Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk | contribs) at 18:28, 13 January 2024 (→‎XX Programmes: support merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Countries lists

Hello, I have to say that I'm worried to see flourish these kind of sections (example below), I don't see the encyclopedic value of knowing on which day a vehicle was launched in every country in the world, or the name the importer decided to give to trim-levels, on any of these things. The Toyota Yaris Cross isn't a single case. Only specificities should be listed in my opinion. Has this topic been discussed before ?

"Americas Costa Rica The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Costa Rica on 17 August 2023.[57] Available in New Line, High Line and Hybrid grades, the former two grades are powered with the 1.5-litre 2NR-VE engine, while the latter is powered by the 1.5-litre 2NR-VEX hybrid powertrain.[58][59]

Peru The AC200 series Yaris Cross made its South American debut in Peru on 21 September 2023, with 4 variants: Full M/T, Full CVT, HEV Full e-CVT, and Full D-Lux CVT.[60]

Bolivia The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Bolivia on 22 September 2023, with 4 variants: Mid M/T, Mid CVT, High CVT, and HEV e-CVT.[61]

Jamaica The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Jamaica on 5 October 2023, with two powertrains: 1.5-litre 2NR-VE engine, and the 1.5-litre 2NR-VEX hybrid powertrain.[citation needed]

Trinidad and Tobago The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Trinidad and Tobago on 7 October 2023.[62] It is available in a single trim, powered solely by the 1.5-litre 2NR-VEX hybrid powertrain. Toyota Safety Sense is standard.[63]

Chile The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Chile on 11 October 2023, with 3 variants: XI M/T, XI CVT, and XG CVT.[64]

Panama The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Panama on 13 October 2023. It is offered in two grades: Base and Full, both are only powered by the 1.5-litre 2NR-VE petrol engine mated to a CVT.[65]

Guatemala The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Guatemala on 18 October 2023. Three grade levels are available, the highest grade is powered by the 1.5-litre 2NR-VEX hybrid powertrain. Toyota Safety Sense is standard.[66]"

Monettt (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it as well. Anytime my watchlist is filled with "added X country" "added Y country" I can only eyeroll. