile industry". I'm tempted to revert it back a couple of weeks.

I'd appreciate the project's comments. There may be scope for two templates, but losing the intent of the BMC/BL one just because it needed renaming is horrible. – Kieran T (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

{{British Leyland}}

This template has reached far beyond its original scope of simply monitoring British Leyland. There is a propopsal for renaming it on its talk page which, as a project member or interested party, I hope you will participate in. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified car photos

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hi!

I was hoping someone from here might be able to identify some (or even all!) of the following car photos? Thanks! --Fir0002 11:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1.Honda CRV
2.
3.
4.Hummer H3
5.Hyundai Tiburon
6.Subaru Impreza wagon
7.Holden Commodore
8.Mazda RX-8
9.Subaru Impreza
10.looks like a Jaguar
--Flash176 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple of captions for nbrs 3 and 10. Nbr 2 is clearly a Holden, but since you're apparently in Australia and I'm not, I'll leave that for someone else to spell out more precisely. Thanks for the quiz. Charles01 (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the front light on Nbr 2 look suspiciously similar to those on view at Holden VX Commodore Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
These are all Australian-registered cars so I'll fix them all up later on today, except for the Daimler 250. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
And done. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow good work!! And thanks a lot - I've got quite a few other such images which I'll get round to uploading in the next day or so. --Fir0002 06:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fir0002, rather than naming the images "Mazda RX-8 on freeway.jpg" etc, I would name them "2003–2008 Mazda RX-8 (FE1031) 4-door coupe 01.jpg" etc. Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

British Automobile Industry template

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

SocialScienceLondon (talk · contribs) has added the British Automobile Industry to a bunch of articles. Could some one look over his contributions and see if they are okay? I'm wondering in particular about ordering, as I noticed SocialScienceLondon put the British Automobile Industry template above the Lotus Cars template on the Lotus Cars article. swaq 16:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is related to the discussion (see above, a couple of topics up) about his/her sweeping, undiscussed changes to the British Leyland template. That, and its addition to many articles which are nothing to do with BL, will cause lots of re-editing work if the template is either reverted (becoming irrelevant on many pages) or renamed to be the automobile industry one (needing a redirect avoidance) — both of which have been proposed. The user describes themself as a "guardian angel" of Rover articles. This is getting a wee bit close to a feeling of "page ownership" to my mind, never mind the fact that I don't see much evidence of the work under that username! So yes, let's keep eyes open. – Kieran T (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The user has recently created a home page. It includes this surprise: "SocialScienceLondon is a rigidly-controlled and highly-collaborative collective user account." This is against Wikipedia rules, per WP:NOSHARE, which I shall point out to them! So, essentially, we need to treat it like an IP address: potentially anybody, not the person we think we're talking to. – Kieran T (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Peacock at Honda NSX

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Redashhope (talk · contribs) has recently made a bunch of edits to Honda NSX. While his edits are not necessarily bad, they are tending to hype up the NSX unnecessarily. I think the NSX is a great car but some of the changes are definitely peacock-like and subjective. From this recent edit to his user page I am worried about possible point of view pushing. I have already given it a once-over, but it would be nice if someone else could look over the NSX article and ensure that it is not overly filled with praise. swaq 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatigue

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's discussion on here that may be of interest, in connection with trucking & driving. Comment is welcomed. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:46 & 21:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible hoax - Cicero (Automobile)

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

There is an article on a car maker called Cicero (Automobile) based in new York from 1979 to 2007 and two more on cars they are said to have made. None of the links go anywhere definite and Google does not seem to have heard of the company. I suspect a hoax. Can anyone confirm their existence? Malcolma (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep looks like hoax, check the first version from history... --— Typ932T | C  09:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed Something to do with a Maestro and a Lotus.... might even be a hoax perpetrated by someone who's been to England. Anyway, Georgano hasn't heard of it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
There's definitely mischief or mistake involved. It was added (badly) to the British car industry template last night. – Kieran T (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the first time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cicero (Automobiles) and User talk:Cicero Motors. Could someone speedy delete that and indefblock the creator? --Sable232 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Tagged speedy G4. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Several Cicero-related articles and categories deleted, and two socks of User:Cicero Motors indefblocked. Think I got them all. --barneca (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The bureaucracy strikes again

