Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

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

WikiProject iconAutomobiles Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)

"Marque" and WP:PEACOCK

As some may have noticed I boldly moved numerous "marque" articles, replacing that word with "car brand". I know what I was doing, thought the move will fulfill all three WP:BOLDMOVE points, but no. Huge backslash ensues, editors telling me to "be careful"... let me explain.

The word marque always strikes me as weird and too-fancy. As a non-native English speaker I also thought many other non-native would not be familiar to the word - this falls in the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. "Car brand" is no less precise or unambiguous than "Marque" so it's also not quite a downgrade. What triggers me to remember of this issue is this edit by @Mr.choppers which has not met any objection, replacing "marque" to "brand" due to "a bit of a WP:PEACOCK issue".

The suspicion of the word being too fancy is apparent in dictionaries. These are the definition of "marque" by several dictionaries:

  • Cambridge (Business English): "the name for a range of cars, which is sometimes different from the name of the company that produces them""
    • Example: If you are not so worried about having a brand new car but want a fancy marque, you can try Premium Cars.
  • Oxford Learners Dictionaries (American): "a well-known make of a product, especially a car, that is expensive and fashionable"
  • Wikitionary: "A brand or make of a manufactured product, especially of a motor car (in contradistinction to a model)."
    • Example (British media quote): The group wants Rover as its luxury marque and MG as the performance car.
  • Merriam-Webster: "a brand or make of a product (such as a sports car)"
    • Example: The German luxury marque has just announced the opening of its first charging hub in the U.S.
  • Collins (American English): "a product model or type, as of a luxury or racing car"
    • Example: The group has said that it wants to focus on top luxury marques.
  • Longman (British English): "the well-known name of a type of car or other product, especially an expensive one"
    • Example: the prestigious Ferrari marque
  • Dictionary.com: "a product model or type, as of a luxury or racing car."
    • Example: More than just a symbol, she is the embodiment of our brand, and a constant source of inspiration and pride for the marque and its clients.

Clearly a sentence that sounds like "Dacia is a budget marque of Renault..." wouldn't sound right based on these definitions, let alone in an encyclopedia.

To sum it up, "car brand" is concise enough while being neutral and not risking using a WP:PEACOCK term (which may also apply to the word "luxury", but that's for another time).

