Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Suggest adding a note like the following to "Power" in WP:CARUNITS.

Beware of "RAC hp", "ALAM hp", "NACC hp", or "SAE hp" values

When checking sources for the power of an automobile or automobile engine from the very early twentieth century, beware of "horsepower" values given with notations such as "RAC", "ALAM", "NACC", or "SAE". (The "SAE" form is particularly misleading, since it may be confused with the later, much more reasonable SAE standards for measuring engine power.) These are not true measured horsepower values at all, or even reasonable theoretical approximations. They are computed using a crude rule-of-thumb formula:

"horsepower" = 0.4 × (number of cylinders) × (cylinder bore in inches)²

which only accounts for the number of cylinders and the cylinder bore, assuming that all engines will have the same mechanical efficiency, mean effective pressure, and limiting piston speed.

These assumptions might have been fairly reasonable for the very first automobiles, but they rapidly grew out of date, and the formula often gave very misleading values for many engines. For example, two related Chevrolet inline-4 engines from 1918 with identical cylinder bores were both rated at "21.7 NACC hp", but one had a longer stroke than the other, and their actual brake horsepower ratings on test were 26 hp and 37 hp. In fact, the issue of NACC horsepower (or similar terms) was confusing enough that inquiries were written to contemporary automobile journals asking about the difference.

Unfortunately, these are often the only "horsepower" values given in some contemporary sources, perhaps because they were often used to determine taxes by national or local governments. To make matters worse, some modern sources have blindly reported these values as actual power ratings. At least one set of sources, the various Standard Catalogs compiled by John Gunnell, compounds the issue by occasionally labeling them as "net hp (NACC)", even though no one actually measured net horsepower in those days. And because these values were calculated rather than measured, they were often reported to one or two decimal places, which might lead some people to believe that these were accurate measurements rather than precise but meaningless calculations.

To sum up, I'd say that if one of these figures is the only power figure you can find, look harder. :) If it's really the only power value you can find, either mark it clearly as a crude rule-of-thumb estimate, or better yet, don't report any value at all.

Caveat editor. :) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, .... yes. The critical distinction, surely, is between Tax horsepower - a figure created primarily for the benefit of governments keen to devise and collect new kinds of tax, which needed to be easy to compute objectively, and which tends to turn up in the names given to cars (sometimes "adjusted upwards" by sales departments mindful that few people understood or cared about the maths) - and horse power which really does give an indication of the power reaching the back wheels (or the driveshaft after the engine accessories such as the muffler have been taken off in order to increase the gross power figure). As you say (write), way back when there was some sort of approximate correlation between the two, but by 1914 if not earlier, that correpation began to diminish. Both sets of figures are differently computed according to (1) where you are and (2) when the measurement was quoted. So ... what should we do about it when composing or "improving" a wiki-entry about a car? The important thing, surely, is to include in the text of any entry mentioning horse power clarification of whether the figure quoted is a tax horsepower figure or some kind of bhp. You can then help the interested reader by including a link to an entry on the type of horse power you have in mind.

Further suggestions welcome. Success Charles01 (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Blindspots

Since you raise the subject, you do well to replace OSX's pictures as examplars which people should seek to copy when selecting pictures for illustrating wikipedia entries on cars. OSX uploaded some very good pictures, but he also uploaded a lot of rather mediocre ones. And he never seemed to know which were which. That's my opinion. Should you share it? Not necessarily. But since you clump around inflicting your own opinions - blindspots and all - with regard wikipedia car articles on an industrial scale, perhaps you will not mind if I share my opinion of your blindspots. This picture of a Honda illustrates one of your own frequently inflicted blindspots, and one that you did not, I think, learn from OSX. You seem to be unaware of reflections. Most pictures of cars have reflections. Doesn't automatically make them bad pictures. But a few of them have reflections real bad, and at that point the viewer begins to notice. And to wonder. This picture of a Honda is savagely compromised by the reflections in the paintwork. It is a particular pitfall when you photograph dark coloured cars - especially black ones, but it also works for the richer shades of blue - that are highly polished. On your picture of a Honda, which you are holding out as a "how to do it" picture, there is a bizarre street lamp reflection glowering at me from the back side window. Comic effect? Fine, but you are not holding this picture out as a joke. Curable with "photoshop" or sim and ten minute's careful work? Maybe. I know vanishingly little about photoshop. And on the flank of the poor Honda the reflections are so brilliant that I suspect I could identify the white car reflected in your Honda's paint work and - if I only knew the area - the block of flats opposite the car. Is it a bad picture? Hell no. There are many that are far worse. But if you insist on identifying this sort of picture as "high quality" you make yourself ridiculous. And - which we both should mind much more - you risk degrading wikipedia. Feel free to upload, for illustrative purposes, pictures that you think people should seek to match in terms of "high quality". But uploading pictures that you yourself have produced under those circumstances is simply asking for trouble. You and I are both, all too obviously amateur photographers. That's fine. No stigma. But surely you can find a better example than this Honda. When you do, please pay attention both to the reflections issue and to the angle of the car. In my judgement - which you do not need to share, but which please consider - the camber of the road is one of several factors which makes the angle of the car in this picture sub-optimal. A bad picture? No. But a picture that people should seek to emulate? How can I put this politely? No, sir.

(I'm pretty underwhelmed by your Mercedes picture too, but it does, for better and worse, echo some of the blindspots we associate with your friend OSX. Maybe I'll come back to that one after lunch.)

Sorry to write as I see it. Maybe others disagree. Do I have my own blindspots? I'm sure I do, but at least I don't clump around identifying my own more mediocre photographic contributions as "high quality". And ho ho. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Charles01, having a look at OSX's past images compared to mine and User:Vauxford, if we say look at the Aurion image not having one example that adhere to WP:CARPIX guidelines, due to the fact that the tires look dirty and the vehicle seems to be on dirt road which would kick up dust. Vauxford would be the best to ask in regards with higher quality images. – what I can do is I'll look over the image again and see if there are better alternatives. It appears that the Freelander was too bright therefore this illustrates an example of why OSX hasn't really carefully selected his image. He hasn't been editing for the past year or so, where I have been actively picturing cars in Fremantle and base the quality of the images on the basis of multiple attempts in one go.

I appreicate your commentary into this, but we should discuss this with User:Vauxford as he would be the expert in regards with high quality images --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I had the impression from your respective talk pages that you had been "mentoring" Vauxford: not vice-versa. Either way, we should certainly welcome his thoughts on this. And those of anyone else with an opinion to share. Thanks for the quick reaction. But it must be the middle of the night in WA. Pls don't stay awake on my account! Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Charles01, indeed I did. I was the one who gave him good suggestions, but that was based on my experience of car photography. I've done it for the past 2-3 years so I understand the concepts and i've pictured over 600 car photos so I know what is expected based on user's feedback. I used to use an iPad, but now I use a DSLR so its good. Vauxford has higher quality images along with me but I'm usually restrictive. Anyway goodnight everyone --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Charles01, EurovisionNim Now, reflection is a pretty common problem when it come to photographing cars. I recalled Charles01 mention it to me a few times of how reflection can affect the picture. I must say, since our last talk on the Daimler 250 I begin to look at my pictures much differently, I never really thought about reflection before then and I thought people were just being picky. I didn't notice until now Nim changed the examples on the WP:CARPIX page, CARPIX is a good guide to know how to take a good photo but I no longer follow "by the books" since some parts of it seem to be rewritten to support OSX's way he took pictures. looking at the new examples, there must be better examples out there that could be used, as Charles01 pointed out, I could see a car, a street lamp and all sorts.

However some of these can't really be avoided, especially with newer cars (like the 18 and 68 Reg in the UK) that still has their showroom shine. You can reduce it in some situation such as avoid taking the picture when a oncoming car goes by and be cautious when the sun shines. I should really be lectured a thing or two with lighting to be honest, I always have room to improve.

One of my worst cases of this problem

Throughout the 2 years I been on here, the 5000+ photos I took are like stepping stones to me, I lean and adapt over time. I was inspired by photographers such as Rudolf Stricker, OSX and IFCAR and even Charles01 as a foundation of knowing how to take a good photos. As I progress and refine my skills I started to work off with what users such as OSX has left and start adding some of my style. Yes, I'm guilty myself for identifying my own photos as "High quality" while most said otherwise, most of the time I use that as a edit summary because it usually the first thing to come up on my Autofill.

My view of how should a quality image of a car should be is similar to what OSX wrote on WP:CARPIX; always photograph it at a 3/4 angle, avoid photographing ones covered in leaves, dirt, tree sap or bird droppings. although light cases like these can be easily patched on Photoshop, little obstructions such as 1/10th of a car is parked behind the subject which often happens in locations where people tend to park close to each other won't really compromised the picture of it quality, if possible, I try and digitally remove the car itself without making it too obvious, if not, it isn't the end of the world.