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hello everyone, I recently created the page Hermosillo Stamping & Assembly which was "speedily deleted" under criteria A7 of whatever blah blah blah policy that the deletion nazis came up with today. From what I can tell, articles about automotive assembly plants are worthy of inclusion on Wiki considering the number that are out there right (as seen on List of Ford factories for example) and have not been challenged. Apparently though if an article isn't perfect on its first try then it should be trashed rather than giving the editor a chance to add and improve it. The page had a reference as well as a category to establish its notability for starters, which is way more than can be said for thousands of other articles out there. I even added a "hold on" tag and created a talk page so that people who had concerns could discuss them. But no, we must rule with an iron fist apparently and get rid of anything that two people think is stupid or boorish. I haven't been on Wiki very much lately but I'm deeply perturbed by the people who make it their business to harass legitimate entries made by legitimate and well established users such as myself. The administrator even had the nerve to refer me to the sandbox! WTH? Can anyone help me here? I just want to write about cars for Pete's sake!--Analogue Kid (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at helping you here: Likening compliance with Wikipedia protocol to massive genocide and other crimes against humanity by throwing around the term "nazi" and railing against a perceived iron-fisted bureaucracy isn't likely to get your argument any traction. Calm down, take some deep breaths, figure out the real reason why the article you created was speedily deleted (it's not because of a bunch of iron-fisted nazis) and channel your energy into making contributions that won't get zapped. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
He pointed you to the sandbox because you asked him to recreate the article; that's where he put the contents of the page for you to do with as you please. Seems quite helpful to me.
To avoid this kind of thing happening in future, it's best to create your article in userspace first (e.g. at [[User:Analogue Kid/<article name>]]). You can work on it at your leisure and then move it over to mainspace once it's finished. --DeLarge (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
OK I understand the sandbox thing now. I was just so furious last night though because I wanted to improve the article but was never even given a chance. So yeah calling people Nazis is over the top but it just seems like they were being so unfair to me and I was frustrated. But see here's the problem. If I'm supposed to create the article on my own user page, how will anyone else be able to improve it? Nobody would know its there (well they will now, but that's not the point here). I'll have to improve it to some perfect state to keep every persnickety user with an axe to grind happy which misses the point of collaboration that should be at the heart of every article here. But I do realize that these issues are beyond the scope of this discussion so I'll shut up now.--Analogue Kid (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Follow the manual of style, make sure your article shows why the subject is notable, and use references and you'll be fine. It might be useful to read the criteria for speedy deletion as well. swaq 16:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

<-- (EC) You don't need to make an article perfect, but you do need to ensure it meets theminimum standards of inclusion or you run the risk of it being deleted. Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." All your article had was one statement that the plant exists and what it's produced, and cited a Ford press release (not independent).

Looking through Ford's blurb, among all the blah blah blah is a claim that Hermosillo was "The best automotive plant in the world by MIT" in 1991. A claim of notability makes it automatically ineligible for speedy deletion. So you could have something like:

You can also have a section with production, but I wouldn't order it alphabetically by car unless you're also going to make the table sortable. Chronologically is best with oldest years first, and try to make it comprehensive (i.e. all vehicles produced since it was opened). See if you can track down annual production volumes from years other than 2002 while you're at it.