Pinging @DeFacto @Infinty 0 @Urbanoc to this discussion. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In British English "marque" is the correct and common word used for car makes of all levels. It is not a 'peacock' term - the first paragraph of the Dacia article says: "In 2021, the Dacia marque sold...". And COMMONNAME applies to the main title ('Rover' or 'Mini', for example), not to the disambiguator.
You also seem to have misunderstood several of the dictionary entries you quote.
  • In the Cambridge entry "fancy" is an adjective applied to "marque" in an example, it is not part of the definition. The example would be just as valid if it said "If you are not so worried about having a premium brand car you could buy a brand new one with a budget marque".
  • Similarly with the Wikitionary entry, it's a usage example, "The group wants Dacia as its budget marque and Alpine as the performance car" works too.
  • The same with the Merriam-Webster entry - it could have equally said: "The Romanian budget marque has just announced the opening of its first charging hub in the U.S."
In American English it might have a different meaning.
"Marque" is more concise than "car brand", so is a better fit with WP:TITLEDAB, in British English at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge, Wikitionary and Merriam-Webster entries show the typical usage for this word, and it's really not a coincidence when three of them use the word luxury and fancy in it. That's my point.
Notice how only Wikipedia heavily uses the word "marque" in any applications (including budget brands) as explained by Mr.choppers. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, in Britain (or at least all the old British mags that I used to read), marque really just meant brand - high class and low class and everything in between. Eg https://austinmotorvehicleclubqld.org/blog/2019/4/6/1969-austin-models-uk-and-australia for Austin Mini and land crabs. It's quite literally the maker's "mark", derived from a time when French cars were world leaders.  Stepho  talk  08:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Google Definition, a marque is "a make of car, as distinct from a specific model", a French back-formation of marquer ‘to brand’.
To me, this is less of a PEACOCK issue and more an issue of MOS:JARGON. To preface my points below, I concur with DeFacto to the extent that marque is both correct and non-specific as to a trim level or brand identity in American English.
As set for in WP:TITLEDAB: "When deciding on which disambiguation method(s) to use, all article titling criteria are weighed in", under which marque fails both Naturalness and Recognizability.
  • Marque is not natural. To a reader searching for vehicles carrying the name of an ambiguous manufacturer, (e.g., Jaguar) the most natural additional descriptor would be "car". However, "car" fail under the precision and/or consistency prongs because it is more commonly associated with an individual model (and arguably excludes "truck") and not the brand as a whole. While marque is correct and concise, it's less natural than "automobiles" or "vehicles".
  • Marque is not recognizable. As the word's French origin suggests, and its pronunciation reinforces, it is most intuitively associated with a brand. To wit: the French term Marque de commerce, known as a Trademark in English speaking countries. As mentioned, marque is jargon as it's likely only recognized by the readers most familiar with various marques/brands. Because the definition is simply a combination of two things with which most readers would be familiar (cars and brands), it risks being imprecise to a non-expert reader who incorrectly interprets it to be a brand of anything, and is nonsense to somebody that has never seen the term. The proposed alternative "car brand" is more recognizable, but fails under the concision and/or precision prongs. Marque is less recognizable than "automobiles" or "vehicles".
For these reasons I think the disambiguating term "automobiles" is more appropriate. Automobiles is recognizable to casual readers, while remaining a concise single word. Additionally, it is precise because the plural form indicates it is a group of vehicles (and not one in particular), which implies it is a brand. Finally, it is consistent with what is already used for Scion (automobile), Pontiac (automobile), GMC (automobile), and others. IPBilly (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Automobiles" may be ok for articles written in American English, but it isn't in common usage in British English, so isn't suitable for articles written in British English where 'marque' is in common usage in this context. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even in British English, marque may have a common usage, but mostly for premium/luxury brands. This is why I'm suggesting using "car brand", not "automobile", because the former is widely used in both American English and British English and more understandable for non-native English speakers and non-experts. I do not doubt the correctness of the word "marque", but I'm more concerned of its use cases and reader's understanding. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, as has been said elsewhere by me, and others, "marque" is used across the spectrum for car brands in British English. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Marque" is commonly used in British English, be it in reference to Lada or Rolls-Royce. In British English "brand" is more ambiguous, as it could also refer to the model name (ie. with the Austin Allegro the term "marque" unambiguously refers to the "Austin" part of the name, whereas the word "brand" could be referring to the "Austin" brand, the "Allegro" brand, or the "Austin Allegro" brand). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Brands can span a range of models like ST/RS (Ford) , AMG (Mercedes), Aircross (Citroen), Quadrafolgio (Alfa Romeo), E-tech (Renault), or Quattro (Audi) spring to mind. These are neither marques or models.
The perfect examples are DS, a marque spun off from the DS line of Citroens, which were inspired by the original DS model. Really, they are all brands.
Make and marque are interchangeable IMO. However make might be seen to mean manufacturer, which if a manufacturer sold it's namesake marque could be two different Wikipedia articles.
Stick with marque. Pretentious is in the eye of the observer only. Rally Wonk (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has come up a few times in the past. Both "brand" and "marque" are correct terms. Neither is jargon, neither is better or worse than the other. They just have different popularity depending on your country. We should not change marque to brand or vice-versa except to be consistent within an article. It's just like windshield vs windscreen, taillight vs taillamp. Let it go - it's a no-win to force your own preferences on the rest of the world.  Stepho  talk  22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "marque" as a "peacock" term at all. It's an industry-specific term, yes, but not unrecognizable jargon. It may be more common in British English, but I have seen it in American writing. --Sable232 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt the correctness of the word "marque". It's also not an issue of English variation, in which the WP:RETAIN policy took place. Okay, say peacock is not an issue. But recognizability might be an issue. Non-native readers and non-expert readers might took a bit of time to understand what is a "marque", but "car brand" is self-explanatory and understandable even by children. My thinking is that we should pick a word that is understandable by 99% of readers instead of, say, 75% even if its slightly longer. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where the meaning of "marque" would be natural, obvious and clear to most people who were interested in cars, "car brand" would take a bit of processing, and would possibly stick in the craw of many, and be incomputable to those who associate "brand" with just designer brands. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very pompous sounding, although I don't live in the UK. In Swedish or German or many other languages, märke or merk is the normal term, but at least in America it's something pretentious that you'd see in Robb Report or hear from a real estate agent. I'd say use brand for American entries, marque for British entries, and let the rest fall where they may. If I said that Dacia was a brand of car in the UK, would anyone think it strange sounding? Here is a blurb from Dacia UK's page about who they are:

DACIA, A BRAND REBORN

Dacia was founded in Romania in 1966, with a clear objective: to provide modern, reliable and affordable cars to all Romanians. Its name was taken from Dacia, the former name given by the Romans to the region now known as Romania.

But it was in 1999, when Renault acquired Dacia, that the brand began a strategic shift, without straying far from its roots. Logan marked its first success.

Sounds like brand is a natural and commonly used word on both sides of the Atlantic.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: The example would be just as valid if it said "If you are not so worried about having a premium brand car you could buy a brand new one with a budget marque". From my location, ye olde Google search for "budget marque" (in quotation marks) returns 100% French-language results, not relating to cars, "budget brand" millions but again not generally car related. "Budget marque" car has 4,870 results and "Budget brand" car 155,000. "Luxury marque" has 190,000 results, in large parts thanks to crossword puzzle clues with ACURA and LEXUS as the answers. "budget car marque" has 7 results, whereas "budget car brand" has 118,000 results. My east-coast US version of Google clearly shows that "marque" has aspirational connotations, but I am curious to see the results others get.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Marque" seems reasonable for articles on British cars, and car articles written in British English, but the word has near-zero currency in American English (the US term is "make", as in "make and model: Mazda Miata"). I don't know about Canadian, Australian, etc. That said, The Cambridge, Wikitionary and Merriam-Webster entries show the typical usage for this word, and it's really not a coincidence when three of them use the word luxury and fancy in it seems like a valid point, and might bear additional investigation. If there is any non-neutral implication given by this word, it should probably be avoided. I really don't know where "car brand" came from, though. That doesn't seem to be a common term in either AmEng or BrEng.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative of "marque" is "brand" - which is not specific enough for most cases. Thus, "car brand". "Automotive brand" is a mouthful, while "automobile" has an American English tendency (so does "automaker").
"Car brand" is used over 14 million times according to Google (in addition to 32 million for plural "car brands"), so it is quite common. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning "make", I left that out.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If MOS:COMMONALITY is our goal then maybe "make" would be clearer? I disagree that "marque" is a MOS:PEACOCK term, and I take plenty of issue with the use of MOS:PEACOCK terms in car articles on Wikipedia on a regular basis (ie. declaring anything vaguely upmarket to be "luxury"). In British English I think "make" and "automobile" sound rather more old fashioned than "marque" and "(motor) car" but neither is unfamiliar (need I remind people of the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association?). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Make" is typically used as an attribute of a car, for records such as DMV, insurance, police, etc., and included with Year and Model. For example, the Year/Make/Model of that car is 1998/Toyota/Camry. "Brand" is used as a unit of a car company, for marketing and business. For example, Chevrolet is a brand of General Motors. In that sense, I think it makes sense to keep the existing use of "brand" (as applicable by region) here, and define Make under Brand or Make (disambiguation). --Vossanova o< 01:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In polish we use "marka samochodowa" from "car marque" without any luxurious connotations. But maybe simple "car brand" would suffice.YBSOne (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Holden Commodore

Holden Commodore 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll look into it.
Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page for car door handles/opening mechanisms?

Given the rise of unconventional door handles being seen on EVs for drag reduction purposes, does this warrant an article being made? For example, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq had a button that would unlatch the door and pop it out, and the door is opened the rest of the way by pulling on a fin or edge of the door. Several other EVs have flush handles that are only accessible when stopped and unlocked. Though I was mainly focusing on exterior handles, some Lexuses have an electronic interior door latch button, and some special edition exotics have a pull-strap to save weight. Finally, it is a recent trend for high end limousine style luxury cars to have power closing doors, sometimes operated by the brake pedal.

Is this subject worthy of its own article under Wikipedia guidelines? Needlesballoon (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - You're on to something, and I approve.
Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Method to improve legibility of fuel economy listings?

In articles such as the this section on the Mazda CX-5, multiple fuel economy numbers are listed. However, the long unit names and conversions make them difficult to read multiple in a row such as when listing EPA numbers for city/highway/combined.

For example, something that may be written as short as "26 mpg city, 31 mpg highway, and 28 mpg combined" in US article is written as the following in Wikipedia:

26 mpg‑US (9.0 L/100 km; 31 mpg‑imp) city, 31 mpg‑US (7.6 L/100 km; 37 mpg‑imp) highway and 28 mpg‑US (8.4 L/100 km; 34 mpg‑imp) combined

In my opinion, the long unit abbreviations make the sentence snippet hard to follow, especially in context of more sentences with similar unit conversions. Is there some correct way to format this in a manner that is less confusing on the eyes? Perhaps tabulating the numbers could help, but they feel suboptimal for this purpose. Needlesballoon (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is hard to read. But as an Australian, US mpg figures are meaningless (we use either L/100 km or the older folk use British mpg). For British readers, US mpg figures look familiar but are actually misleading (Britsh gallons are different to US gallons). And US readers seem unable to read anything that is not in their native units.
Solutions?
  1. Do everything in metric. I can already hear the Americans crying.
  2. Do everything in US terms. I can already hear the rest of the world crying.
  3. Use whatever units the reference uses. Will probably wind up with some generations using US units and other generations using metric - making comparison very difficult.
  4. Use the native units of the country of origin. Note that the MX-5 is Japanese and they use mostly metric.
  5. Use the long format. Virtually unreadable (as Needles pointed out).
  6. Only show mpg type figures in tables where they can be spaced out a bit.
  7. Show all conversions for the first figure, then show just the country of origin native units (typically metric) for the remainder, with the user viewing them relative to the fully converted units.
  8. Other. Make suggestions.  Stepho  talk  22:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a suggestion. Update Template:Convert to add a "disp=tooltip" parameter, allowing the output figures to appear in a tooltip template when you hover over the input figure. For example: 26 mpg‑US. Then just use the appropriate base unit by region of article. --Vossanova o< 23:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar predicament, US figures are hard to read as an Australian myself, I'm more familiar with metric myself so,
its easy to see what I'm choosing,
Option 1 - Sorry Americans Arotparaarms (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want to use an obsolete British measurement at all? Why not metric (US) or the other way around, maybe dependent on the country of manufacturer? That way you would have only two unit systems and wouldn't need the subscript "US" or "imp" at all. Insult old Brits, not the US. ("regressed back to imperial measurements for many things"? Oops, not obsolete, sorry).
I'd like to defend US miles (only, not other units). Most of the US in surveyed in miles, trying to change to metric would make many legal documents, as well as most street addresses, wrong. We didn't invent these damn measurements, we were stuck with them. Sammy D III (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stuck with them? How do you explain countries like Australia that completely converted to metric in the 1970s? HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the US west of the original 13 states on the east coast was broken up into a 1 mi x 1 mi grid, nicknamed the Jefferson Grid. A 5x5 section of the grid may form the borders of a township, and a collection of those square townships form a county. Many states completely consist of main roads following the 1x1 mile, only diverting slightly around rivers, lakes and city centers. While this doesn't necessarily prevent the national conversion to the metric system, it would be a cause for significant pushback as the roadway system is literally built by the mile. Anecdotally, I can mentally calculate the distance and time needed to travel around my areas due to the simplicity of each major road intersecting every 1 mile. Needlesballoon (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Australia used miles in many similar ways up to the 1970s. The major roads in my area are in a rectangular grid, a mile apart. We changed, without moving the roads. Most people younger than me are not even aware of the historical use of miles. NOBODY wants to go back to miles. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmmmm, I think It should be written like:
30km(18.64 m)
So that all parties are happy,
Cheers Arotparaarms (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just opinion, not position: when I saw "m" my first thought was "meter ?" (US POV). I would think that the first number would be chosen by the units of the majority of sources, so there would be a minimum of reverse converts (I take your metric first as an example, not implying which one should be used). I do think there are probably uses for Imperial units on old Brit cars. And FWIW, I think US units are stupid, too, I'm just stuck with them. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify things, Americans think in their version of mpg (with US gallons, different to British gallons) and have great trouble thinking in anything else. Brits swapped to metric and then, for reasons that totally baffle me, regressed back to imperial measurements for many things, including mpg (with Imperial gallons different to American gallons) and have great trouble thinking in anything else. Pretty much everybody else uses the metric system and have great trouble thinking in anything else. It's the " and have great trouble thinking in anything else" part that screws us. For systems not commonly used in your country, we may as well be saying 29 farqalquartzs per furtlitzbins. Hence the need for conversions.
Articles must always consistently use a main system of units. WP:CARUNITS and WP:UNITS say use metric for the main units in most articles but allow articles closely tied to the US and UK to use their systems. We do not choose the units according to the majority of sources just because the yanks (or Brits or Aussies or others) happen to be noisier in writing. We still convert to the other 2 systems. The input to {{convert}} and {{cvt}} should always be the units used in the reference but we use |order=out to change the order to match the rest of the article.
I like the tool-tip idea. We can display the first figure with all 3 conversions (with the main units of the article first). Then nearby figures can show only the main units of the article, with the other units (possibly including that from the reference) can be in the tool-tip.
Fuel economy was 12 L/100 km (24 mpg‑imp; 20 mpg‑US) for the city, 9.0 L/100 km for highway and 10 L/100 km combined.
That tooltip part is a bit hard to write (and has trouble with subscripts) but I can make a simpler template to do it.  Stepho  talk  00:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stepho, you are a power here and I'm not, but I don't understand you. The first paragraph in WP:CARUNITS seems to contradict both you and the first bullet in it's own "General conventions for units:".
In WP:UNITS the last sentence of the first paragraph sounds like "use local" to me. It then lists US and UK usage. "In all other articles" says "or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic". In an Australian auto article I would expect the majority of RSs to use the local units. Not carved in stone, of course, but probable.
Could it be that you are thinking of current World cars, where a common platform is widely used, while I am thinking of nationally built and sold older cars?
I have gone from converts to units used, sorry if that's too off-topic. Thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmmmm alright, I'll leave you all to it
Cheers Arotparaarms (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's some grey area in which unit is the primary. There is even a discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Primary_Unit. For now, we can skip over that and just concentrate on the format we wish to use.
L/100 km is as unintelligible to anyone in the U.S. as mpg‑US presumably is to anyone in Europe or Australasia. That makes options 1-4 highly undesirable.

I think Vossanova's suggestion for a tooltip is the most reasonable way to handle this. Fuel economy figures probably aren't that interesting to most readers (unless they're trying to use Wikipedia as a buyer's guide, which it is not) except in relation to how the figures changed with passing years and generations. So, if the figures appear in the home-market units but a tooltip is available for those who are interested, that would be the most helpful to the largest number of readers without making it unreadable.

I don't like the idea of putting together tables (option 6). Inclusion of fuel economy already has the potential to get out of hand - for any given vehicle, there would need to be a figure for every powertrain of every year. In some cases, this would basically take over the entire article. For example, the 1975 AMC Matador has twelve different configurations that would need to be listed; the 1981 Ford F-Series has twenty-two. (I consider it fortunate that fuel economy isn't listed in most articles.)