Back to Charles01's comment, it a good idea to reduce the amount of reflections on the car using Photoshop but I'm concern of the results being a blobby mess, reflection need to flow somewhere and just wouldn't look right.

For Nim's choice of examples. There definitely more better images out there that could be used as examples for CARPIX, perhaps we could rewrite some of the contents on WP:CARPIX to be less tailored to OSX style because of the "blindspots" Charles01's addressed. --Vauxford (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I would not trust myself or the software to address generalised reflection issues using photoshop or sim. But occasionally for small things like a reflected street light it can be sometimes - not always - possible to cover the offending reflection with an adjacent piece of paintwork or window. (And there are folks out there who are able to achieve a whole lot more with photoshop etc than I am: but I still regard "photoshopping" with some suspicion.) My more general point about reflections is not that you should avoid them. Generally you can't. I can't. But sometimes the sun positions itself so that reflections are exaggerated and distract from the curves and creases on the panels that the car's designer(s) carefully incorporated and from the panel gaps. For me, that counts as a bad thing. Sometimes - not nearly often enough - the sun positions itself so that the reflections actually highlight the panel gaps and creases. That - at least on the planet I inhabit - counts as good! I'll try and find an example ....

On the Carpix bullet points more generally, they are for the most part fine as guidelines. But they don't tell you how to take a good picture. That is an altogether bigger question, and it's down to the phoographer's skill, experience and judgement. I do not think these things are intended as a set of "regulations". Or you will risk (1) some well intentioned bozo extending them over thirty pages to try and answer all the questions that might ever arise and (2) a series of identically composed images across the entire set of wikipedia articles which in the end just might become a little bit ... um ... monotonous. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And please do not hesitate to disagree with me!

Charles01, Well I don't mean a full revamped just some correction that suit (almost) everyone that can follow it as a rough guide. Reflection can be unpredictable, I reduce the sticky situation by photographing in dull weather rather then sunshine. --Vauxford (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"Examples of what to avoid" gallery

Hi, I removed the "Examples of what to avoid" gallery yesterday as I disagreed with the gallery,

Like I said in the edit summary it all comes down to common sense - You would use the very best image,
It's also worth noting "okay" is subjective - What I might find to be the best image someone else may not and what someone may find the best image I may not .... so it's all subjective,
(For instance I would find this image, this image, this image, this image, this image, this image, this image, this image all to be okay and usable in any article - We need to remember we're an Encyclopedia not a showroom/car dealership)

My other issue I had with the gallery is that the majority were Vauxfords images - Now if you look closely you could find fault with probably every image on here/Commons and so I thought it was very unfair for his to be the majority - Vauxford isn't the perfect photographer but neither is anyone else,

I appreciate we all want the best for the Encyclopedia but like I said it's all common sense.
Cheers –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 11:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive changes

Just a heads up I've moved the archives around so instead of for instance 2008 being in 3 seperate folders they're now all in one folder,
I've removed the years from the archive table tho as we shouldn't need to keep updating this every few years - They're all in year order so like any other talkpage it's simply a case of trawling through and finding whatever you need to find, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Slight update - I've removed the table and replaced it with the standard talkpage header, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

EurovisionNim's bad pictures section

Thank you for removing that bit, Vauxford. Here is the edit note I was about to attach to the same edit. (But you got in first and did the edit...):

This is silly. If the problem is EurovisionNim and Vauxford dumping all their worst pictures on wikipedia then the solution is for those guys to restrict their uploads to their least bad pictures. If one looks hard enough they have both already uploaded pictures - not enough - that have few or no major issues. Some even moderate to good IMHO. Inflicting more that even EurovisionNim thinks are bad on the rest of us again, as here, doesn't begin to tackle what has become a significant quality problem.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Davey2010 removing this section (and Vauxford for removing again after it was restored). It became a tutorial on photo taking except using bad pictures as examples. The original text notes were good enough, Perhaps just a couple of images showing how bad shadows or reflections look but no more than that and only with minimal text to say 'shadows and reflections can look bad'. Definitely should not be a how-to guide - see WP:NOTHOWTO. And something that defines which images we use should not be changed so casually.  Stepho  talk  10:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Charles01, As Stepho-wrs notes i was the one who initially removed it,

Stepho is absolutely correct it was a HOWTOGUIDE and personally I felt it stopped other photographers from either taking pictures or helping out replacing them,

Although I never stated it below I felt the gallery was a shitlist on Vauxford and I felt it was a poor attempt at trying to tell him "You're a rubbish photographer, Please stop" which was another reason for its removal,

Ofcourse "You know who" may not of added the list however he certainly contributed to it. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 18:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

At first it was a simple guide and it did include the basics you mention Stepho but as you could see, someone went a bit overkill with it and took it completely out of proportion which Davey rightfully removed it. --Vauxford (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of Vauxford's images are terrible, not the best quality. He also made a revert, because I didn't see why his should be in the infobox. I found a better example from another author. Why should perspective be such a big deal? Is it how we see cars? Honestly, I have seen cars that are at a distance, so I usually use my long lens to picture that. What seems to be the problem with my examples. He also makes very silly accusations, such as my images are noisy. He will also revert my examples, even if they are of similar quality, which is getting to my nerves, as this is actually allowed. I know this guideline probably a lot better than him. He also replaces images, even if they are QI, but it seems unfair he wants to get his images to his own gain. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You are still taking sentences and concern that I previously said to you in the past and switching it to point at me. If this your way to try and defend your opinion then that just lazy. Why all of a sudden you're acting this ill-mannered? The Qashqai is fine, the blue one you trying to replace is at a weird angle and the lens is borderline fish eye from my sight. --Vauxford (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Nim, With all due respect your images aren't great either!, His are in the infobox as his are the best images so far and please bear in mind not all of his images are in the infobox,

We all strive to have the best images and like I said on your talkpage I myself have replaced a few of Vauxfords images and he himself has replaced his own with another editors once or twice so I don't believe he's here for gain - He's kindly providing us with invaluable images,

The Q1 stuff is irrelevant to this discussion. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 03:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So I'm not needed Davey2010 and Vauxford? Honestly, half the problem of Australians is that they are not able to step up and take my place, so I have to do all the work. Stepho-wrs, if you stood up and decided that "I'll be happy to do Nim's place," then half my problems would be sold. I can't help it, Australia has 75% of the year sunny weather. I do indeed do the same things again and again, however its getting to the point where I'm not needed because of better photographers. I'm slowly getting stressed as it is. Stepho-wrs, can we discuss the issue together please? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

None of us are needed - myself included. But we do appreciate that you care enough to try. I put in at least an hour a day on WP but other commitments leave me no time to take photos. I have left some suggestions on your talk page. Short answer - a few quality pictures are more useful than many mediocre images. I know you can do this.  Stepho  talk  06:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't read all this, but I see what's going on above. As far as I am concerned, we put the best pictures in Wikipedia based on what the WP:CONSENSUS says is the best picture. No, this is not correct: any editor is free to replace your image whenever and wherever they please. We work on WP:CONSENSUS. If the consensus says keep the current image and do not replace it, then the current image stays. WP:BOLD edits are fine, but if they are violating consensus, they will be reverted. If there is disagreement on what picture is best, we have to find consensus. If no new consensus is found, the old picture stays.

So, please do not talk about who is the better photographer and try to let some people have more or fewer images than others. We should always use the best image. If you want to learn to take better pictures, I am all for that too. If you want my opinion on some pics, I am fine to give it, but not too many, please. You can go to dispute resolution for 3rd opinions or even launch an WP:RfC if necessary... --David Tornheim (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I made this same comment at EurovisionNim's talk page where I saw the same squabble going on that directed here. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• User:David Tornheim this is what I've been saying all along inregards to the best picture - I personally don't even care who takes it as long as it's better than the one it's replacing, Problem with the consensus thing tho is that we shouldn't need top get consensus everytime someone wants to replace an image,

IMHO replacing images should be arguement-free and consensus-free. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 11:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The same policy (WP:Consensus) applies to changing images as to changing anything else in an article. If an image change is contested, then a consensus is needed to support the change. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi DeFacto, My apologies for the delayed response I had no idea my comment was added back,

Apologies I should've been clearer - Indeed if it's contested then I agree consensus should be sought but I find it rather silly for these 2 to constantly be seeking consensus for every image change, Vauxford and Nim primarily work on car articles more specifically car images so these 2 will always have to seek consensus,