Categorize it properly (is there a Mexican car factories cat?) and also mark it with an appropriate stub template unless you've about ten sentences of prose. Those kinds of thing are fiddly and easy to overlook, hence why I always start in userspace, but if you make the effort it gives even a short article enough polish that the recent- and new page- patrollers will OK it. --DeLarge (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks, I managed to get things restarted with a claim of notability regarding the Ford/Mazda partnership in a third country and 5 references on my personal page. I guess I'll spend some more time on it and it'll probably be OK. User:Analogue Kid/Hermosillo Stamping & Assembly --Analogue Kid (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Automotive Timelines

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Who else thinks that a Manufacturer's Timeline should appear for every vehicle? It would make a great addition to know where each car model falls within the model history of the Manufacturer.

Autocar256 02:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autocar256 (talk • contribs)

Yes , it should --— Typ932T | C  13:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cars, sports, super or hyper

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion

Below is a conversation I have had after being politely chastised/edited by swaq for using the terms supercar and hypercar in my edit/input on pages NSX MClaren F1 and Maserati MC12 respectively. My reason for posting here is only positive, not negative at all, and twofold. To invite any other justified opposition to the continuing use of these automotive terms supercar and hypercar, the former which does appear on Wiki. My point is these terms cannot be uninvented, and why should they be? Please do read the comments below before adding further commentary. Secondly, is there not a case for a wider tolerance of terminology - judged here as peacock by swaq - when referring to supercars and this genre of motorcar. Otherwise would it not also be sufficient when describing a supermodel to use the word pretty and delete the peacock entries gorgeous, beautiful, stunning from the Oxford English? PS. Is it not peacock to have a multicoloured name icon? :) Read on if you not asleep already:

But I do think I have been penning within the terms of supercars as per Wiki's own present usage :) Redashhope< 18:43 CET 21st Nov 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

Here you explicitly called the NSX a supercar and here you implied the NSX is in the supercar market. Also, here and here you implied being a supercar and "hyper car" respectively. Any attempt to classify a car as a supercar is purely opinion. The best we can do is say a car has been referred to as a supercar by a reputable source. However I recommend avoiding even mentioning this unless it is particularly notable or there are a lot of mentions by different sources. The reason being that a lot of media throw around the term "supercar" very lightly. It took me less than a minute to find a source that called a new Fiat 500 a supercar. swaq 18:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the ref's back to my postings on NSX, MClaren F1 and Maserati MC12. I was in the motor industry/motor racing business for nearly 30 years and never heard the term supercar applied to a Fiat 500 although Iam sure its happy owners thinks it is indeed a super car - as opposed to a supercar - but I think the subject/classification is unavoidably more organic and evolutionary (oil and R&D) than subjective, but it was clearly once based in simple fact when only a handful of high performance cars existed. Now there are many we simply cannot uninvent the wheel for the sake of clarity or convenience. My advice as a former race car driver is to enjoy the debate not inhibit it and citing the use of such vocabulary as somehow misleading (or an example of how not to write/refer to these cars) is the first step towards consorship - as is suggesting "avoiding even mentioning" the terms. Lets agree to disagree on this one (i hope over the next 10 years to see many revisions on Wiki's supercars page (not by me I must add!) but unless Iam wrong the terms sports car, supercar and hypercar will all remain in popular use by car enthusiasts and owners for a long time to come. As a footnote I do defer to your previous experience/expertise on Wiki etiquette of course and Iam genuinely very grateful for your previous inputs/advice on page management issues;no doubt the first of many tips I will need! --Redashhope< 20:50 CET 21st Nov 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC).
The Fiat 500 supercar reference is from The Daily Telegraph which was founded in 1820 and is one of the top 100 circulated newspapers worldwide. I certainly wouldn't call the Fiat 500 a supercar myself, but it just goes to show that a trusted source can be found to call almost any car a supercar. It's not about censorship and I'm not denying that the term supercar isn't regularly used, it's about being encyclopedic. There is no universally accepted definition for a supercar, it depends on personal point of view. We can't come up with a definition for Wikipedia either because original research is against policy. You are welcome to bring up the subject again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles but I'd be very surprised to see consensus change. swaq 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The only consensus here is there is no consensus. Thats my only point (and its not a negative one). But I can forgive your reference to the Fiat 500 supercar article as being an example of the poor/common or over use of the term. In fact you are probably far too young to know anyway (that is not intended to be condescending but factual by the way), but having now read the Abarth article you link back to I can tell you a French friend of mine who was a racing instructor in the mid 1960's in France (He eventually became the President of Le Mans race circuit) was racing a very early version of the same Abarth on a daily basis. The Abarth is very well qualified to be called a supercar based on its racing heritage and I for one would not have a problem with that....if only we knew what those qualifications where! Of course there are many words for which there is no universally accepted definition but we still choose to use them, like love and beautiful to name but two. My wife believes her dog is beautiful and she loves her...glad someone does.
On a practical point I have noted in your editing of my and other previous authors work in supercars (NSX in particular) you justify your actions (which I take really as splitting hairs and largely pedantic if not a straightforward waste of time) in removing text as editing peacock language. Please do remember that like supermodels, supercar buyers/enthusiasts/watchers/authors/readers do have their own dialect if not language and often the very reason behind owning a supercar (or expensive/sports car if that is a term you are more comfortable with) is not practical but willingly and openly narcissitic. Please do not convert every Wiki article you edit into your own form of dull window dressing without solid justification especially a catergory many peacocks happily frequent and understand. Have a good day.Redashhope 13:55, 22 November 2008 (CET)

