Wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

From Global Warming Art

The following page is a local copy of the Wikipedia page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. (more info)

Template:Talkbottom


Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22


Contents

WikiProject Automobiles at the Commons

Hi, I have just set-up Commons:WikiProject Automobiles for all the Wikipedia project members involved there (User:IFCAR, User:Bull-Doser, et cetera). The page is largely based on the policies/conventions here, which isn't the best solution (English Wikipedia bias), but is at least a start. I have tried to mirror the "category standards" based on the conventions we use here for article names. Anyway, feel free to join up, the instructions to do so can be found here. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Having a set of standards for commons could help; I noticed that the category naming specifies "Make, model, (model code)" which is a clear distinction, in some ways more complete than the chassis code names sometimes used for articles. Although it might take a while to rename commons categories from the chassis code name to the full make-model-code name. Thanks again for the info. SynergyStar (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bomber BFS

Can someone please confirm that Bomber BFS is utter nonsense. I proposed it for speedy delete but it was turned down on the grounds it is an actual car. Before taking it to articles for deletion, am I missing something.

Malcolma (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A Google search seems to suggest it's a car that's in a video game but was never actually produced, but maybe a reference to the real car is buried beneath pages and pages of gamer hits. IFCAR (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
From Googling around, I think it's some kind of Chevrolet Bel Air-based bonus car in the computer game Need for Speed II.[1] I've attached a {{prod}} tag; to encourage quicker deletion, you (or another editor) may wish to second the proposed deletion with a {{Prod-2}} tag. --DeLarge (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: according to the Need for Speed wiki, the Bomber BFS is explicitly described as a "fictional 1957 Chevy Bel-Air".[2] --DeLarge (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Googling on 
car bomber BFS -"need for speed" -"need 4 speed" -nfs -soup
(yes, the -soup is needed) gives only random rubbish. The author also created Yamaha RS-100T, which seems to be a reasonable with similar facts on the web. He also added NFS links for Cheetah (disambiguation) and Bullet (disambiguation). So I'd say the user is not malicious but mistakenly thinks every vehicle in NFS has a real life counterpart. Stepho-wrs (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox width

I have set the infobox width field, so that Template:Infobox Automobile generation and Template:Infobox Automobile should now be same size, if there is no picture placed , if there is problem let me know or write here --Typ932 T·C 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Notable Ferrari Enzo Owners

Is this article okay? It was just created by LemonCrumpet (talk · contribs) and has no sources. I'm not sure if it passes WP:N. Thoughts? swaq 17:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not notable. I also find it hard to believe that a Pope would accept a Ferrari as a gift...--Flash176 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
My inclination is that it is a frivolous list but he has certainly put a lot of hard work into it. Since it looks like good faith, invite him over to discuss it instead of scaring off a new recruit. And it's my (poor) understanding that the Pope rarely refuses gifts. It was probably sold on or something - not that I know much about Catholic internal affairs. Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

Your input is requested at a move proposal here. Neelix (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinions in article

I would like to request that the economy car article be reviewed in light of the most recent edits by 85.119.112.102. This is identical to the previous edits by 85.119.112.166; therefore I would think they are one and the same contributor. Please note that I have tried to tone down the statements of opinion and promotion of particular models. They have described my work as "vandalism" (see: here). However, this contributor seems intent on a particular perspective even in the comments to me (see here). It seems to me that the statements added to the "economy car" article by this editor have nothing to do with informing the reader. Thank you — CZmarlin (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this up. I took a go at toning down the language. The whole article is a unsourced mess, but the IP additions are clearly pushing a POV that American cars are crap, which isn't entirely untrue, but the article currently acts as if America was the only source of mediocre vehicles which is completely untrue, both Europe and Japan produced some spectacular duds as well. --Leivick (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Rustproofing needs cites

Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."
Rustproofing has been tagged "This article does not cite any references or sources.... Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" since September 2007. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Jeep

Mitsubishi Jeep has, since I created it about three years ago, been a redirect to Jeep CJ#CJ-5, since it was a version of that Jeep built under licence by MMC between 1953 and 1998. I figured that like Mitsubishi Henry J, another American vehicle built by the company under licence, there wasn't really anything to be said that couldn't be better covered in the parent article.