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'd prefer if both didn't need to get consensus for every change and instead agreed on something together without half of the communities involvement, Wishful thinking I guess :), –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 18:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 Well, I never created a RFC to gain consensus, usually (don't mean to sound a snitch since it quite obvious) Nim have been creating these consensus discussions and pinging others to have there say. On paper, this is how things should be resolved and I'm all up for that, but it how he done one nearly every day and I find it impractical that I have be expected to attend every consensus discussion made by Nim and shove the same essay and/or supplement which he treat it like it's the law down our throats whenever I make some edit. --Vauxford (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with you - A talkpage discussion here and there is absolutely fine but I've just recently noticed a growing trend in these RFCs but then again I may be at fault here as I did actually tell Nim to stop edit warring and seek consensus for his changes .... which technically he is doing, It's just the rate of the discussions that are now becoming a tad problematic,

You can never win on this website and I've said that more than once and unfortunately that's the case with Nim,

There needs to be common ground here where you both can meet halfway ... I just don't know where that common ground/halfway point is,

Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 20:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

With the impression I got from him and how he approach things and behaves. The chances are slim. --Vauxford (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, just a heads up, please see Vauxford's talkpage in relation to his edits to Mitsubishi Outlander. I had to make a replacement because his version was the PHEV version and its recommended we stick to the conventional Outlander as that is what we know it as. Best --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Why are you guiding everyone to my talkpage? Something like this should be taken in here. --Vauxford (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies mate. I guided everyone to your talk because I wanted them to discuss the image. Would you like me to copy paste the images? I can. I’m in bed now, I will talk about this tomorrow. Goodnight to all my dear editors —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image choice and front 3/4 views, Porsche 992?

File:Porsche 911 (992) WP1.jpg

Porsche 992

Template:Infobox_automobile#Image states The image used in the Infobox must comply with the standards outlined in the images section of WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Use an image showing the front three-quarter view..., i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Images Infobox pictures shall depict the front ¾ view from the height of an ordinary person.

Note though that the image standard for front 3/4 views is only point 9, after a number of other points, particularly those about being representative of the car described.

There is also a "tip" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Images: The front ¾ view from the height of an ordinary person is normally the best angle for a single picture of a car. Note the qualifier, "normally".

Regarding these, is it thus better to remove all images of the car from the infobox, thus [4]? I don't believe so.

We have a good rear 3/4 image here, as was used for the infobox (there's also a side view, used further down the page). It's a good quality free photo, released from Porsche themselves. I think we should use it. Particularly for this 992 model, the rear view is in many ways the most distinctive. We've mostly seen plenty of the 911 family already, but the recent Porsches are mostly distinguished by their rear treatment and the 992 is following that trend. There's no reason not to use a front 3/4 if one becomes available, but that's no reason to remove this and leave the article with no masthead, just for being a rear view. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That tip from the Project_Automobiles/Conventions is a guideline not a book of rules. The tips are designed by the fellow who wrote them (1) to be helpful (and (2) to describe the way the fellow who wrote it likes to take photographs). It's all intended to help improve the quality of pictures of cars on wikipedia articles. Used intelligently it does just that.

I agree this one you've found is a good picture - a bit of a PR special, but nicely composed by a photographer who knows his/her craft - and I would suggest you put it in the infobox till a better picture comes along (or till a reasonable alternative is substituted simply for a change). As you write, there are already a huge number of pictures of 911s, their near-rellies and descendants, from the front. I'd check the copyright declarations on the file, but if it really is "released [by] Porsche themselves", it deserves a wider showing. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Intriguingly DeadpoolJR95 (who reverted the insertion) looks like ANOTHER new user! Charles01 (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Deadpool just changed some specs. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ach, my mistake! (still ANOTHER new user, tho) Charles01 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This argument may be moot anyway, the source of this photo Mynewsdesk.com has the interesting practice of defaulting to CC attribution licenses for all media uploaded [5] which probably means some PR guy CC licensed it by accident, in direct conflict with what Porsche says about the licensing of their photos (if it does not have a specific disclaimer it is conventionally copyrighted [6]). You can see the photo without any CC licenses on the Porsche press site here [7]. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed this, if you click download on the Porsche site it pops this up,

"All information offered on Porsche Press Services, including but not limited to, texts, images, audio and video documents, are subject to copyright or other laws for the protection of intellectual property.

They are intended exclusively for use by journalists as a source for their own media reporting and are not intended for commercial use, in particular for advertising purposes. It is not permitted to pass on texts, images, audio or video data to unauthorized third parties." Toasted Meter (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think these images should even exist on commons. They are non-free media. I'm reporting this for deletion.U1Quattro (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The uploader of the Porsche photos also has a few other photos from the VW group with the same questionable licensing that you might want to scrutinise, [8]. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm posting the source of the images in my report because these are taken from Porsche and posted on that questionable site with the wrong license.U1Quattro (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Definition of "home market"

Hi Stepho-wrs. Regarding the edit of mine that you just reverted, I think we should have a consistent definition of a cars' nationality across the article. The definition I used was already present in the Alternative Names section. Could you please explain why you think this definition will cause people to mistakenly use the United States as the home market for many cars, so that we can improve this definition? (the definition doesn't mention anything about where the most cars were sold) Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was trying to see it from different angles before I replied. While I see that you have a link to the definition of 'home market', I can see many editors not following that link (through oversight, laziness or sheer bloody mindedness) and then choosing the biggest market (which is often the US). For example, many cars in Japan and Europe are classified as full-size that are classified as mid-sized in the US. I see this being used as a loophole to classify vehicles according to the US market instead of the company's market. By explicitly specifying the company's HQ country we short circuit this problem.  Stepho  talk  07:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• No worries at all, and I apologise if it seemed like I was restoring the change while the discussion was still in progress (I saw that you had edited other articles in the meantime, so I thought the question was resolved).

  Yes, it is better if articles do not classify Euro and Asian cars using the larger categories typically used in the USA. The proposed definition doesn't mention anything about the largest market, though, so I don't understand how it would create a loophole? Perhaps it would help to copy the definition into that section, rather than relying on editors to look it up in the other section? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Stepho-wrs. Just a reminder about my reply above. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work. although it seems like defining it there will make it wordier than what was originally there. Can you suggest some wording?  Stepho  talk  23:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for being open to this idea, I really appreciate it.

  Regarding some more concise wording, how about something like this: "the country where the vehicle's manufacturer is headquartered (although if the vehicle was not sold there, it should be the country where the vehicle was launched)." Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• That works for me. Should be interesting if a car was launched in some small country first but we can cross that bridge when/if we get to it.  Stepho  talk  13:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed, that will be an exception that proves the rule! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS exceptions

Hi Typ932. This version of the page includes statements that differ from the Manual of Style. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion about these differences are needed for automobile articles, so I think the articles should stick to the MOS. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The items under discussion are (with slight formatting to avoid confusing the discussion section headers):

Formatting

We bold the make and model name (e.g. Ford Mondeo), but not standalone variants (e.g. Ford Mondeo Titanium). Standalone variants comprise trim levels and option packages, and should never be emphasized by bold or italicized text.

Marketing terms

Defer to the terms used by the manufacturer when using terms that might appear improperly spelled or used. For example, Ferrari convertibles are "spiders", not "spyders", Porsche 550 convertibles are "spyders", not "spiders", BMW xDrive is "xDrive", not "XDrive", and Mazda's Wankel engines are "rotary engines".

Tense

In the article lead, use present tense whether the vehicle is in production or not (e.g. "The Ford Scorpio is an executive car..." not "The Ford Scorpio was an executive car..."), as the cars themselves still exist. The exception to this would be for a one-of-a-kind vehicle that no longer exists, or one with very low production numbers where all examples are believed to have been destroyed.

Personally, I don't see any conflict with the MOS and they look quite helpful to me. Helps avoid editors doing things like flipping between "was" (because they are no longer made) and "is" (because they often still exist).  Stepho  talk  12:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Stepho. If you think all of this is ok, I will the issue. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

PS

1292simon has been doing some cleaning up of the conventions page. Most of it is good and for the most part I have no objection. However, he has made a major change of disallowing PS as a unit of measure. While he is correct that it is a historical unit that is no longer in common use for new cars, the unit is still in common use when talking about older European and Japanese cars. Practically any German, French or Japanese reference up to circa 2000 uses PS. We should of course convert them into modern kW figures and even hp figures (Americans are only partway through the transition to kW). At an editors discretion, we might even choose to partially hide them by clever use of {{convert}} - eg {{convert|100|PS|kW hp|disp=out|abbr=on|0}} gives 74 kW; 99 hp. But outright disallowing is not helpful because WP documents historical facts as well as modern facts and each fact must be verifiable from the sources. Disallowing PS makes it so much harder to verify (a reader has to look in the article wiki text to find the PS figure to match against the reference).  Stepho  talk  00:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Stepho. Thanks for creating this discussion and for your kind words about my other changes. It is not my intention to forbid the use of PS, it is just that I believe it shouldn't be listed as a preferred unit for rest-of-world cars (1st paragrph of the Units section) or "older cars" (Power And Torque section). Where the car is closely linked with PS units, I think the PS figure is worth including. I also agree that it is helpful to include PS where a source uses it, to assist in verification. But I do not believe it should be included by default in other circumstances.