This supercar thing has been discussed here already many times and I think there was somekind of concensus to not use it..I think the same shoulkd go for "luxuru/premium" car maker intros, I think every car peep has own opinion and knows where the make or model stands in rating scale.. --— Typ932T | C  13:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my understanding too. Not to denigrate the references alluded to above, but there are always more references out there to prove the counter-point, and this one just gets very muddled very quickly. I find it wise to go back to Wikipedia principles and say that if it's not reliable, it should be left out. (I'm not a "deletionist" at all, by the way, but this is about accuracy.) – Kieran T (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree. We were able to develop a consensus that the term "supercar" was not appropriate as a descriptive term in an encyclopedia. It is just too vague to be of much use. The examples of other terms without universal definitions like "love" and "beautiful" given by Redashhope are actually apt. We might use them in our own speech or writing, but they should not be used as descriptive terms in an encyclopedia as they are highly subjective and not that descriptive. --Leivick (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Mattell and Hot Wheels have it all wrong also - after all they spend billions every year marketing exact replicas of these supercars. Aside from automotive many other related industries (tours/experience/holidays/auctions) thrive on and around the genre supercars. Gentlemen we cannot uninvent the wheel so we are stuck with the term supercar Otherwise if what we are saying is when a counter point exists this somehow affects the validity of the original term - them Wiki itself would be virtually empty as there are valid counter points against most things in it. Lets just simply make sure, in this case, relevent examples of both sides claims appear in the case where there is an argument against a car belonging to said genre? It would be quite interesting, cheap and easy for Wiki to put a small poll on every motocar page where people could vote/show opinion on two or three agreed points. Many onlinesupercar forums do this already with great success.Redashhope 10:59, 23 November 2008 (CET)
We are not trying to uninvented the supercar genre. We have however for the reasons already discussed, decided that the term is not something that should be used in an encyclopedia to describe vehicles. Voting on which vehicles are supercars is not going happen. Car forums can vote on what they think is a supercar and that is fine, however this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. We are trying to compile verifiable information not gauge opinion. --Leivick (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The poll is an interesting idea. And seriously, not sarcastically, but to show the point: if you would care to set it up with rigorous security checks against multiple voting, have it certified by a recognised polling company, and run it for some time in an appropriate place, such as a well-used and respected sports car magazine's site, then you could come back and perhaps use it as a valid reference... but running it here just isn't Wikipedia's job. Please consider WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. As weird as it may sound on first hearing, Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. "Truth" about what a supercar is seems to be an opinion shared with different definitions by a number of journalists; not a verifiable fact written down by some governing body. – Kieran T (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I know time is a valuable commodity, especially to busy univerity students, but I do think its worth a refresher, have a quick look encyclopedia particularly the section which refers to the encyclopedia's responsibility to diseminate -all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge- so please dont use the encyclopedic opt out to justify censoring the future use of the phrase supercar.
While your browsing also check out supermodel which is a separate genre of model validated in Wiki by that fact she is - a highly-paid élite fashion model - So what does highly paid or elite now mean? I see no request for a citation? While your at it gentlemen, what about supercomputer? The list is endless. The just and honest way to validate anything is to test opinion, not reject opinion (we call that process democracy) and I cannot see why Wiki cannot set up a poll template for those concerend enough to join a word witch hunt. Incidentally the notion anything like a supercar poll on Wiki needs to be rigourously certified is new to me? I don't see a crime wave coming. Anyway there are plenty more general sockpuppet issues on Wiki to worry about by the looks of things than someone double voting on a poll. I won't castigate or censor your choices/preferred occupation but after 30 odd years in motor racing and car ownership, I think your minority consensus is more to satify convenience, laziness or disinterest than the needs of an encyclopedia user. Catergories this entry under passion oh! dear there another word.Redashhope 15:30, 23 November 2008 (CET)
I'm all for describing a particular car as a supercar. It's a term well known to car enthusiasts as meaning road registered cars in the very top ranks of performance. I'd question whether the Honda NSX is in the same category as a Mclaren F1 but I would be quite happy to have a car such as the McLaren described as a supercar. However, I woudl not go as far as to make a category for such a changeable group (today's supercar is tomorrow's also ran). Stepho-wrs (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a key part of the problem — you've just expressed an opinion about where to draw the line between what is, and is not, a supercar. Few would argue with the McLaren, but how to define the bottom end? (Bearing in mind that this isn't a democracy, so a vote isn't the answer — we'd need consensus...) If Redashhope can get over his sarcasm for a moment, perhaps he's got an opinion about what the lowest specification for a supercar is? Engine size? Speed? Safe handling at speed? Scary handling at speed? 81.178.67.229 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. While I would agree that a McLaren is a supercar, I disagree on the NSX. A major factor being that it has less than 300 hp. But that's a personal definition, and as such, irrelevant.
I'm curious, Redashhope, since you consider the NSX a supercar, would you say that the Corvette is as well? It has more power, and in the case of the Z06, handles slightly better and has a higher top speed.--Flash176 (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get into argueing about what is or isn't a supercar. That really is the job of automotive forums. This isn't a democracy so the idea of having some kind of Wikipedia poll is not going to get anywhere. Supercar just like supermodel is a subjective term describing the top end of a particular set (Wikipedia doesn't use the term supermodel to directly describe high level models either). Where the line is drawn is up to any individual's own opinion, as an encyclopedia we are not in the business of promoting a particular opinion. Redashhope, you have your own opinions about what is and isn't a supercar, but just because you have experience in the automotive world doesn't make your opinions encyclopedic fact. --Leivick (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the original discussion was prompted by my note on Redashhope's talk page and the full discussion is on my talk page: User talk:Swaq#Wiki etiquette etc. Also, here are the previous discussions on the supercar term:

swaq 16:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, firstly please don't get me wrong and confuse my passion with sarcasm. I really would not be so bold myself --Flash176 in pioneering or categorising supercars like the NSX. Among others, I left that to Gordon Murray (you might remember this is the chap who designed the MClaren F1). The automotive industry considers him his own governing body. He ran an NSX for 7 years and openly cites it as his blueprint, which is as good as encyclopedic fact for me unlike Mr.--Leivick.
I also did happily take on Ayrton Senna's advice and even more recently another former F1 world champion Damon Hill who both chose the NSX as their personal transport here.
As per your comment I also do love the Corvette but if Iam not wrong the Z06 as a platform started production in 2001 - a full decade after the dear old NSX. That would be like comparing the new V10 NSX replacement due to appear in 2010 with the soon to be old Z06 - which is not really cricket - and hardly fair to Honda who are, after all and unlike Chevrolet, highy credible bike and car racers as well as multiple F1 world championship engine suppliers. Now don't you think this debate is healthy, I do for one, and I still don't see a problem with the terms sports car, supercar or hypercar. After all in the world of Sir Clive Sinclair it will soon be difficult to separate the word car from transportation aka Sinclair C5 and then we have really got our work cut out.
I have worked with publishers the same and I still believe many contributors/moderators administer protocols as a cloak for idleness, lack of time, disinterest or boredom but we cannot let this censor or infect the healthy use of fact even if there is debate over its validity or appropriateness. Thanks for all your comments so far. Redashhope 17:25, 27 November 2008 (CET)