The lack of subscript in the tooltip probably isn't a big problem, since the difference between rendering as "mpg‑US" and "mpg-us" or the imperial equivalents is minimal in practical terms. --Sable232 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding tables, I think adding them to the Engines/Powertrain tables is the best alternative to adding them inline with a potential convert template tooltip. I think we can all agree that adding fuel economy for every year is overkill, but we can at least display one fuel economy figure (average, most common, first, or last) per engine/powertrain and generation. --Vossanova o< 01:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A table would be the best place if there is already a table listing engine variants, etc.
If you really want it inline in the text then here is a template that I made quickly (it would need some more work before going mainstream).
Eg:
Fuel economy was {{cvt|9|L/100km|mpgimp L/100km mpgus|disp=out|0}} city cycle, {{fuel economy|14|metric|first=uk}} country cycle and {{fuel economy|11|metric|first=uk}} combined.
displays as:
Fuel economy was 31 mpg‑imp; 9 L/100 km; 26 mpg‑US city cycle, 20 mpg-imp country cycle and 26 mpg-imp combined.
Template documentation at {{fuel economy}} - it can accept a metric/uk/us number as input and display it with any of them first and the other two as a tooltip. Thoughts? Suggestions for improvement?  Stepho  talk  08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if there was a template that grouped city/highway/combined numbers of each unit together? I think that may be easier to read without needing tooltips. A couple of possible formats assuming mpg-imp is the region's unit:
  1. Fuel economy was 31 mpg-imp city, 20 mpg-imp country, and 26 mpg-imp combined (9.1/14.1/10.9 L/100km; 26/17/21 mpg-US).
  2. Fuel economy was 31 city, 20 country, and 26 mpg-imp combined (9.1/14.1/10.9 L/100km; 26/17/21 mpg-US).
  3. Fuel economy was 31/20/26 mpg-imp (9.1/14.1/10.9 L/100km; 26/17/21 mpg-US) in city, country and combined cycles respectively.
  4. Fuel economy was 31 mpg-imp city (9.1 L/100 km; 26 mpg-US), 20 mpg-imp country (14.1 L/100 km; 17 mpg-US), and 26 mpg-imp combined (10.9 L/100 km; 21 mpg-US).
The idea is that the grouped numbers are easier to read since one doesn't need to jump to locations within several parentheses to find their preferred unit, and it cuts down on repeating the long unit names several times. Option 1 is the most verbose and feels the most correct in sentence form. Option 2 is a possibly grammatically incorrect version of 1. Option 3 is most compact and likely easiest to make a template for, but the format might be clunky to use in context. Option 4 is what using the current convert template results in, note how much longer and less legible it is. Needlesballoon (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like the "tooltip" idea floated above. For me, fuel consumption is an extremely imprecise measure - not only does everyone measure it differently (those pesky Swedes measure it in litres per Swedish Mile, which is 10km), but the methodology varies wildly across time, countries, and whoever does the measuring. Not to mention the city/country/combined divide. To me, fuel consumption numbers are nearly entirely meaningless; they skate close to being subjective. I almost never add fuel consumption figures for this reason, and I will just stick to that and not have to worry about making sense of something with no useful answer.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative to my {{fuel economy}} template, the {{convert}} template has some interesting |, and |and options. Eg:
{{cvt|31|,|20|,|26|mpgimp|L/100km mpgus mpgimp|order=out}} → Fuel economy is 9.1, 14.1, 10.9 L/100 km (26, 17, 22 mpg‑US; 31, 20, 26 mpg‑imp) for city, country and combined cycles.
{{cvt|31|,|20|and|26|mpgimp|L/100km mpgus mpgimp|order=out}} → Fuel economy is 9.1, 14.1 and 10.9 L/100 km (26, 17 and 22 mpg‑US; 31, 20 and 26 mpg‑imp) for city, country and combined cycles.
Still a lot of numbers but at least the ones each reader cares about are grouped together.  Stepho  talk  06:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I was looking for! Numbers are grouped for readability, and the overall length is shorter. While it is still a bit long, I really don't think there's a reasonable way around it.
Fuel economy should not be listed very often anyways, as there can be so many different configurations and rating organizations, and they can change often. It is good practice to only list them sparingly like when they are significant or interesting. Needlesballoon (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maserati MCXtrema