  On a related note, I think it is a bit messy having the guidelines for power units scattered between example at the top of the Units section and then the Power And Torque section. It would be better IMHO to use a more straightforward example (such as kerb weight, length or displacement) as the example of localized/localised (oops, ironic example!) units. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Good, I think we are on the same page - it's just the wording that needs work. The ideal is to have every car have a kW figure. For older cars, they can also have a PS and/or hp figure (depending on the references) as a unit conversion (kW always mentioned first, other units secondary, via {{convert}}'s |order=flip or |order=out options if needed). As always, Americans get their own special exception - cars sold only in N.America can drop the kW requirement and the kW first requirement (although adding kW conversions is still the better way).  Stepho  talk  00:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Good to hear, thanks. I think our British friends also need a special exception... shouldn't "bhp" be the leading unit for these cars? And for the American cars, MOS:CONVERSIONS suggests that kW is still required (of course, hp would be mentioned first). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

2 images in the infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, Currently over at Honda Ridgeline there are 2 images in the infobox - Is there any policy that says 2 shouldn't be used?,
There's a disagreement between myself and McChizzle over this however I know all car articles only use one image but wasn't sure if there was some sort of policy on it,
If there isn't then I guess I'll have to fire an RFC up but would rather avoid that tbh,
Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, why even submit an RFC for there is nothing wrong with showing the dramatic differences between two generations of vehicles right up front, side-by-side in an overview article that covers both generations? There is currently no policy or rule and there is no reason there needs to be for there is no harm being done and it reduced the need to duplicate an image in order to setup a close side-by-side comparison. It also looks fine on smartphone screens as well (no issues). In other words, here is no harm being done here just good pictorial information on a noteworthy detail right up front in the overview (a good use of space). Just because others do it one way and one does it another does not mean there needs to be a rule that forces the other to behave like everyone else, especially when it serves no purpose and only increase the size of the article when it could have easily been dealt with in the infobox as has been done on the Honda Ridgeline overview article. --McChizzle (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, please note that the two images in the infobox in question has been that way for a few years, even before the page was split into generational articles, and no one has had an issue with that arrangement.--McChizzle (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If you look at all of the articles here you won't one infobox with 2 images in them, There is no need for 2 images, Car articles should only show the most recent generation (or facelifted version) with pre-facelifts/previous generations being shown in galleries,

If people want to look at comparisons they can do so by looking at the galleries within the article,

Mobile devices is irrelevant here,

An RFC would be submitted to gain consensus from outsiders .... Edit warring till we both become blocked is not a productive use of our time whereas starting an RFC and gaining consensus for one or the other is. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no policy that I know of for the number of images in the infobox but to me it seems schizophrenic to put more than one. It tells our readers that we can't make up our mind. It is rare for two images to be so important that they both have to be at the top.  Stepho  talk  22:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, It really is quite bizarre to insist on 2 images, I'll start an RFC up in the morning or later tonight as don't really see how else this can be resolved, Many thanks for your valued opinion User:Stepho-wrs much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unannounced vehicles

The convention about announced vehicles should clearly mention about every kind of information about unannounced vehicles that shouldn't be added. It should be cleared so that people don't start to take advantages of other policies such as WP:CRYSTALBALL as seen here U¹ _quattro TALK 03:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we should propose something like this:

Future products

Future, unannounced, unreleased, planned, anticipated, prototype, or concept cars are handled under two sets of policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Notability#Products and services set the basic limits on article creation and retention. Other content policies, particularly Due and undue weight and Verifiability, guide decisions on whether or not to mention, and how much space to give to, unreleased future products.

Article creation or deletion

Avoid creating new articles about topics that haven't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Concept cars that were never built, and products under development with release dates years in the future can be notable enough to justify an independent article, but sufficient sourcing to satisfy the general notability guideline has to exist. For most future cars, if there is no firm release date, actual manufacture has not begun, and any doubt exists if it will even be built, we would not start a new article yet.

Mention within articles or lists

If a valid article or list exists about a notable topic, such as car model in production, or manufacturer, car designer, or class of vehicle, it can be encyclopedic to include information about future products. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists. Editing policy requires attempting to correct problems, or flag them, rather than wholesale deletion of salvageable content. Do not mention any speculation, rumor, self-published claims, or extrapolation into the future. Extraordinary claims, such as unprecedented speed, acceleration or fuel economy, or unproven technology, should not be mentioned until independent, third party reliable sources have verified the promised breakthrough has been delivered. When numerous high quality sources have extensively covered an extraordinary or hyperbolic future claim about a product, the weight of those sources can take precedence over these norms.

It helps to use in-text attribution to be clear that what's being said in Wikipedia's voice. Discuss future products or plans in the past tense, not future tense, because future tense is where we get into trouble making unjustified predictions. Past tense tells the reader about real events, like an announcement, or an agreement, which relate to the future, without our article itself speculating about what will happen in the future.

• Avoid: ISS's mission will continue from 2020 to 2024.
• Better: By spring 2015, Roscosmos, NASA, and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) have agreed to extend the ISS's mission from 2020 to 2024.

• Avoid: A rebadged limousine version of the third-generation Alphard will be sold as the Lexus LM.
• Better: In April 2019, Lexus announced that a rebadged limousine version of the third-generation Alphard would be sold as the Lexus LM.

• Avoid: Toyota will invest about US$300 million in one of its existing Brazilian plants and will produce a flex hybrid electric car for the Brazilian market in the second half of 2019.
• Better: Toyota plans to invest about US$300 million in one of its existing Brazilian plants to start production of a flex hybrid electric car for the Brazilian market in the second half of 2019.

This is maybe too wordy, especially since it repeats a lot of existing policy. We could pare it down to focus specifically on how it relates to automotive topics. Or perhaps we need to be wordy to avoid disputes. But I think we can work out something along these lines that will gain consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Before we get too far into this, I have raised an RFC as requested by Dennis. See Talk:BMW M3#RfC about announcements of future vehicles.  Stepho  talk  00:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

One of the reasons I posted this possible text is to solicit feedback and get a rough idea of which way consensus was going, before making a definite proposal or RfC. I could be mistaken, but the RfC Talk:BMW M3#RfC about announcements of future vehicles doesn't appear to be valid, mainly for reasons given at WP:RFCBRIEF. It has (at least) four different questions, and the statement is not brief. I don't think it will be seen as neutral, since the question characterizes the previous statements of other editors in loaded language.

I would suggest cutting this up into smaller, bite sized pieces, and having multiple RfCs in different, appropriate venues. For example, at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, an RfC is probably needed to answer one simple question: Is WP:CRYSTAL about article creation/deletion only, or does it cover content within articles? A separate discussion could address the ongoing confusion about this policy, and propose breaking it into two distinct clearly stating one policy article creation and another on article content, since many editors have been confused about it for years. An RfC just within the scope of the Autos project probably needs to consist only of one simple question: Can articles mention future vehicles in cases where there isn't yet sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG? Even though that raises the question of where to draw the line, a simple yes/no outcome is an important step forward.

Depending on the feedback here, I might attempt to propose adding some version of the above text to the WPAC page here, asking a simple yes/no question whether or not this approximate wording is acceptable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Or we can simply wait until the damn car is announced so that edit wars don't happen in the first place. Whatever banter the automotive press is running about an unannounced car should be avoided until the car is actually unveiled. We are not here to follow the steps of the press and add such rumours to articles.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We can wait, but we don't have to. Edit warring happened because you chose to edit war instead of let it go. It takes two to edit war, and one of those two is you. Why are you calling it a rumor? When the company itself makes a concrete announcement, on the record, that is not a rumor. "Follow the press" is just a biased, loaded way to describe deferring to reliable sources. The problem here is not that the sources are crappy, weak blogs, social media, or fan forums. The sources are reliable.