Discussion merged from User talk:Scheinwerfermann

Hi, I wonder could you give me the latest official line on the use of the word supercar. The automotive industry, designers and the race world still regularly use it...multi national toy manufacturers spend millions of dollars each year manufacturing repro branded supercars. But Wiki censure its use as non verifiable? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Being that Wiki is less about the truth and more about verifiability (your fine words not mine) and with the words car and transport themselves already becoming hard to separate with the appearance of the C5 and the likes, my point is that, while we can, we should celebrate the debate the use of words like supercar, supermodel, supercomputer all create as with similar continued censorship of established commonly used and recogniseable words the usefulness of Wiki as a enclyclopedia or platform will become obsolete as a victim of protocol. End of rant :)Redashhope< 19:12, 27 November 2008 (CET)

Greetings, Redashhope. No, I cannot give you "the latest official line" on this matter, because Wikipedia doesn't operate according to "official lines". We operate according to consensus, and as has been explained to you repeatedly and in great detail here, here, and in this very discussion, the present consensus is that terms like "supercar" and "hypercar" are not encyclopædic and therefore shall not be used to categorise automobiles here. I am not certain why you are asking me this what's already been exhaustively answered, but please be advised that forum-shopping isn't okay. You are not being railroaded or silenced or censored; throwing the latter term around is not going to gain you much of any traction for your argument. It looks as if you are the only participant in the discussion who does not accept the consensus. Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong, and it doesn't mean your opinion is worthless, but consensus does not require unanimity, and one of the realities of Wikipedia's consensus-based decisionmaking is that sometimes we won't agree with the consensus that develops. There comes a point, which by most opinions you have passed, when the appropriate thing to do is gracefully accept that your view does not accord with the consensus and move on to more productive contributions to the encyclopædia. Thanks for being a coöperative contributor, okay? —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hypercar is a term invented and popularised by the futurist Amory Lovins and his Rocky Mountain Institute. It is not a synonym for, and does not have the same popularity as the widely used word supercar which is even listed in the Oxford Dictionary. I shall remove the heading hypercar from supercar. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed it is getting very cold here floating on my one man raft. But rest assured my entry on your talk page was not associated with forum shopping (notable absence of link here in order to not promote worthless protocols), nor anything else other than a healthy discussion and to seek the origins of the consensus you alude to a total of seven times in your short reply to my question.

If that same consensus is based on the same notability of the same author who first enlightened me to your apparent consensus of objections to the use of the term supercar - who by the way was a US based art student - then am I right in thinking that my opinion that modern art is a none event justifies equal consideration if I can get a majority vote on this page here - the same page which still has not offered consensus but instead dressed a majority vote by none qualified self appointed judge jury who have also made no effort to address my point that the use of the term supercar is just the same as the use of the terms supermodel supercomputer etc etc.

