Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 → Archive 45

Removal of pre-war MG infoboxes?

As is well-known, the pre-war MG models were structured with a model name as "J2" etc where the "J" was a broad type and there were J1, J2, J3 etc. models within that. The J1 or J2 might be the production model with a fair few made, the higher numbers racing models with superchargers, lighter bodies etc. and only a handful made. These are important differences, they're quite different cars (and easily a factor of ten price difference today) but the articles read better as one article per broad model.

These distinctions, specifically the infoboxes, are now being swept away, with the claimed justification "change lead and infobox to match consensus at WT:CARS," Can anyone please point me to such consensus for this major change? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Naturally of course, Luke is now instantly edit warring to restore his deletions. No interest in discussing them first? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Naturally, of course, you're not even looking at what I've done. All I did was reinstate the changes to the company naming and added "19" in front of the years where it was missing. Will you ever stop being a complete and utter pillock? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Luke, you seem to be having some trouble with reality here:
You are removing the per-model infoboxes. Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Either you're being incredibly ignorant, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. AGAIN. Note the word "reinstate"? Yeah, that means it was a response to your claims of me "instantly edit warring to restore his deletions" - nope, that's categorically not what I did. AND you just ignored the second part of my response. Are you really this sad? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • So if you make a challenged change and it's reverted, and then you reinstate the change, but you don't make all the change that time, that's somehow OK? Of course not! There are several issues with your changes and if you're challenged over them, stop and discuss it first. DO NOT simply start a war of attrition and seee just how many you can still sneak through. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The bits I reinstated were supported by consensus and the fucking template. If someone disputes a series of changes I make, I stop - and have done so every time. Which, if you weren't a self-centred arse and ever paid any attention, you would've noticed. But you are so desperate to get rid of me that you will stop at nothing, and will ignore any facts, in your attempts to do so. Why are you so pathetic? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Luke, why so angry? Why, when you're happily edit-warring, do you even have to slip in the little digs like "surprise surprise, lazy reverter who can't wait to jump on me is being lazy as usual" ? Whatever the eventual result here content-wise, for good or ill, it will all come out in the wash. In the meantime we have to play by rules (not content choices, rules about behaviour so that we're able to make effective choices about content.) Two of those are discuss before edit-warring and don't attack other editors. You seem to angrily ignore both all the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why so angry? Because you flat-out lie about my actions, or present them in clearly inaccurate ways. At no point here have I edit-warred content that was actually disputed with a reason being given for the dispute; I solely put back the changes that match consensus (either explicit here, or the changes that match the templates). And the fact that it is blatantly obvious you will jump on me when you'd let it slide for almost anyone else because of an ancient grudge. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, nice to see you're flat-out lying (AGAIN) about my infobox merging - again, you're so desperate to get one over me that you clearly ignored the justification of "merge redundant infoboxes" - it's hilarious how you present evidence that completely destroys half of your claim. I merged the infoboxes because they are redundant - the cars were produced around the same time, and there was little difference between the specifications (or that much information in them at all). Had it been anyone else, you'd have let it be - but no, your pathetic grudge must come above common sense, right? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why are they redundant? Do you not appreciate the difference between a K1 and a K3 or a J2 and a J3/J4? Some of these are the "production" model, many made, quite cheap, and the others are a world-class racing car of the time, hand-made in ones and twos. As noted above, there's a factor of ten pricetag difference today because of the rarity and history factors. As they were also very distinct models when made, they warrant a distinct infobox.
More to the point though, where is your claimed consensus for this change?