The only thing wrong is that it deals with the future. By rephrasing it to say "BMW's M Division head said that they will..." changes the future tense to the past tense. The statement the man gave in an interview is a past event. It happened. He said it. Reliable sources confirm he said it. No reliable sources dispute that he said it. You should drop the stick. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Over at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC to delete Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content from WP:CRYSTAL I'm testing support to delete the part of WP:CRYSTAL that is at the root of quite a bit of dispute. It's clearly relevant to this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

MOS Tense

I noticed some recent controversy on article tense for out of production cars and I saw the Autos convention was slightly coy about its relationship with the MOS. I rewrote the tense section to be explicit that it is simply a restatement of the general MOS guideline MOS:TENSE. I used FAs for examples. FWIW, I think Rolls Royce R doesn't meet the guideline, in spite of the discussion in 2009: Talk:Rolls-Royce_R#Survivors_and_tense. The criteria that an example must exist and be in working order isn't in the guideline; merely that it has not ceased to exist. Same for Sholes and Glidden typewriter. So John Bull is present tense, even though the one sitting in a museum doesn't run any more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

What about defunct brands and business units (rather than specific products)? Oldsmobile, for example, is written in the past tense, because GM has retired the brand and closed the division that used to make them, and that seems to be the standard approach for other defunct consumer brands. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Regarding the recent edit kerfuffle over whether this page belongs in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions/Transportation — I get why not, because it's an essay rather than a guideline, and it includes a bunch of other conventions unrelated to naming. So, why not split off the Nomenclature section into its own guideline? That would make it consistent with the other guidelines in that category. Just leave out the last part, Tense, which can stay in this essay. --Vossanova ^o< 14:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Vossanova:, a split is not how this is done. Please see WP:PROPOSAL and follow the steps there. --Gonnym (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym:, I understand that guidelines require peer review. I'm saying, take what's already in the Nomenclature section of this page, and make that the proposal. --Vossanova ^o< 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Guideline or essay

The status of this convention has been called into question. The majority of us have been treating it as a convention since it was created in 2005, yet at the top it says it is only an essay. From it's earliest days it started with "The following conventions will be followed for all automobile-related articles" and there was no mention of it being an essay. On 17 July 2009, an anon-IP added a {{Infopage}} tag. On 31 January 2016, SMcCandlish changed the tag to {{WikiProject advice}}. On 22 May 2020, {@|AlgaeGraphix}} added 'Category:Wikipedia naming conventions/Transportation'. On 30 June 2020, {@|Gonnym}} removed it from 'Category:Wikipedia naming conventions/Transportation'.

Does anybody object to making this an official guideline of the automobile project?  Stepho  talk  22:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The way these conventions are currently written would need to be made consistent first. For example under Units the first paragraph talks about using the units of the relevant market first, then the rest of it says metric should always go first. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the second option anyway. We should list the unit that's original first, eg using HP or PS for older cars, or Cubic inches first for older American engines, in line with MOS:UNIT (unless you want to argue that these are "scientific articles". A7V2 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, should be an official guideline if it is possible. And yes, maybe we should also improve the conventions where possible. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the "Units" section has some flaws.

• The first sentence is „We use the local standard first when making judgments on localized units and terms. The unit order follows a vehicle's major market.“ → That sounds reasonable to me. But there are markets – (for example East Germany) – that had units that are not listed anywhere in the Units section as appropriate or aceptable units. And this may sound like a weird question, but how is the local standard defined?
• As far as I can tell, there is no difference between MKS and SI in the Units section, both are referred to as metric. Maybe that is precise enough, but maybe it isn't. I believe though that most readers (and Wikipedia authors) possibly don't know how to deal with it "correctly". So we might end up with articles on vehicles that use MKS whenever SI should be used, or vice versa.
• In the general conventions section, the first sentence is „We use the standard International System of Units (SI) describing automobiles, and will generally follow the SI writing style.“ → This rule is ignored in most articles on motor vehicles, and for example, the "Displacement" section doesn't follow this rule either.
• The "Displacement" section describes how to deal with the discrepancy between "marketing displacement" and "actual displacement", but it does not describe how to deal with "tax displacement" and "actual displacement". (Tax displacement uses $\pi =3.12\lor \pi =3.1416$, but not $\pi =\pi$ in the displacement formula.)
• The "Power and torque" section doesn't include MKS units for torque.

Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence can be removed. We already state that we follow WP:UNITS, which says that we use metric by default but allow for some exceptions for US and UK articles. But many people don't follow the links, so it would be nice to reiterate it as the last bullet point.

MKS, metric and SI all refer to the same thing from our perspective.

You are right that many articles ignore this convention. Therefore we need to fix those articles.

Can you clarify where the displacement section violates the units section?

Tax displacement might have to wait for another day. I suspect it will differ according to region. I'd like to see some solid references before tackling that.  Stepho  talk  11:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Johannes Maximilian: Hi Johannes. What is (please) this tax displacement? I can see it uses a slightly different formula. Where is tax displacement used? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd argue that there is a difference between MKS and SI, most notably, that MKS has no force (kN), it only has weight (kp) and mass (kg), with weight being defined as mass times (earth) gravitaional acceleration. There are vehicles that were designed with MKS figures, and we have to be careful not to confuse mass with weight.
• The units section reads "We use the standard International System of Units (SI) describing automobiles, and will generally follow the SI writing style", but in the "Displacement" section the text reads "Engine displacement should be expressed in (…) cubic centimeters (display as cc)"; according to the SI writing style, cubic centimetres must not be displaced as cc (SI-brochure, page 147), instead, cm³ has to be used.
• Thank you for asking that question about the tax displacement, I will try to briefly explain it — this is (was) a typical German thing. In Germany, car (=vehicle with a mass of less than 3500 kg) tax depends upon the engine displacement, the emissions behaviour, and the engine operating principle. So determining the displacement was (and still is) important for taxation. The forumla for the volume of a cylinder includes Pi ($(0.5D)^{2}\cdot \pi \cdot s\cdot i$) and is thus difficult to use without a calculator. Therefore, Pi was defined as 3.12 in the German StVZO (Straßenverkehrszulassungsordnung). Using 3.12 instead of Pi in the equation will result in a less precise figure, but that was acceptable back in the day. The displacement was (and still is) counted in 100 cm³ "steps", and each "begun" 100 cm³ of displacement cost money. Therefore, most manufacturers designed their engines with large cylinder bores and short strokes so that they would have (significantly) lower tax displacement than effective displacement. For cars that were made before 1989, manufacturers usually gave two displacement figures, the tax displacement, and the effective displacement (for example, BMW E28, PDF pages 151 and 152, section 6—06 and 6—07) Since 1989, a new formula with Pi= 3.1416 has been used. The difference between Pi and 3.1416 is negligable, which is why manufactuers have stopped calling it tax displacement. I'd recommend sticking to effective displacement, because that is much more relevant than obsolete German displacement taxation. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposal to classify it as a guideline. There is always room for improvement, but I think it is still suitable to be a guideline. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Pferdstarke (PS) units

Mr.choppers recently changed the conventions so that cars that were originally measure in metric horsepower (PS) would have the PS first. I support the idea that PS is important and that conversion to kW should be based on PS and not hp. However, kW should still be displayed first, as per MOS:UNITS. The way that I normally solve this is to use PS as the input parameter to {{convert}} or {{cvt}} but adjust the output order. Eg {{cvt|280|PS|kW hp PS|order=out|0}} gives 206 kW (276 hp; 280 PS).  Stepho  talk  22:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Stepho-wrs. I agree that kW should be first, since the primary consideration should be the unit that is most widely understood amongst readers, rather than whichever historical unit was used when the product was introduced (e.g. we don't measure the height of the pyramids in whatever length unit was used in ancient Egypt). Wikipedia regards SI units to be the most commonly understood. Thank you for sharing with us the method by which the kW figure can be listed first without causing any rounding errors from the PS conversion.

  Therefore I disagree with the recent addition of "For older metric cars, where the original unit is in metric horsepower (PS) use this unit first..." to the Power & Torque section. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree, PS is important but conventions that conflict with the MOS are not useful. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a conversion from PS to kW with kW displayed first is sometimes not ideal, but, in general, a reasonable method of informing the reader. The problem with "older metric cars" is a definition problem: What is a metric car? What is an older car? What about motor vehicles that aren't cars? It would be very difficult to reasonably define all of this without having either inaccuracies or endless details. Also note that the SI system wasn't introduced in all counties at the same time; so generally putting kW first no matter what era the car was made is acceptable and better than a vague "older metric cars" rule. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

To me it becomes very weird and factually incorrect to write 221 kW (296 hp; 300 PS) when "300" is clearly meaningful as being a nice round number, probably prominently used in marketing. Fiat marketed their cars as "Uno 75" for instance, so leading with kW is strange. In 1962 the Mitsubishi Minica's power increased from 13 to 13 kW (17 to 18 hp; 17 to 18 PS), yet another occasion when an ahistoric application of SI units becomes absurd. When Opel claimed 75, 90, 100, and 110 PS for the engines in the Opel Rekord, then clearly these are the meaningful numbers. European cars before 1972 should absolutely lead with metric hp, as that is how they were designed and measured by their manufacturers. When the Japanese manufacturers agreed to limit power to 280PS, that is the unit they used - leading with kW is misleading at best. When the car is of more recent origins or there is any doubt about which unit to use, then by all means use kW first - I am not suggesting that we lead with PS for the Golf TDI 140, although clearly VW didn't call it the TDI 103. As a matter of fact, I do not think that kW is more understood than horsepower as of yet (note AutoBild not even including kW); it is certainly not something we can take for granted. Outside of Germany and Australia I do not see car enthusiasts ever using kW, but I am not here to try to get rid of kW so don't let us get sidetracked. Interesting how Nm was universally adopted much faster, it seems that only the Japanese are holding on to the kgm.