I use this only to illustrate the point but if I asked for an opinion on a medical condition I would put the opinion of a practised doctor ahead of an art-student. Perhaps the reason I stand alone here on my one man raft after all is your cool reception to further debate? I know I thought twice about even bothering to make the effort to write back to you. The thought I might be trying to whip up a storm or forum shop is laughable and that laughter is still drowning out any legitimate answers to any of my points namely:

1. Where exactly is the basis of your claim to consensus on the censure of the term supercar? ie vote, page, file, link, debate between notable or qualified contributors, in fact anything? 2. Why should supercar be censured and others equally vague like supermodel supercomputer superconductor etc still be used in the same platform? 3. Who is making the rules here and, if anywhere, where can I find the "official line" I first asked for? Redashhope< 17:43, 30 November 2008 (CET)

Incidentally ::Hypercar is a term not invented and popularised by the futurist Amory Lovins and his Rocky Mountain Institute but ::Hypercar Inc was incorporated by AL. Attributing ownership of the term hypercar is impossible as it is commonly used all over the world, as recently as last month in Melbourne Australia with the launch of the E-Vade Hyper Car.Redashhope< 18:00, 30 November 2008 (CET)

Please, enlighten us with your precise definition of the terms hypercar and supercar. (With refs, naturally, but that won't be the hard part.) 81.178.67.229 (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah... having my credentials questioned. I keep forgetting to change my user page so that it says I am a world renowned expert on the word "supercar." The IP makes a good point. If Redashhope could point us to the definitive definition of supercar that is accepted throughout the automotive world, my art school informed debate would evaporate very quickly. As for Redashhope's questions:

  • 1. There is consensus on this matter. You are seeing it right now. You are arguing for looser usage of the term and about eight other editors are opposing you. If you want to see the history of this consensus you can look at the links Swaq provided above. If you study them you will see that opinion on the matter shifted (including my own). As for "notable or qualified" contributors, sorry but Wikipedia isn't usually written by notable or qualified (at least in the academic sense) contributors, that is what makes it different from a traditional encyclopedia (which wouldn't even touch this topic).
  • 2. You give three examples of words with "super" in them. Lets forget about superconductor, it has an exact definition and isn't even close to a vague term. Both supermodel and supercomputer are less vague terms than supercar. Supermodel in the tightest usage refers to the so called "big six" of the 1990s. In any case it too isn't an encyclopedic term and probably shouldn't be used to directly describe top tier models either. As for supercomputer, it refers to a specific type of computer, although that type is fluid and changes over time, what is or isn't a supercomputer at a given time doesn't seem to be up for debate as any large scale computer designed for fast processing seems to be a supercomputer. In both these cases it is up to the relevant Wikiproject to make decisions regarding the use of these words and the "but they're doing it over there" argument isn't going to get a lot of traction.
  • 3. There is no "official line" on this matter. For automobile related topics we are making the rules by consensus on this page. --Leivick (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

People, I need your help. We had discussion maybe a year and a half ago where we agreed to remove the similar field of the automotive infobox. It was a good idea. Over at {{Infobox Motorcycle}}, I'm having a difficult time getting the similar field removed. I could use some help finding the discussion where we reached consensus on removing the field. Also, if you could please take some time to go over to Template talk:Infobox Motorcycle#Similar parameter and add your thoughts. Thank very much. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion, perhaps? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 9#"Similar" field in infoboxes swaq 17:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
That probably part of it. Found the main one. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 9#.22Similar.22 field in infoboxes. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh they're both the same. Nevermind. Anyway, still need help on the motorcycle talk page. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Porsche Cayman trivia

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Bagbesh (talk · contribs) has added a trivia bit on a celebrity who crashed and died in his Porsche Cayman S. The first two times I just reverted since it was unsourced, but now he has added it back with a source. I still feel it should not be included in the article per WP:WPACT, but I don't want to be the person to revert it again lest he think it is personal. It'd be nice to have a third party take a look at this and decide whether to remove it. Thanks. swaq 16:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I believe this information is non-notable and has no direct effect on the Cayman or Porsche. People die in car crashes all the time. Reverted.--Flash176 (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in the Cayman article but it does belong in François Sterchele's article. Shift it rather than delete it. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It was already mentioned there. swaq 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I've counselled Bagbesh on his talk page. —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_17&oldid=1142515242"