Recently, a user has come along who disagrees. They made a series of edits about three weeks ago which were slightly malformed,[3] and removed the redirect from Cat:Mitsubishi Motors vehicles, so I reverted. A second series of edits followed,[4] which included slightly more information and a copyvio photo. I put the useful info in the Jeep article, and reverted again. Now we're onto a third round of edit warring,[5] so I'm now posting here in an effort to put an end to the back-and-forth.

My own opinion remains that all the information about the Mitsubishi version can be covered at Jeep CJ, and would give a better context from both Japanese and American perspectives. It's the same approach I took with Mitsubishi Henry J, another under-licence American car manufactured by MMC, which is the most similar example I can come up with. I'm also slightly concerned that a page like this would open the door for others to create articles on the (at least) 15 versions of the Jeep built under licence around the world.

Thoughts from others? --DeLarge (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious redirect to me. Nothing particularly different about the licensed Mitsubishi version to require a separate article. I'm going to redirect it back. --Leivick (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Me three. I think DeLarge's approach is the best one. If in future some vast new store of information comes to light that warrants separate treatment of the licenced CJs, then fine, but for now I think coverage in the main article is the best way forward. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with the proposal. It would be better for readers to have basic information on all the CJ variants built around the world in the article about this vehicle. — CZmarlin (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll.

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

GM- - Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer

There are lots of editing with these articles, because current happenings, so anybody have free time, could keep these and related articles on eye, that model/production/defunct information is not changed/added until these changes are real (in the end of this year or next year) --Typ932 T·C 12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the Pontiac articles. The infoboxes and timelines should be left alone until the day the models actually cease production. Also, one should not write about the end of model production until that particular model is mentioned by GM. One can't assume production will end at a certain time because of the general brand-wide announcement about Pontiac. The only place it should really appear now is in the main Pontiac article - but try to avoid "news blogging", i.e. making a new paragraph for every news item and starting it like "On April 27, 2009, GM announced..". --Vossanova o< 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, may want to keep an eye on Bull-Doser's edits. I've reverted the ones I've caught, but he's been making up rumors about the Chevrolet Orlando taking the Pontiac Vibe's name, the body of the Pontiac G8 being used for the Impala, etc. I've warned him once already, so if you do catch him adding more senseless stuff, please give him another warning.--Flash176 (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este

Hi everyone - i created today a wikipedia entry for this beautiful classic car contest - you can find it at Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este; i would like some help in expanding the article, especially the creation of a contestants list and a past editions section; you can find more info in the entry itself and at the official web site, for which i provided a link. Also please correct any grammar mistakes i made, since english is not my mother language.

Thanks

--ItemirusTalk Page 17:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Isuzu Amigo requested move

I have proposed to move Isuzu Amigo to its original market name Isuzu MU (see discussion: Talk:Isuzu Amigo). Thanks OSX (talk • contributions) 23:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have members with admin powers? Can't we simply move this unilaterally? Opel Frontera and Holden Frontera should be merged into it too. --Pc13 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Car Desgines

Hi I Created the following designs, Please inform me where they can be used, and tell me where to add them File:LUmbo.svg File:Lumbo2.svg File:Lumbo4.svg

Please reply to my message on my Talk Page.

Maen. K. A. (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice! But I am not sure if it is OK to use digitally-generated/produced images in place of actual photographs. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any problem using SVGs if they are the best quality images available, which in this case (Gallardo Spyder) I think they are. --Leivick (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
First thank you for the appreciation, they may be used on (Gallardo Spyder) or as an illustrations in other articles, thank you Maen. K. A. (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, looks like the user template now uses this pic! Nice. SynergyStar (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
HondaS2000-004.png This user is a member of WikiProject Automobiles.

Pontiac Vibe notability issue

Could someone please weigh in on this? Jacob Poon has added a section about the Vibe GT-R that Pontiac built in 2002. It's just a car that was pulled off the assembly line and had bolt-on parts added to it to show buyers what could be done to the Vibe. It wasn't a concept car and companies do this all the time, so I feel this is unencyclopedic and not worthy of mentioning on here. It also doesn't help that his M.O. seems to be barely more than poorly written lists of parts - (Vossanova's comment to Jacob) & (Contribs).--Flash176 (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the article, it was shown at SEMA 2002, which qualifies it as a show car (albeit a not very exotic show car) that was seen by a large number of people and probably written up in the press somewhere. It wasn't all that big a section, so I'd like to see it remain. Disclosure; I'm a bit biased because I've been documenting Toyota show cars. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler production

