Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Saleen and Tata Harrier[edit]

Good morning, I would like to point out that I have corrected the Saleen and Saleen S1 entry by adding the sources and the acquisition of the company by the Chinese Jiangsu Secco Tecnology, if someone can correct any errors in the notes and grammar. And Saleen is a public company? Many source cite is a private and chinese!

also in Tata Harrier there are many Indian news sites and articles and I would like to know if they are suitable for an encyclopedia, many seem superfluous (for example the many competing cars that I eliminated). thanks and good job

sorry but in Tata Motors there is the "Notable Vehicle" section which seems useless and repetitive as already mentioned in the entry and the specific entries are already present.

Nomination of Mazda B platform for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mazda B platform is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazda B platform until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Merger of Plymouth Savoy into Plymouth Belvedere[edit]

I see that the Plymouth Savoy article has now been merged in to the Plymouth Belvedere page, one of a number of similiar merges that have occurred recently relating to American cars of this era. I am strongly opposed to this action. The former Savoy article gave a very clear history of the model, something which is no longer available as the Savoy history is now interspersed with other information on other Plymouth models, particularly, but not only, the Belvedere. I do not see this merge action as resulting in a nett improvement to Wikipedia.

What is the feeling of this group on this and similar merges? GTHO (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

GTHO —I wholeheartedly agree with you. I always thought the Savoy was an export-only model largely sourced in Canada. Eddaido (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I can tell, this particular merger was done with no discussion whatsoever. While the Plymouth Savoy article is sorely in need of improvement (start-class at best), it is possible for it to stand on its own; the merger into the Plymouth Belvedere article cuts out most of early history of the model line. In my opinion, along with the merger being done with no discussion, it was done so poorly that it also justifies its reversal. On a separate note, what other mergers need attention? -SteveCof00 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
In the US the Savoy was the entry-level full-size car from the mid-1950s(?) through 1964, in 1965 it was discontinued (to Fury #?). Belvedere was the top end (I think) full-size car until 1965, when it became an intermediate with a different body than the full-sized cars. Belvedere was only a separate body for a few years. Just background knowledge, nothing sourced enough for the article. Sammy D III (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Dodge Royal and Plymouth Plaza are two more examples of dubiously merged articles. GTHO (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This comes from the era of American car brands where they had one platform (in 2dr, 4dr, and possibly wagon body styles), and each "model" was basically equivalent to what we now call "trim levels" of a single model. For example, here is the brochure for the 1958 Plymouth. The Plaza is the entry-level model, the Savoy the intermediate, and the Belvedere the top model. But they're all the same basic car, with different trims (extra chrome, slightly different fenders, etc.). So, when compared to the page content of more recent car models, I believe it makes sense to have the Belvedere, Savoy, and Plaza all in the same article, at least for the generation where they were similar. If there was a generation of the Savoy or Plaza that was unique, and had enough content to justify its own page, then I'd say leave the page separate, and repeat some of the info for the shared generation on the Belvedere page. But I'm not sure that's the case here.
If there is more evidence that the Savoy name was used in other markets on cars not related to the Belvedere, then maybe make Plymouth Savoy a disambiguation page, and add a link for each related model. --Vossanova o< 18:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I also disagree with the merge (plus some others done by the same editor); the combined article is not easy to follow nor is it easy to find information on a single model. It wouldn't be out of line to revert, in my opinion.