As to your edit-warring, yet again, it's WP:BRD. If your edits are challenged, then stop and discuss them. Do not just edit-war to reinstate them. Do not continue your campaign of edits across the other models in the group. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I did not edit war to reinstate my disputed edits. I reinstated two fucking parts of it; one of which was tidying up the grammar in the lead (they haven't stopped being cars) and the company names, and the other was putting "19" before the years like you're supposed to - neither of which were disputed at any point. So there's another deliberate misrepresentation from you (what is that, the 9001st?). Why are they redundant? Because they have two fields at most that don't directly link together, they were generally produced at or around the same time, and those shorter infoboxes lack that much in the way of content (some of them literally just differ in body style and production numbers - the latter often being unsourced anyway.) If they had contained all of the information that they potentially could, and it was different enough, then you would have a justification for them existing separately. What next, we'll start having separate infoboxes for the "5 Series Tourer" and such things? Jeez. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A closely related example, a very conventional if pretty open two-seater which has been given just an enormous Ford V8 engine has its very own largish article in WP see Sunbeam Tiger. Could this be the right way to go with MGs? Eddaido (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A good question, but I think the Tiger is too different from the Alpine and so justifies its separate article (although one might ask why the three different Alpines are all lumped into one). For the MGs, the "K-type" is the right level for an article, but the distinctions within this should still be recognised through the separate infoboxes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • First, please knock off the chest thumping, gentlemen. Second, Eric Corbett and I brought Sunbeam Tiger to FA/TFA and the info box was something that was massaged and discussed a good deal, trying different ways. He is a good source for infoboxes (without being a zealot about them) and of course, he knows older Brit metal better than most people realize. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll take advice from Eric when he stops calling members of the owners club "fucking idiots" when they point out that whoever wrote the featured article hadn't read the (online) workshop manual first. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's not make it personal here guys, it's about the article, not personalities. You can ignore any advice you want, of course. And as someone who did the initial research for that article and went and bought some of the books for that article (they aren't easy to find, nor cheap), I don't remember running across a shop manual. If you have a reliable source link for an online shop manual, that would be news to me and I would love to see that. What I mainly found was contradiction everywhere, something I'm trying to avoid here, which is why I asked for experienced outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
http://www.sunbeamalpine.org/downloads/WSM%20124%20SI-SIV%20Manual/10%20Rear%20Axle%20%28G%29.pdf As was linked from the article talk page at the time, and Luke described it as "sources that are clearly incorrect,". Just the same time when I questioned statements in this FA about how the front spark plugs were changed by reaching through the firewall from the back of the engine. It still clams that. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Two different sources said that, motor mags of the time. I know because I actually read the articles myself. I even have a book that is nothing but magazine articles [1] (out of print) which was further cross-referenced at the library where possible, both in Manchester and North Carolina. And it begs the question, was this the Tiger I or Tiger II and was there a difference? I don't know and don't have the time today to follow up. But that wasn't some random factoid I pulled out of my arse, I was following the sources. That said, much of the information about the Tiger was contradictory, and we had to double source as much as possible, it was a nightmare to get clean numbers and stats because all the sources said something different. This made writing the article, which isn't particularly large, a huge problem. So if it is wrong (and as someone who has used actual manuals in an actual shop, I'm not totally convinced), it is because sources are wrong, which is entirely possible for this particular rare car. This had nothing to do with Eric nor a lack of due diligence on my part. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the workshop manual Andy Dingley provides a partial link to above is for the Sunbeam Alpine, not the Tiger. There's no mention of Panhard rods for instance. Eric Corbett 17:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Gear ratios