Horsepower will one day be as extinct as the rod or the centner, but it cannot yet be compared to those nor to the royal cubit. I am all about the metric system, but I don't think we should apply it so as to obscure reality or provide misguiding numbers.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, there is no conflict with MOS:UNIT as it does allow leeway for using "conventional units" when apt (bolding mine):

the primary units chosen will be SI units...or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.).

 Mr.choppers | ✎  15:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

But that is just personal preference. A meaningful figure is one that allows comparision. If, for instance, a power figure was measured according to let's say the DIN 70020 standard with three significant figures, then a 150 PS figure converts into a 110 kW figure, which can then be compared against other DIN 70020(!) figures. It would not be reasonable to have a 110.325 kW DIN figure (such accuracy simply doesn't exist), but that is not the case here (there are several motorbike articles that state "real wheel horsepower" with four or even five significant figures, but no standard. That is an example of completely meaningless figures). Marketing is basically whatever the manufacturer or the sales division believe is best for sales – an Unimog U 70 does have an engine rated at 70 PS, but an Unimog U 1300 L surely does not offer 1300 PS. Image a Claas Mercator 75 with a 75 PS engine; it would perform underwhelmingly; the engine power output is much closer to 75 kW, but I believe that 75 was choosen rather arbitrarily and has nothing to do with engine power. (Regarding VWs with EA 189 engines: I don't think that they were marketed as TDI 140, at least not in Austria or Germany). I could make zillions of examples like this; you get the point. What marketing wants us to believe is not very relevant for Wikipedia anyway. You state that you do not think that kW is more understood than horsepower as of yet – I'd say that people understand neither of them. Power is the product of the crankshaft's angular velocity and the engine torque; but, who knows this? Most people simply see a PS figure and can then tell whether that's much or not (which is why PS works), but I do not expect people to know how to put a PS figure into context. Doing so is a nuisance which is why virtually everybody who knows how to do that tends to use SI instead. In cases such as the Minica engine upgrade, using SI first is not ideal (see my 09:33 reply), but in such cases we can explain this using text. I mean your idea of using PS for "older cars" is not bad, and I like using it because it makes clear what the sources say. But this method also has its drawbacks (as explained above), and with Stepho's method, the problem of "not writing what the sources say" can be avoided. (I could talk about even more details for ages, but I don't want to cause too much discussion). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also, the concern of "provide misguiding numbers" is covered, since the method posted by Stepho-wrs above provides an accurate conversion from PS into kW. Regarding how well recognised the units are, I believe that casual readers (i.e. those without a specific interest in cars or physics) outside of France/Germany are more likely to recognise that kW or hp are units of power, compared with PS, ch, etc. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS:UNIT does not say to use the unit used historically/in context. As pointed out above by User:Mr.choppers, we should use the units conventionally used to discuss the topic in reliable sources. I'm no Egyptologist but where I've seen the height of the Great Pyramid written down with any precision it's in metres, not cubits, so it makes sense here to use metres, as do reliable sources. In many cases, especially for older cars as outlined by others above, this will either be PS or hp. A conversion to kW should still be given, but I think it best to lead with the unit which is actually being used. And of course we should not be giving numbers more precise than are used in reliable sources when doing such conversions. A7V2 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A few responses: @Johannes Maximilian: obviously examples of things not named after their horsepower are irrelevant, but the Unimog 70 and the Uno 75 (like most Fiat products of much of the 1980s) were named for their approximate horsepower output. I am just trying to show that leading with the metric hp is sometimes clearer than kW. I have always seen the various VW Group diesels differentiated by their horsepower outputs, but I don't have any period brochures handy. It is not my personal preference, it is the preference of the manufacturer of the item that I am trying to illustrate. Also, only listing kW outputs in the table of Unimog 406 is a perfect example of the kind of obfuscation that should be avoided at all costs. Even your example of the Unimog 1300 is clearly named for its power (around 130PS, I have some old INUFAs in the basement so that I can check for sure).

@A7V2: - well said. As for rounding, the habit of rounding to 0 works well, excepting cases of approximations.

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: - PS/ch/cv etc are nothing more than abbreviations of horsepower in various languages. I am unsure of how and when WP decided that "PS" would be the abbreviation used for a metric hp (why use German??? Is it just because Japan also uses that abbreviation since the 1960s?), but that's an editorial decision that should not have to make it impossible for us to refer to the output of a 1960s vehicle in the unit used by the manufacturer. (I also don't have a better proposal for how to clearly differentiate imperial hp and metric hp.) Literally every country in the world used horsepower to measure automotive power until SI started taking hold in the 1970s, and the changeover seems likely to remain incomplete until the end of the internal combustion engine. What about a 1950s Opel with 60PS? Do we lead with kW there? What about the Bugatti Type 35's 140cv? Again, PS is not some kind of esoteric specialist unit. It is a horsepower, plain and simple, it just so happens that countries using the imperial measurement system picked a slightly different definition of hp than did the civilized world.

One thing that can't be ignored is that most of the claimed power are simply marketing numbers. One Swedish magazine used to do very very careful testing of maximum power, and the discrepancies between brands and models were simply staggering. Mazda's 150hk was nothing like BMW's 150hk. Do we really believe that BMW's 2002, 2002 ti, and 2002 tii produced exactly 100, 120, and 130PS? I don't. They're nominal figures, like 2x4 for a piece of lumber. If I was at a cocktail party for WP car nerds I might suggest that converting these nominals is as useless as converting 2CV into 1.47 kilowatts.

Anyhow, I firmly believe that European cars built before 1972 (Germany was an early adopter) should always lead with the unit they were designed in (i.e., either kind of horsepower), but I think the date ought to remain flexible. Not sure what the various national laws stated, but French and Italian and other manufacturers absolutely used hp (metric) as their main unit until the 1990s at least - as evidenced by some of them literally naming their products after this power (cf. Fiat, Venturi).

I do not believe in trying to work out a set of strict definitions for this, it will only cause complications, but my rule of thumb is that if whichever kind of power output (kW or PS or hp) of a range of cars mostly ends in 5s and 0s is likely the leading one. I do not feel the need to do this to 2000's and newer cars and I want to make abundantly clear that I am not trying to apply PS everywhere or to unwind the metric system in any way. Quite the opposite; I work as an architect in NYC and every day I have to deal with the miseries of feet and inches that even Americans themselves do not know how to use. For a true headache, check out the scales we have to use. Ever try to figure out how big to make something so that it appears 3/32" tall when reproduced in 1/8" = 1'-0" scale? Don't even get me started on paper sizes.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, BMW prefers PS when describing their own cars from the mid-70s.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

…but how would we know whether or not the Fiat Uno 75 was named after its engine power output in PS? What if the engine is rated 75 PS (CUNA), which is then 72 PS (DIN 70020) and 51 kW (ISO 1585)? What about the Audi 60, which has a 55 PS engine? We cannot know for sure what the names were/are supposed to tell the customers. We only know that we should not rely on marketing claims. In case of the Unimog U 1300 L: Its name is not an indicator of its engine's rated power output: The type 435.115 (model U 1300 L) was offered with 96, 100, 115, or 124 kW engines (1). So, I understand why you'd argue that PS is "clearer", but I disagree: we are not supposed to deliver clear, nice, even or appealing figures, we are supposed to treat figures without interpreting them. If there is evidence for a "PS naming", then we can express this using extra text, exempli gratia "Fiat named the Uno 75 because of its power output in PS", but as long as we don't have any such evidence, we should avoid assumptions, even if things are (or appear to be) obvious. You state „Anyhow, I firmly believe that European cars built before 1972 (Germany was an early adopter) should always lead with the unit they were designed in (i.e., either kind of horsepower), but I think the date ought to remain flexible.“ → at first glance, this is not a bad idea, however, imagine the date remained flexible: This would cause zillions of useless discussion on whether or not PS should be used first in several different articles, and the discussions would always be the same. I mean, you have handed it to me on a plate: „When describing their own cars form the mid-70s, BMW uses PS“. Describing is different from being mandated to use. BMW can describe their own cars however they want – what if they describe their newer cars with PS, too? Would that be a reason to use PS first? You and me, we both know that it would not be too reasonable to do so, but what if one day a new editor shows up who (mis)-interprets "the date ought to remain flexible"? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not the end of the world if BMW E28 leads with kW and BMW E30 leads with PS. I do not see a hard rule being applied in this matter to German WP, and allowing flux and editorial judgement seems to create less debate than trying to create some sort of byzantine rule which will then lead to problems, misapplications, and judgment questions. Are you suggesting that the names of the Fiat Uno 45, 60, 70, and 75 do not refer to the approximate metric horsepower output??? The fact that certain submodels of the Unimog 1300 range were added to include other engine options does not change the fact that "1300" refers to ~130PS, just like how the "8" in Mercedes 208 refers to ~80PS. Whether or not Fiat referred to CUNA or DIN or ECE does not change the fact that the name refers to the horsepower produced by the car. One metric hp converts to 735W, whether it is measured by the DIN, JIS, CUNA, or any other standards. Again, I am trying to show that horsepower is not irrelevant, it is used by the manufacturers themselves. Manufacturers do still use PS to describe their cars in many markets, but it is no longer the dominant form and so no one cares. I would say that from 1972 to about 1995, most European manufacturers are in a transition period; Japan and others switched even later. And in the end, there is no conflict: it is painfully easy to see which unit is "conventionally use in reliable sources," because it is the units that are used to write about these cars in reliable sources.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