Vossanova has a good point, however, in that these models are all variations of the same basic "full-size Plymouth." My suggestion would be to have an article for each generation of (e.g. 1955 Plymouth) and convert the articles for each nameplate into what would probably amount to in-depth set index articles, giving an overview of that nameplate's specifics and linking to the main article for each generation. --Sable232 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: I found DeSoto Fireflite, DeSoto Firesweep, DeSoto Suburban, Dodge 330, Plymouth Cambridge, and Plymouth Plaza have also been merged relatively recently into other articles. --Sable232 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
These are all Chrysler Corp. Sammy D III (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
For reference, here's how it's done for 1941 Ford and 1949 Ford. But then, others are still split like Ford Mainline, Ford Customline, Ford Crestline, and Chevrolet 150, Chevrolet 210. I guess it can also depend on how much content there is, and how often the cars are referred to in outside sources by their trim model names, versus just the brand name. --Vossanova o< 15:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The '41 and '49 can't possibly be "Start" and "Stub", can they? Sammy D III (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe that having a Plymouth Savoy page makes more sense than having Plymouth Savoy information spread across the Plymouth Belvedere page or (as proposed) spread across countless "year" pages. The unique page makes it much easier to research the history of a specific model name. I know that's what I prefer when I use these pages. I for one would not find it useful to have the Chevrolet Impala page information spread across the Chevrolet Bel Air page. GTHO (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Now I see combined Ford model pages go all the way up to 1960 Ford. But there are still separate pages for each trim like Ford Fairlane (Americas). So, I think it's fair to make both single-trim model pages (covering all generations) and pages for the full (full-size) model lineup (covering just one generation). --Vossanova o< 17:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Most readers are probably going to look for a model name when trying to find information, so I agree that maintaining articles for each nameplate should be the core of the solution. It's better to duplicate information than to have it be difficult to find. --Sable232 (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement from (Regushee (talk) - I contacted them, they didn't want to post here, so they posted the following on my TP - Sammy D III (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC) :
"In researching Chrysler Corporation products from 1925 to 1965, when they introduced the Chrysler A, B, and C platforms, Chrysler made one full size car and branded it Chrysler, DeSoto, Dodge and Plymouth, with shared technology engines and chassis, with the same interior, with different sheet metal on the front of the car, then later started adding chrome in various styles followed by two tone paint jobs, and used model names to denote how much they wanted for the car. Model names were flexible from year to year as marketing department decisions were made.
They are all the same car...Chrysler, DeSoto, Dodge and Plymouth. Chryslers were made at Jefferson Road, Dodge at Hammtramck, DeSoto and Plymouth at Lynch Road then later in the 1930s the Los Angeles Plant was a branch assembly that put them together for the West Coast.
The articles, as some editors mentioned, were fragmented to say the least, with content copied from one car to another, so I merged all contributions onto one site with bolded names to signify the different models. If they want to split the articles into fragmented articles, fine, just copy the content from one article and copy everything into separate pages like clones with model specific pictures. I found the content from two books that are often sited on these car articles from books I've purchased so as to cite the source, and both books treat these cars, within the different brands, as one car.".
In light of the above discussion, I propose that the merger of each of the above-mentioned Plymouth, Dodge and DeSoto articles be reversed. GTHO (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Altogether too much "dumbing down". US market cars were / are? sold differently outside of USA. Here's an example — Mercury Monarch. Eddaido (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I don't do cars and have no opinion but one editor made a merge (without discussion?) that more than one editor oppose. Seems like a no-brainer to revert and stay on the talk pages. I don't see where anybody has contacted that editor, though. Maybe I missed it, but they should get a heads up. Sammy D III (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the merge revert. Like I wrote in my last comment above, it seems best to have separate pages for each trim/model that span multiple generations, and (if there's demand) a combined page covering all related trims/models for a single generation, with some redundant information organized differently. --Vossanova o< 16:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments above. --Sable232 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Support the reversion. As I noted above, this issue started when the initial merger was done with almost no discussion (highly frowned upon...), leading to a poor contribution to the Plymouth Belvedere article. I do concede that the Plymouth Savoy article is in need of improvement, but it does look like it can stand on its own with editing attention. All the merge did was copy and paste one article onto another. Things like these can get very complicated, but I find it best not to merge too many of these articles, as the branding of car nameplates can get complicated (the above statement by GTHO is a simpler example...of American cars). SteveCof00 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that we can say that the proposal has been approved. I will start work on reviving the deleted pages shortly. GTHO (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Support the reversion on procedural grounds only. A merge is not "highly frowned upon". Noncontroversial merges are acceptable. The issue is when controversy arises. I didn't look at the articles in question but it is absolutely a community norm to include various trim packages/models of the same vehicle in one article. Things that should be considered would be if one model or trim package has merit for a stand-alone article over inclusion. If split articles result in two lower-class articles then a merge would help create a better class article. Again, I am just supporting because there does seem to be controversy on the merge. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Added note: Merges that are uncontroversial are totally acceptable, as this must have been at the time but consensus can change. I do want to add that "if" the page(s) intended to be separated should look like the "old revision" linked to above it would not be beneficial. The "Multiple issues" tag includes possible OR and a lack of inline citations. While splitting an article allowing for more in-depth coverage is not a bad thing this should really be covered in the affected articles and not here. I would suggest a merge request on the articles and link here that it is ongoing. This also allows more community involvement over just a project one. --- Otr500 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I have restored each of the following pages to its pre-merge status: DeSoto Fireflite, DeSoto Firesweep, DeSoto Suburban, Dodge 330, Dodge Wayfarer, Plymouth Cambridge, Plymouth Plaza, Plymouth Savoy. I have not yet taken action on the articles into which these pages were merged. GTHO (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Plymouth Suburban also now restored. GTHO (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
DeSoto Adventurer also now restored. GTHO (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been looking at the history of the articles into which the above pages had been merged, with a view to reverting each of those articles to their pre-merged state. The articles are: DeSoto Firedome (merged 21/8), DeSoto Series S-10 (20/8), Dodge Polara (1/9), Dodge Coronet 28/8, Plymouth Cranbrook (4/9) and Plymouth Belvedere (8/9 & 9/9). The problem is that some of these have had additional changes made to them by other editors since the merges were done. How can we best handle this? GTHO (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Brabham Featured article review[edit]

I have nominated Brabham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"SUV attack in 2021" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SUV attack in 2021. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 23#SUV attack in 2021 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 65.92.246.43 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)