I noticed several articles include gear and final drive ratios tables, sometimes with refs. Are these accepted? Seems to be a little too much detail to me. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Any examples? For sports cars, these figures are extremely relevant. For other vehicles, they may be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Ferrari Testarossa is the last one I encountered. But there are several others I can't remember right now. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted such information in the past as out of scope. It would be good to build a definitive consensus on the issue. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
♠If there are standard ratios, I'd leave them in, but AFAIK, the axle ratio is so variable (engine options alone will alter it, & so will customer choice), it's impossible to say. Not to mention it's a bit trivial. The trans gear ratios might be okay, but even then, it's getting trivial.
♠That said, where is the line? Might be better if we collect it all on the tranny & axle pages & link to those, then cite the model options & combinations. (That could get insanely complicated... 8o ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I regularly remove these things as I don't think they're appropriate either. I generally take the viewpoint that, if there isn't an infobox field for it, it generally shouldn't be in the article, with the exception of the most common headline performance figures (top speed and 0-60), since those are things that get talked about in most sources and are likely to be of interest to a much wider audience than gear ratios or whatever (which your average Wikipedia user isn't necessarily going to have the slightest clue about.) There may be a place for talking about ratios in prose in a small number of articles (if they are specifically commented on by reliable sources), but in tables? No, not in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
♠WP coverage of automotive matters is far from ideal. The gear ratios in the trans & axle are routinely included in C&D feature articles (to name just one case), & not uncommon in Hot Rod or elsewhere. (Plus, they are part of the spec; would you omit engine displacement?) The effect on performance isn't insignificant, so... Whether the broad WP readership cares is another issue. That said, IMO there should be some place for it; we may not be creating Gearheadpedia, but we shouldn't be shutting out the gearheads by default, either. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • When did we start dumbing down because some of the readers might not understand why something is included? I thought you (Luke) had some circuit racing experience? Surely you understand the importance of the final drive ratio, even more so than the gearbox spread? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I wish I had circuit racing experience, all I've got is a couple of runs in the British Schools Karting Championship, and we certainly didn't get close to fiddling with any of the mechanicals. I wouldn't say that is the only reason why the ratios don't really have a place here, but that is one reason - this is a general-purpose encyclopedia after all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Gearbox ratios are so dumb that even Jeremy Clarkson could[citation needed] understand them. You can't be serious that they have no place here as they're too complicated! Even my Triumph Vitesse is a somewhat obscure and desirable variant (and recognised as such amongst Triumph drivers) because it has a swapped (and better) back axle ratio. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
"even Jeremy Clarkson could[citation needed] understand them" This is a talk page; sources aren't required. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Who decides what "a general-purpose encyclopedia after all" contains? What is this unexpected retrograde Lukeno94 idea that WP automotive articles are to be pruned of accurate content and obliged to become less informative and more dumb? Shame! Can't stay, writing a long essay for Lukeno94's talk page. Eddaido (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have to begin trolling in any discussion I post in? Also note that I'm far from the only person here who has expressed the opinion that it isn't appropriate. Oh, and don't post on my talk page again, I don't want any more of your trolling there, thanks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Would a Car review have final drive and gearbox ratios listed? Almost certainly – even for a Hyundai Shopper-matic. Are they important for sports cars or the Ferrrari Testarossa listed early on? Of course they are. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have said my piece on this matter, and have no interest in continuing when you and one other only care about trying to destroy me/my opinion without attempting to debate with anyone else who has expressly stated the same basic thing. Which, of course, was your intent all along. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I was replying to Eddaido, not to you. I know you think the entire project revolves around you, but it does not. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And in that pathetic post which displays your own staggering arrogance and obnoxiousness, you only reinforce my point. Good job. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has spent way too much time under cars with a face covered in grease, I think gear ratios are a detail that is not really suitable in most car articles. They tend to clutter it up and break the concentration of the typical reader. It's a detail that is easy enough to find from any dedicated website. Same for the diff ratio. However, If there is a table that lists engines, grades, weights, etc, then it doesn't hurt anything to have another column for the diff ratio. On the flip side, gearbox articles benefit from listing the ratios.  Stepho  talk  01:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Late to the discussion but I'm not sure why we would want to remove content unless it is really badly formated, wrong or has been lacking source information for an extended period of time. It might be nice to have a table of technical data at the end of the article for material that is tabular but shouldn't go in the infobox. Any article of a gearbox should certainly have ratios listed if available. Perhaps the best way to handle this is put the information in the article in a relative order of "importance". Take an article on the first generation Mustang. At the high level you would say it was a best seller, kicked off the Pony car term etc. Later you might talk about specific trim models (GT350, Boss etc). Further down you could talk about Mustang specific engine details, ratios, etc, the items that appear at the end of a Road and Track type review. I really think one of the greatest things about Wikipedia is the ability to err on the side of more information, not less, because we don't have a page limit. I worked with people in a university lab who used Wikipedia all the time to find esoteric math formulas. Sure they couldn't cite Wikipedia in their research papers but they found the examples and detailed descriptions often better than what the original math authors created. It would be sad to see good knowledge thrown out. Springee (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I think Stepho-wrs has the right way forward: gear ratios are too detailed for the car article, but fine for a dedicated page on the transmission itself. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Saloon vs Sedan, Wagon vs Estate, what names to use?