I won't argue my rationale here again as I have with my argument in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#XX Programmes. Looking through the sources, I can determine that they all look like they have been written from the same press release, thus WP:SIGCOV are very lacking. Being a trackday toy doesn't help either as these events are not newsworthy. This explains why I am merging Maserati MCXtrema into Maserati MC20. Editors needs to think before they create another unnecessary article. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you letting me, the creator of the page, know. Cool. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 17:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SpacedFarmer, when you merge a page you need to... actually merge content from one page to the other. A "blank-and-redirect" is not a merge and it's disingenuous to call it such. Please identify the unique content from Maserati MCXtrema and include it in Maserati MC20, and remove the links to the former article that are in the latter. Otherwise, please self-revert. It's very bad form to do a passing blank-and-redirect and then not even take the now-circular links out of the target article. --Sable232 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for discussing modified versions of a car in articles

I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but can someone point me to the convention or guideline about discussing modified versions of a car in articles (both individually modified cars and ones modified by 3rd party tuners). I'm also interested in any guidelines around the motorsports section and the inclusion of factory backed vs non factory backed racing efforts. TKOIII (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have an official guideline but we should probably add one to WP:AUTOCONV.
My own preference is that on articles about factory offerings (eg Nissan Skyline or Ford Mustang, we restrict ourselves to only the factory offerings. If we start listing custom and tuner variants then we will be listing thousands of cars with little notability in themselves.
However, exceptions could be high profile cars like the convertible Toyota 2000GT used the James Bond film You Only Live Twice and cars sold through the dealerships of the original manufacturer like the Shelby Mustang.  Stepho  talk  07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are that custom cars or tuner versions of a car should only be included within a car's main article if they're of very high significance or have/had a clear effect on that car's public image or sales. I think this would more often apply to modification movements rather than individual cars, such as mentioning the fact that the Pontiac Fiero was a common base for supercar replicas, as that is a significant part of its public image. The same goes for non factory backed racing efforts. For instance, the baja bug section in the Volkswagen Beetle article, or the (currently not amazing but relevant) drifting section in the Nissan Silvia article are significant enough to the history and public image of those cars that they warrant inclusion. TKOIII (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I am generally an inclusionist, but tuner cars are a slippery slope. But some of them cannot (and should not) be ignored.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China Car of the Year article

There are two topics on Talk:China Car of the Year that edotors here might be interested in participating in:

Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a few more participants on this one please. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On flags:
Flags icons should not be used here, as the subjects in question are not national sports teams, military entities, or a ship with a registration. Any commentary on automaker nationality should use the country's name in words. Needlesballoon (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Needlesballoon, thanks for commenting. The full discussion is taking place at Talk:China Car of the Year#Flags if you'd like to participate there. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin DB9 at FAC

Hello contributors of the WikiProject Automobiles project. The Aston Martin DB9 article is at the featured article candidacy stage with the hope of it becoming a featured article in the near future. If you have any criticisms, add them to the page. Best,  750h+ | Talk  15:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of car models

The question of whether it is reasonable to try to assign a nationality to individual car models is being discussed at Talk:China Car of the Year#Validity of "Winner by country origins" table, if you are interested. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin Rapide at GAN

Hello contributors of the WikiProject Automobiles project. The Aston Martin Rapide article is at the good article nomination stage with the hope of it becoming a good article in the near future. If you would like to review, and you've reviewed a few successful GANs in the past, please feel free to review the article. Best,  750h+ | Talk  12:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&oldid=1219383696"