Someone seems to be changing the production years of current Chrysler models to say that their production ended in 2009. Now, it could be assumed that some Chrysler models will end their production run this year, such as the Dodge Avenger/Chrysler Sebring, since the only plant that produces them is closing under Chrysler's bankruptcy reorganization plan. However, the article for Dodge Caravan also has production listed as ending in 2009. it doesn't make sense to me for Caravan production to end, since it is one of Chrysler's most valuable models. I assume the changes have been made by an editor that got the wrong idea from Chrysler's Chapter 11 filing and the temporary stop of production, and misinterpreted it as Chrysler going out of business. However, I posted this to ask for someone more informed to make the proper changes to the articles. Are the Caravan and the Journey being discontinued, and I just don't know about it? Karrmann (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Caravan and the Journey are arguably Chrysler's most successful models. These would be the last to go, and I would say, like you, that the editor in question is misunderstanding the term "bankruptcy". Outside of the U.S. bankruptcy generally refers to being completely out of business and closing down for good. Chapter 11 has other equivalents in Commonwealth (U.K.) nations such as administration and receivership.
I have also left a note on the IP's talk page, so (s)he will hopefully get understand what is actually happening. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
And this confirms what I said above. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ground Effects

There's a little tended article called Ground effects that describes this as a term used for bodykit (airdams, spoilers, diffusers etc), a different meaning to that of Ground effect in cars, which describes the aerodynamic phenomenon such items may produce. I've not heard 'ground effects' used as a name for the bodykit this way in the UK - does it have this meaning, or is this just a misunderstanding? 4u1e (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In Aeronautics, ground effect is where the proximity of the ground effectively causes a cushion of air to give the wings some extra lift - making it harder to land (the plane floats down the runway instead of actually landing). Look up the Caspian Sea Monster for a Russian aircraft that relies on this. In cars it could mean the packing of air underneath a car, causing it to lift at high speed, or the venturi effect, causing more down force at high speed via Bernoulli's principle. I've never heard of the term being used for the actual spoilers except rarely as 'ground effect devices'. This article adds nothing new compared to Ground effect in cars. I would change the article into a disambiguation page to the various car and automobile articles. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought too. It's also worth noting that there's a difference between spoilers, skirts etc which would actually produce downforce by exploiting ground effects and the essentially aesthetic bodykits referred to in the "Ground effects" article. Can the latter article be deleted or perhaps merged with body kits? Spute (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Convert it to a redirect to ground effect a disambiguation page (ground effect vehicle and ground effect train could probably be added to that page). This is simply another name for what is more commonly called a body kit. Given the consensu here that it doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article, I'll be bold. --DeLarge (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
DeLarge, I've reverted your redirect on this page for now. I agree that ground effects vs. ground effect is confusing, and body kit is a better page name, but 24 hours is hardly enough time to declare a consensus.--Flash176 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did wonder if this was a commonly used term in North America, since a few comments were included in descriptions of US specifications for cars such as the Toyota Matrix (until edits by myself and Flash176). However, checking Toyota USA's official website, the items in question seem to be called "Color-keyed front and rear underbody spoilers". This is what I'd expect them to be called, and apparently supports my suspicion that the term ground effects has been mis-used. Perhaps the material at ground effects should be transferred to Spoiler (automotive)? Spute (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Body kit (as suggested above) be a more appropriate home for the content? It's not just spoilers, it's the pseudo-diffusers and skirts as well. Agree with redirecting the term to ground effect. 4u1e (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 4ule. Moving the ground effects contents to spoiler would belie the fact that these things are most commonly made for looks and not function, in addition to what he said about other parts being included.--Flash176 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that the ground effects page has now been deleted in line with the consensus reached here and at the relevant talk page.Spute (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
What about Ground effects lighting? Could this be deleted? Spute (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the act of putting lights under a car is a bit weird but since people do it, it's worthy of an article. But it might be better as a redirect to another article that includes fashion accessories like angel eyes, fluffy dice, bobblers, etc. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Strathcarron