I did a search in the archives of this talk page and was unable to find an answer, which terms to use? I know that Luke has been working to clean things up and one of the changes he has done is to use the "EU" names. Is that really correct? I understand that say a BMW is a European car and the English use the term Estate while the US uses Station Wagon. If we are talking about an English car I think it is proper to default to the English (UK) term. Do the Germans call their wagons "Estate" just translated (Landgut, Nachlass from Google translate). When I ask what is German for Station Wagon I get Kombi. I suspect we would find something similar with the Swedes and Japanese. Thus my question is should we use the UK terms for European cars that aren't English? Is it better to reference both North American and UK terms or simply allow the editors of each article to choose? Springee (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

IDK what the MoS says, but for subjects outside North America, I default to British. It seems the reasonable choice, since the Brits had worldwide exposure before the U.S., & since AFAIK, most non-U.S. markets use that. (This may be changing...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Previously people would use things like "Station Wagon (Estate)" or the reverse. I think that is a more neutral term when talking about say a E39 5 door which wouldn't use either term in German. Where I agree with home country centric labeling is things like the Mazda Miata. The MX-5 designation was used worldwide (US was MX-5 Miata, I think Japan was MX-5 Roadster). It's not that I think we should force every page to say "Station Wagon (Estate)" but that I think it is just as wrong to assume that UK terms are representative of European terms. I suspect the common term for "Station Wagon" doesn't literally translate between German, Swedish, French or Italian. By default it can't translate to the English term since there are two English terms (UK and NA). Thus I would suggest that we simply not make a fuss one way or the other and state that, for cars that were sold in significant value in both markets both terms should be or at least on should not be favored. Springee (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I would tend to use "estate (station wagon)", but point taken. I don't object to "5-door", except to say it sounds a bit too "car magazinish": too much like insider language, less accessible than "station wagon" or "estate". (Maybe that's lack of exposure to non-American usage.) If that's what got settled on, I'd offer no further complaint. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
For European cars I'm also OK with Estate (Station Wagon). If we were talking about a car that was UK or Europe only then Estate is fine with me (Jag X-type, Mondeo Estate). However, when we are talking about Volvo who sells a significant volume in the US and for a while was Ford owned I don't think it's right to say Volvo didn't build "wagons". Also, how would we handle the Japanese brands? Should an Accord wagon (US term) be called an Accord Estate? I agree about the 5-door term. I know wagon vs hatch is blurry in some cases but not in others (the Mondeo came in both hatch and wagon). Also, a Ford Explorer could also be called a 5 door but I wouldn't call it a wagon. Springee (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"Saloon" and "estate" are appropriate for UK cars, but not for cars associated with other countries. These terms are not widely used outside of the UK and Ireland. Sometimes European carmakers will use the terms to suggest prestige or luxury, but the common names in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc are "sedan" and "station wagon". This has been previously discussed here. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Just because it is a common enough Australian presumption I need to point out that NZ terms are often quite different from Australian (and also cars nominally the same — see the ACC fuss last week). If the word sedan is used in NZ it is consciously foreign. The correct local term is just "car / station wagon" or a default to no distinguishing term for the car and then if it is a station wagon it is distinguished. Sedan like automobile - very rare. Eddaido (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As I discovered back in 2011 and linked to above, "sedan" appears to be the predominant term used in NZ as well.

Sedan vs Saloon at Google.co.nz (NZ only search) — search results as at 10 July 2011

  • "BMW AND sedan" (1,910,000 results), "BMW AND saloon" (190,000 results)
  • "Jaguar AND sedan" (2,720,000 results), "Jaguar AND saloon" (143,000 results)
  • "Rover AND sedan" (1,670,000 results), "Rover AND saloon" (116,000 results)
  • "Toyota AND sedan" (1,910,000 results), "Toyota AND saloon" (211,000 results)

...and also in South Africa: Sedan vs Saloon at Google.co.za (ZA only search) — search results as at 10 July 2011

  • "BMW AND sedan" (983,000 results), "BMW AND saloon" (112,000 results)
  • "Jaguar AND sedan" (507,000 results), "Jaguar AND saloon" (65,200 results)
  • "Rover AND sedan" (761,000 results), "Rover AND saloon" (77,000 results)
  • "Toyota AND sedan" (1,050,000 results), "Toyota AND saloon" (92,100 results)

At the end of the day, anomalies do not matter, just the full picture and it is clear that "sedan" is more common worldwide than "saloon".

Sedan vs Saloon at Google.com (worldwide search) — search results as at 27 July 2015

  • "BMW AND sedan" (91,400,000 results), "BMW AND saloon" (14,400,000 results)
  • "Jaguar AND sedan" (34,100,000 results), "Jaguar AND saloon" (8,350,000 results)
  • "Rover AND sedan" (32,000,000 results), "Rover AND saloon" (8,650,000 results)
  • "Toyota AND sedan" (184,000,000 results), "Toyota AND saloon" (10,900,000 results)