We're not writing for people that live in the 70s. We're writing for today's and the future's readers. And today US readers primarily understand hk and kW, UK readers primarily understand BHP and kW, Australian readers primarily understand kW. Readers from other countries primarily understand kW or whatever horse power is called in their languages. The only unit that is somewhat universally understood is kW. ⛐Boivie (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A one-second search shows this not to be the case [9]. And again, I don't want to apply horsepower to new products, just to historic ones. And I do not want to omit kW either, but to avoid obfuscation. When we write about the Volvo PV it is absurd to lead with kW.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• One article from a website (in a language other than English) is not proof that PS is more commonly recognised than kW. Especially since most English-speaking readers would equate "horsepower" with imperial horsepower rather than metric horsepower. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been letting this mull over in my mind for the last few days. Mr Choppers raises some excellent points that cannot be dismissed easily and I certainly respect his intent and integrity. Yet, I cannot help feeling that PS and hp are rooted in the past. Fossil that I am, I still think in terms of hp, even though Australia has used kW for decades. But the new generations (at least in Australia) use kW intuitively.

It is true that many cars were named after a nominal, rounded power figure. I treat this as marketing and mostly ignore it for actual power figures. If the actual power figure is not available then any conversion to kW and hp should make use of |round=5 or similar to avoid false precision. The British liked naming cars for nominal power figures. Some even had 2 figures like Austin 18/24 for 18 tax horsepower and 24 "real" hp. This is similar to a discussion about the Ford 302 cu in engine. Ford in the US badged the cars as 5.0 L but for WP we put 4.9 L in the infoboxes because 302 cu in is actually 4,949 cc, which properly rounds 4.9 L. The Americans weren't happy about this but we eventually persuaded them about the difference between badges and measurements. Marketing and engineering need to be clearly separated.

It is also true that manufacturers were rather liberal with the power figures. It was a figure that could be read off from a dyno and that could be replicated as desired. But they did things like removed/disconnected the water pump belt, most of the oil, the alternator, the air conditioner, and any other parasitic drag. This means that any figure given should be treated with a rather large amount of salt. But none-the-less, if it is presented as an engineering figure (rather than a marketing figure) then we report it as such.

Oooh-la-la!

The literature of the time naturally used the units of the time. As mentioned above, that's like reporting the height of the pyramids in cubits. However, modern enthusiast magazines and books about older cars still tend to use the older figures. Even here in Australia, modern magazines about classic cars from the 1970s use hp - but those magazines are mostly aimed at like-minded fossils. And of course, British magazines for classic cars will use hp to their dying day, so it's hard to dismiss German magazines for using PS. WP:UNITS says 'such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions'. It's tricky to interpret this. For their example, horses are still measured in hands in modern horse racing. For cars, modern literature talking about modern cars always uses kW (US excepted, who are determined to ignore the metric system). But modern literature about classic cars still holds on to the old units. Out of all the points raised, this is the only one that really makes me think. Is it a strong enough point?  Stepho  talk  08:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for hearing me. This is not the kind of interaction one expects on the internet. Perhaps we ought to use a more clear cut example than 1990s BMWs (a very blurry place and period for this question): what would you do about the Berliet T100? Literally no one has ever talked about this vehicle in terms of kW. The nation that built it, the manufacturer, all period and modern sources only ever refer to horsepower. The truck carries a giant 600ch. or 700ch. badge in its grille. What about the 1931 Audi 15/75 PS? We use hp when describing the Ford Falcon (XA), as Australia wasn't metric yet (that article could use a couple of conversions, btw). I would like the same sort of respect for machines built in pre-SI metric countries.

The difference from cubits is that horsepower is not dead yet (I don't say this in a gloating nor a prescriptive manner), and it's not only fossils who use it. Even in Germany, an SI bastion, current articles are published which exclude kW entirely. BMW themselves use only PS when describing their own pre-SI 1970s products, changing to kW/PS for cars from the late 1970s. Obviously Auto Bild using PS only might be the result of being published by the heavily right-leaning Axel Springer SE; I have a feeling that a lot of euro-sceptics want to "keep their horsepower safe from Brussels bureaucrats" or somesuch, but that is not what I am after. Please don't mistake me for some sort of reactionary. Also, do note that "metric language" Wikipedias do not feel the need to only use kW - perhaps because they don't have to struggle with some people insisting on using stones and drams and other absurdities - I randomly looked up Renault 21 in French and ch is used nearly exclusively, switching to kW outputs for parts of the Laguna I article and then switching back to only horsepower for the Laguna II. There is not a single kW output even at the current Renault Talisman. Same thing in Italian, in Spanish, Swedish, and so on.

Why has the same thing not happened with kgm? Is it simply that no one has an emotional attachment to their cars' torque figures? I can recite the maximum power of every car I have ever owned, but I couldn't tell you the torque of a single one.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

MrsSnoozyTurtle has ignored the discussion here and uniilaterally reverted my proposed changes. This user has not responded directly to the comments I have made nor to direct quotes from MOS. What should be done next?  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That is an unfair accusation from Mr.choppers at me. What happened is more like: Mr choppers made an edit to give Pferdstarke more prominence. Soon after, Stepho-wrs started this thread identifying some concerns with the change. Eventually, others (including myself) joined in and various aspects were discussed. After 10 January the discussion had petered out without consensus for the original change, so on 15 Jan I restored the previous version, which was reverted on 2 February by Mr. choppers.

Therefore, I believe it is best for the previous wording to remain at the moment. As for the question of "What should be done next?", perhaps a revised wording could be proposed here and discussed? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the discussion never decided to revert my change. Stepho-wrs has come around to leading with PS when dependable sources mainly do so. No one has agreed to remove any and all mention of metric hp, as you are trying to do across a number of BMW articles.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking through the above discussion, there is no consensus amongst the 6 other people for the changes that you made. Therefore the accusation of Mr.choppers that I "ignored the discussion here" is unwarranted and unfair, and I ask that he withdraw it please?

If you would still like a change to how Pferdstarke is treated, I suggest creating an RfC with specific wording proposed. In the meantime, adding PS units to articles such as a car built from 2012 to 2015 is not in line with the Conventions. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that you have explained how you see it, sure, I will withdraw that comment. I also didn't see any agreement to revert my changes. As for removing PS entirely, as you are doing on numerous BMW articles, I have not seen much support. Particularly when PS is the unit used in reputable sources. As for the car built 2012-2015, I recommend comparing to the German entry. Including PS as well serves to protect against the constant swapping back and forth between hp and metric hp outputs which leads to so many errors, and causes no harm that I can identify.

You also have not responded directly to most of the comments I have made. For instance, the insistence on calling it Pferdestärke shows that you either have not read anything I have written, or that you are deliberately othering metric horsepower to make it seem an obscure unit. Again, I am not the one who chose to use "PS" as the abbreviation for metric hp, which is simply horsepower as defined by the majority of the world's population. And there are many editors who still prefer PS even for new cars: Very recently, I swapped kW to become the leading unit at a few Hyundai pages, which led to protests on my talk page.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mr.choppers. This situation is a case of WP:BRD but as a courtesy your changes were left in place until the discussion died out. So it doesn't seem fair to use this courtesy as an argument for accepting the changes when there hasn't been a consensus. As previously suggested, perhaps you could create an RfC with specific wording as a way to focus the discussion?

The reason I refer to the unit as Pferdstarke is that in articles the unit appears as "PS". This is a concern because the casual English language reader is much less likely to know what PS means, compared with hp or bhp.

The issue of errors caused by swapping between hp and PS sounds like something that could be solved by adopting the method proposed by Stepho-wrs above. However, perhaps there are situations where it is a problem, so could you please point us towards examples of Revision Histories where this has been an issue?

Describing Alawadhi3000's discussion as "protests on my Talk Page" does not seem accurate; IMHO it was simply a question that was asked and then resolved without drama following your explanation. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, there is no real good reason that we use the abbreviation PS for metric horsepower. If you do not abbreviate PS, then it reads "metric horsepower" and that is the unit we are discussing. The choice of abbreviation is a problem, as it makes the unit seem more obscure than it is and makes it look somewhat inappropriate when applied to Swedish, French, or Italian cars. In horsepower it is abbreviated "hp (m)" in one place, which is not much less awkward however.

Alawadhi3000's protest just shows that there are plenty of editors who prefer using metric hp, just as there are plenty of manufacturers and others who still do. I am not suggesting that PS become the de facto unit used, but when reliable sources and manufacturers all refer to metric hp then it should at the very minimum be included. As for vehicles built before the official adoption of SI, we absolutely ought to lead with the unit used by the manufacturer, whether that be an imperial or a metric hp.

The reason I argue for using PS when appropriate but do not argue for leading with kgm for torque in similar situations is because kgm is an obsolete unit, horsepower is not. I would argue that even after fifty years of SI, kW remains more obscure than horsepower outside of Australia and South Africa (they leapfrogged the customary metric units whereas those have provided "stickier" in nations that were already metric, maybe the situation is similar in other Commonwealth nations?). On another note, why do we still apply cubic inch conversions to modern cars as a matter of habit? I rarely see even Americans use cubic inches, aside from when discussing older cars.

I will write up a new proposal when the kids allow me an hour of peace.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just to clarify a few things, my post on Mr.choppers talk page was more of a question rather than a protest and I forgot to chime in on this debate so I'll do it now.

As a person who almost only edit Korean based cars, they use PS for power and kgm (or more precisely kgmf) for torque, I don't really have any preference regarding power units, I always put in the units which the manufacturer use and use the convert tool to KW and hp for power and lbft and Nm for Torque, I think this is the best practice.

If the majority of editor agree on the fact that the leading unit should always be a certain unit, I have no problem with that as long as the base of the conversion remains the original units used by the manufacturer (like what Mr.choppers did on the Kia Optima page), but I really really suggest using more appropriate units, it seems that hp and nm are the most units used worldwide for power and torque respectively, so those units should be used instead of SI units. Regards, Alawadhi3000 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Should "General Motors" be preferred over "GM" in relevant article titles?

I have started a discussion to that effect at Talk:GM A platform (1925). Essentially, having article titles be of the form "General Motors XXXX" instead of "GM XXXX" is more professional, more consistent, and slightly more in line with policy. Thank you!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for consistent use of section anchors

I've been noticing a lot of Cewbot fixing section anchors lately, and it reminded me of an idea I had.

I think we should determine a standardized way of using Template:Anchor for ease of section linking and to minimize the need for broken links to be fixed if the section heading changes, especially for redirects.

The simplest way would be to include the generation as just a number, the first year of the generation, and a type code if applicable.

Anchors are occasionally employed already in some articles, but they're misused. Per the template documentation, anchors should not be in the section heading directly unless substed.

The anchor simply links to a particular line on the page, not any nearby text, so it technically can be anywhere. It can go below the heading, which has the side effect of hiding the heading itself when the anchor link is used, or above the heading, which technically places it in the previous section. Or, it can be substed in the header, but that makes the markup more difficult to read and edit.

For example:

==Seventh generation (1989–1997)==
{{anchor|7|1989|MN12}}
{{Infobox automobile

{{anchor|7|1989|MN12}}
==Seventh generation (1989–1997)==
{{Infobox automobile

==Seventh generation (1989–1997)<span class="anchor" id="1"></span><span class="anchor" id="1989"></span><span class="anchor" id="MN12">==
{{anchor|7|1989|MN12}}
{{Infobox automobile

I'm not sure which placement I'd prefer, but I do believe that it would be helpful to use anchors and use them consistently. --Sable232 (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There are some fine points to work out.

Generations can sometimes be a problem when some markets didn't get the first generation - ie what one market thinks is the first generation is considered by another market to be the second generation. Probably not a huge problem but we should make it clear in the convention that it is a worldwide thing.

Calendar years vs model years is still an issue. Cars sold only in countries that use model years (typically North America) should probably use model years. Everything else should use calendar years. Eg, no Corolla article should ever have a model year as an anchor, but the Oldsmobile Toronado would best use model years.  Stepho  talk  01:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

To your points, I'd say the anchors should reflect the article content - that is, what the article calls the first generation is "1" for purposes of the anchor. If there's an extraordinary situation where numbering generations is impossible, it may be easier to omit them and use only the year, but I can't think of an example off-hand.

Year usage should, of course, reflect the heading/article content and follow our existing guidelines. --Sable232 (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Just asking that they be made explicit in the guide because we know some people will get it wrong.  Stepho  talk 

According to Template:Anchor, using subst:anchor within the header is the "correct" way to do it. That must have been a recent decision, as last I saw it, adding the template before the header was the recommended method. Apparently still up for debate is whether to put the subst:anchor after the header name or before it.

Regarding anchor names, it's best to cover your bases and add multiple variations (e.g. 4|4th|fourth|Fourth|1995), but if I had to pick a standard, it would either be just the generation number (e.g. 4), or the lower-case ordinal (e.g. fourth). Model codes can still be used as anchor names too, of course, as long as they're mentioned elsewhere in the page so people know what they mean. --Vossanova ^o< 19:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for amending Rule 5 of images

I've noticed over the past several months, there have been numerous clashes between editors when it comes to changing the Infobox images, specifically the main Infobox image. Rule 5 states that "The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other.". This, I feel, is the reason for the clashes. Since there is no set rule in place (basically implying any image can be used so long that quality is good), numerous editing clashes have occurred as a result (ex. Toyota Alphard, Buick LaCrosse, Toyota Crown, and the infamous Honda Concerto edit war). I'm proposing adopting the standard of the main Infobox image being of the latest generation of a model (including facelifts) in order to reflect changes in a brand's design language and identity (such as Buick's new Pure Design philosophy and new corporate logo, for example). This would help to reduce editing wars over which image is acceptable to use, as well as set the standard for vehicle pages going forward.

I also would like to propose that any images of a model's latest generation can be used, so long as the lighting is good (as in not dark), and the vehicle can be seen. Way too often have I seen images used, only to be reverted on the grounds of "disruptive", which is subjective. Antares600 (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The point of that guideline was to prevent the endless occurrences of poor-quality images replacing good-quality ones in the name of recentism. This is an encyclopedia; its purpose is not to serve as the automotive press nor to market a brand's latest design language. --Sable232 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Latest is best" is an example of WP:RECENTISM and is often pushed by youngsters who neither know of nor care about anything more than 2 years old. We try to cater for a spread of readers, both older and young and choose the photo based on the quality of the photo. Even with this new rule in place there will still be clashes, such as at Holden Commodore where the latest (FWD) generation is absolutely hated by many fans of the 4 decades worth of RWD generations.  Stepho  talk  21:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not meant to cater to fans, it's meant to provide accurate, up-to-date information. Having the header infobox image be the one that's a fan favorite over the latest (because fans hate it) shows bias and willingness to bend to pressure instead of standing your ground. And even encyclopedias are to be updated with the latest information in order to remain a reliable source of information, be it automotive, public figures, or otherwise. Wikipedia should be held to a high standard for information. Otherwise, these clashes will continue to the end of time. And "latest is best" is not what I'm saying, I'm saying that latest is the most accurate and up-to-date in information. Antares600 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, a perfect example of WP:RECENTISM. Your argument swings both ways - we should avoid fanboys of older generations and also avoid fanboys of the latest and greatest. Up-to-date information does not mean that we favour the latest generation. WP covers all generations of a vehicle equally. We keep up-to-date by providing information on all generations (including the latest) but the latest generation has no special significance as being better (or worse) than any other generation.  Stepho  talk  21:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is not a marketing site and there is no need to feature the most recent generation in the main infobox. It should be a high quality photo and not of an unrepresentative model, that's all. People replacing quality photos with low quality ones of the most recent one, like here, is to be avoided at all costs.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Soft oppose - Mainly because of the example Mr.choppers had presented (which is by the way, done by the proposer). However, these will keep happening because many passersby are not aware of the rule, editors who thinks newer is better, etc, so my personal stance is to let the infobox images to be 'updated' only if the quality is superior to the image it is replacing. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)