So, I was browsing the List of British cars, and i was somewhat surprised to see no one had written an article about Strathcarron yet. So I wrote it up, cited a couple of sources, and did all that jazz. Obviously, the article could use some spiffying up and would benefit from a picture (if a free one exists). But anyway, that wasn't my point. Strathcarron is basically just known for the one car they (briefly) made. Given the circumstances, I wasn't really sure what to do. I don't know if the SC-5A warrants it's own article. I thought maybe some folks here would know what's best in this situation. I figured personally that it's better to have one average stub article as oppossed to two very short ones with duplicate information. Opinions? →JogCon← 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track. With only one model, there is no reason to have to pages at this point. If either section grows to long, they can always be split later on. --Leivick (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think one article is enough --Typ932 T·C 19:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, one article is enough. But for consistency sake, I've added a pair of redirects for Strathcarron SC-5A and Strathcarron SC-6 which go to Strathcarron (automobile). Stepho-wrs (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Constant reverts on Renault 19

I've corrected performance numbers on the Renault 19 16S section, citing the 1991 Automobil Revue Katalog. However, an IP from the UK keeps changing 0-100 km/h time and maximum speed to a previous version. I believe the article may have to be semi-protected. --Pc13 (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Tzen (Cars)

There is deletion tag added to Tzen (Cars) article, if someone is able to find references or make the article better maybe it can be saved from deletion?? --Typ932 T·C 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Porsche 969

I declined the speedy deletion on this one, but it's a copy from wikicars, and needs help. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an article is needed, it is just a prototype for a 911 model that never made it to production. If it is seriously important it can be mentioned in the 911 article. Left as a redirect for the time being. --Leivick (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Autobodyman

I can't find a suitable "deletion discussion" category, but I thought you guys might like to see this one. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just a synonym for panel beater. I've redirected it. Stepho-wrs (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Automobile ownership

Is it just me or does the article on Automobile ownership cover wildly unrelated topics? It talks about a driver's license identifying the owner (which is not the case in the US if not anywhere else in the world) then delves into the types of automobiles (the antique and customized, more than anything else), then on to the rules of the road, license plates, insurance and vehicle maintenance. I find all of these to be unrelated to vehicle ownership per se, but more pertinent to the right to driving a car, regardless of who the owner is. Moreover, they each have their stand-alone article, so taking sections out will not harm the encyclopedia. I'd like to know if anyone feels strongly against culling down the article in a major way.

I've added a section related to the ownership documents in the US, but I'm at a loss with what to do with the rest of the article. There is already a To-Do list started at the article's discussion page. I think we need to give it some serious attention. Thanks! CFHerbert (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand why this is a suitably notable topic at all. It's so vague. "Driver licensing" might be of value if only to compare systems around the world. But ownership? Do we have articles on "home ownership", "radio ownership" or "fish ownership"? I'd say go further than "culling down" and just cull. – Kieran T (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


The article is more suitable as consumer guide or something else.... --Typ932 T·C 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:PROD the article, see what materialises. I agree with all the above, this article is not a topic in its own right, merely a loose collection of completely unrelated things. If PROD does not succeed will take it to full AfD for further discussion. Zunaid 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The strange part is that this article in much the same amalgamation of unrelated topics actually survived a nomination for deletion in February 2006 - see discussion here. Let's give it a few days to collect more feedback before we go that route again. --CFHerbert (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The 2006 AfD was for the article in a completely different state. The comments at the AfD were along the lines of "keep it because the article has change mid-afd. It's not great but let's give it time". It was more of a "procedural keep" than an outright keep. 3 years later and it has not improved one bit. Plus, three years ago's decision should have no bearing on a decision made now, after all consensus can change. Zunaid 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Also relevant is the fact that I don't recall that article being brought here to the project at the time — certainly few of the regular contributors here were involved in the discussion. So it probably went by fairly quietly which is a poor way to reach consensus, thus adding to the weight of justification to discuss it again now. – Kieran T (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PROD has been removed since the article had been previously nominated. I have listed it at AfD for further discussion, please weigh in with your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automobile ownership (2nd nomination). Zunaid 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This has now been resolved with the article being deleted. – Kieran T (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-Present)

See Talk:Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-Present) and give your opinions (support or not support) there --Typ932 T·C 16:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This has now been resolved by renaming in a way that respects precedent. Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003). – Kieran T (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

category for deletion

See Category:2010s_automobiles and give opinion --Typ932 T·C 16:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

2010 hasn't arrived yet, so no automobile can be in it yet. Possible exception if a manufacturer has announced next year's models (i.e. a model which will have a major facelift or redesign, not just this year's model that happens to be produced early in 2010). More than likely they are this year's model (ie 2009 calendar year) but using the US model year (ie 2010 MY), in which case they should be pushed back one year to be listed under their calendar year. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The category can be used for upcoming automobiles which have been announced for 2010 or shortly thereafter (as long as Category:Vehicles introduced by year only goes up to the present). Being in the future doesn't invalidate the category; see Category:2010 films for instance. --Vossanova o< 15:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

German ADAC entry

I note that this makes no mention of the very useful ADAC shops which seem to exist in most towns in Germany - a very useful source of maps. Nominally they seem to be only open to members but I have found they will willingly sell to overseas visitors. Clwydd (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only maps but also snow chains which can suddenly become necessary (and on some roads mandatory) at short notice if you're headed for the hills. As for the wiki-entry, if you think it needs improving you should improve it. Please. Charles01 (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Ford

FYI, Ford Motor Company → Ford - a WP:RM rename request has been filed. The discussion is occuring at Talk:Ford Motor Company. As Ford is a company that is related to your wikiproject, this is an informative notice.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

GA sweeps review of "Ford Taurus"

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007. Ford Taurus will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Solid engine block for RR cars

Sirs/Ladies Many years ago round about 1960 when I was an apprentice aircraft mechanic, our lecturer informed me that the Rolls Royce car engine block was emersed into the sea for 10 years for curing the block. Please tell me wether this is true,as I cant find any info on the Internet.

Regards, Ernst Wolfgang Kruger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.205.62 (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like complete nonsense to me, almost definitely false. --Leivick (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely false. Not only would this serve no purpose, but being immersed in the ocean for a decade would be highly detrimental to an engine.--Flash176 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd reject it on economic grounds. Even if it made engineering sense, building a 10 year supply before the first engine can be used would bankrupt almost any company. And it would add a 10 year delay to new innovations - also a company killer. I have no knowledge of how RR actually made their blocks but perhaps they put them through some form of brine solution as a cleansing stage (to remove grease) and then washed out with fresh water (to remove the salty from the brine). But that's just a guess. Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It certainly seems unlikely since even though R-R did maintain their engine block designs for a long time, they simply wouldn't have been able to ramp up production numbers whenever they needed to — such as when they were supplying engines to BMC. What engineering basis is there for this anyway? "It's already corroded as much as it's going to"? Naw. It sounds like the sort of slogan people might proudly say about their R-R though — "You could leave that block in the sea for 10 years and it'd still be fine!" – Kieran T (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Lexus

I have done the GA Reassessment of theLexus article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be great and meet all the WP:GA Criteria except for several dead links in the reference section. I am notifying the interested projects and editors of this. I have placed the article on hold pending fixes of these references. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sport tractor

I was planning on nominating this article for deletion, but I'm not the biggest expert on the subject matter so I wanted to check here first. "sport tractor" seems to be original research and a term coined by the author. The bulk of the article promotes a particular Isuzu truck. Also, the grammar is so poor that much of it is incomprehensible. A google search for "sport tractor" returned only a few thousand hits, most of which had nothing to do with what's in the article. Then there's a "Sport Tractor" category which has nothing in it but this article and Truck. So, is this a well-known concept or something made up? --Vossanova o< 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of the term. It looks like a one off mod to a Isuzu truck. Quote from the talk page; "By the way, this is a new idea, my research has found that the term "sport tractor" will have orignated here in Wikipedia." Says it all to me, its OR. Go for AFD. Malcolma (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing 'Daewoo Kalos' article to 'Daewoo Gentra'

The Daewoo Kalos is now sold in Korea as the Gentra and Gentra X, see [6]. Since article names are based on the name of the vehicle in the country of origin, shouldn't the article name be changed?--Mortonar (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)--68.148.133.222 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The rule was to use the original name of the vehicle in the country of origin, so Kalos is still valid. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 W The content appearing above is a local copy of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It was written by various Wikipedians (contributor history) and is distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (license text).

The version shown above has Revision ID: 296693740 and was last updated June 16, 2009, 12:02 pm.

Current version on Wikipedia: view / edit Read Wikipedia's disclaimers.
Retrieved from "http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:GWArtMirrorPage"
Sea Level Explorer
Random image
Toolbox