OSX (talk • contributions) 03:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your mistake is to look for sedan or saloon! Neither normally mentioned as I pointed out. Search for sedan alone and you will find they are manufacturers' ads set by a parent in Japan or wherever. I do not subscribe to Google and in return when I limit my search to New Zealand it will not give me the number of sedan hits but they are all new car distributors for the first page or two so sorry you need a better research method there and I will be interested to see the result. Eddaido (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, if I am wrong I will concede. However, the discussion is about using the term "sedan" or "saloon", and which term is most appropriate to produce articles for global consumption. Therefore, I would deem my research method as appropriate considering the scope of the discussion. My work was merely showing that among those two terms, "sedan" is the more prominent in NZ. However, single countries are really just anomalies in the scheme of things. When we are to pick a term, we should pick the term with the greatest understanding (which would be "sedan"), except when an article has strong national ties to a country that uses "saloon", e.g. Rover 75 or Rolls-Royce Ghost. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Given car sales are by market & WP really isn't limited that way, is there a "right" answer? Maybe we just need to use all the terms & let readers figure it out based on where they live. When I was much younger, I was first exposed to Brit usage of bonnet & such, & tho I never used them (& never heard or saw them in local use), when they'd turn up on TV or in books, I felt like I had an "in" others might not have had. I'm wondering, now, if we shouldn't be hoping for that among our readers, instead of sweating over "right" & "wrong" use. Am I dreaming? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with TrekPhiler, there is no single correct way. The correct form in British English is saloon. The correct form in US and Australian English is sedan. Other countries with English as the national language will also have one or the other. Since WP does not favour one dialect of English over another, both forms are correct. If there is a strong tie to a dialect then WP:STRONGTIES says use that. Eg: Rolls-Royce articles would use British English (saloon), GM articles would use US English (sedan), Holden articles would use Australian English (sedan). But articles of German or Japanese vehicles that have no such strong ties (regardless of whether the US is their major market or not) and therefore WP:ENGVAR says they use whatever the first major editor chooses and we stay with that unless a consensus is reached on its talk page to change it. If you think a reader would have trouble understanding a term then the first usage can have the alternative name in brackets without a link. Eg: "The BMW 5 saloon (sedan)" or "The BMW 5 sedan (saloon)" depending on the first editors choice.  Stepho  talk  08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I have only one minor complaint with that: repetition isn't necessary. Link to the term & pipe with the term of preference, then use that one throughout--no? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that European vehicles would use "saloon" and "estate" rather than the American/Australian terms. I couldn't tell you where that came from, but that's something I've always thought. With that being said, I've often noticed articles that have infoboxes indicating that they were written in British English and yet still use the American terminology, which is obviously wrong (and it would be wrong to do the inverse as well). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Use whatever term is most appropriate, ignore international consistency across articles. Use redirects to target links of such terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

How about choosing one of these as our policy:
  • Consistent within each article.
    For articles with strong national ties, use the English term associated with that country.
    Otherwise the first major contributor chooses which term to use.
    The first mention should be of the form "The BMW 5 saloon (sedan)" or "The BMW 5 sedan (saloon)" ...
OR
  • Consistent within each article.
    For articles with strong national ties, use the English term associated with that country.
    Otherwise the first major contributor chooses which term to use.
    The first mention should be of the form "The BMW 5 saloon" or "The BMW 5 sedan" ...  Stepho  talk  06:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd broadly agree with that, although I'm wary of "Internationally consistent within each article" as absolute dogma. I think it was semi-trailer truck that suffered from that change recently, an article with strong sections by country and completely different per-country terminology. That change was not an improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Cautious support. My starting point is a dislike of "one-size fits all" dogmatic application of rules and quasi-rules, simply because on the planet I inhabit one size doesn't fit all (and I'm glad of it). My other starting point (yes, well .....) is that wikipedia needs to serve its readers before it starts getting too worried about the preferences of its contributors.
In deciding between saloon&sedan (as between estate&station wagon, bonnet&hood, boot&trunk) I ask myself where most of the likely readers most likely learned their English. For cars that sell in large numbers in North America AND in Europe, such as BMWs you have the challenge that LOTS of readers learned their English the British way and LOTS more learned it the American/Australian way. And because - uniquely - English is widely and fluently spoken as a second language you will have LOTS of people consulting English language wikpedia from countries where they learn British English as a second language and LOTS more where they learn American English. I don't even know whether they favour English aka (rather misleadingly) British English or American English in India which must surely contain many more English speakers than England. In Germany which I know a little, and where they are commonly fluent in English as a second language, they always used to use American English in the south and British English in the north (and excellent Russian in the east) because of the way the post-war military occupation zones were set up.
Where might all this be going? ...... for BMWs and other cars where you expect to be informing lots of people with both kinds of English, how about writing "saloon/sedan" or "sedan/saloon". That may look a bit "inelegant" but it does at least avoid the discourtesy whereby 50% of your readers are left feeling "excluded" from your "customer list". And hmmmmm. And regards Charles01 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs, you cite WP:ENGVAR, but is it appropriate for a word like "saloon" which really only has strong ties in the UK and Ireland? Should we not be using the WP:Common name except where the page has strong ties to the UK/Ireland? That would be like saying the article on the Toyota HiLux should use the term "ute" over "pickup truck" if the first editor used Australian English. One could even argue that Australia is the largest market for the vehicle, even beating Thailand for HiLux sales. But as the HiLux is still a global model sold just about everywhere except North America, I think the term "ute" is inappropraite for the page.

I also note a similar discussion took place at the conventions talk page in February 2012. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OSX, that's what I thought I said. Vehicles with strong ties to an English speaking country get to use the local name (eg Austin A40 saloon, Ford Customline Sedan). Other countries (eg Japan, Germany) use whatever the first major contributor decided on. In the case of 'ute', technically the HiLux isn't a ute. But plenty of Aussies say "ute" for anything less than a Mack truck, so I'll pretend it is. If the choice is between two names where some reader will complain, the above applies. But if there is a common name that both sides can agree on, then the common name should apply. So, for "bonnet" and "hood" there will never be agreement. But for "ute" there is the common term "pickup truck" that is understandable by all, even if some of us have a preferred local term. Of course, "ute" can be used on purely Australian articles but probably should be linked to pickup truck on its first usage.  Stepho  talk  06:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Charles, to me the use of a slash implies a choice - ie "sedan/saloon" looks 2 separate body styles. The use of a single linked term shows only a single body style. Similarly, the use of brackets implies a further explanation of that single body style.  Stepho  talk  06:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeking suggestions for ways to clean up all the little suspension articles

I've been looking at various articles relating to suspension types. Sadly it's rather frustrating. There are so many types and I find it really hard to organize them. I actually don't like that the "Corvette leaf spring" article is totally stand alone since in reality the short-long arm/double A-arm aspect of the system isn't unique at all. The plastic leaf spring very uncommon but even that isn't unique to the car, it's just the best known user. People seem to use certain words to indicate a class of suspensions but those words aren't always mutually independent. The most obvious would be leaf spring vs independent. Well those actually are not exclusive terms (as the Corvette shows). Leaf spring implies Hotchkiss setup and rigid axle but there are many alternatives. The Model T used a transverse, spring supporting a rigid axle. The Cobra used an IRS that used a transverse leaf spring as the upper control arm.

Anyway, the point is we seem to have many permutations and it would be nice to capture them in one article (or a few) rather than in many. At the highest level we might have an article that starts with discussing independent, semi-independent[[2]], and rigid as the highest level points. I would note that "independent' is commonly taken to mean that the geometric position of one wheel/arm does not affect the kinematics of the others. It does not imply that forces/loads aren't transfered (Citroen, McLaren, typical anti-roll bar, computer shocks that respond to inputs from all wheels). A second section of that main article could talk about spring types and offer some general comments (multi-leaf springs have internal stiction that was used as damping in early cars, mono-leaf springs avoid this issue as do coils. Coils can be placed around the damper or offset. Beehive shaped coils allow for low load floors. etc). A third could note terminology such as "strut: a combination damper and control link, typically McPherson... etc". Again, if there is enough content split off to side articles. Inside of the independent article we could further classify types (trailing arm, semi-trailing arm, A-arm, swing arm/axle, McPherson). We could also note unique spring setups (transverse or trailing leaf as locating member). And finally, if we have reliable pros-cons etc for each sub type we could post it. We must be careful with such "pro-con" lists as the advantages people associate with say a modern IRS vs a rigid axle don't apply to an old swing axle setup. Needless to say the "Corvette leaf spring" article would be merged into all of this. Pointers to older articles could direct to the appropriate sub-article and sub-section.

Anyway, is it worth the effort to try to clean these articles up? If so, how? Springee (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A chronological history of suspension development would be a really good thing, but of course a bunch of work to write. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pontiac V8 engine

Would someone please fix the recent edits at Pontiac V8 engine#421 which was this in July. I don't understand the numbers shown which contradict a simple conversion:

  • {{convert|4+3/32|in|mm}} → 4+3⁄32 inches (104 mm)
  • {{convert|4+3/32|in|mm|2}} → 4+3⁄32 inches (103.98 mm)

Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I went in and fixed some things, I hope it looks correct to you now.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_40&oldid=1140243832"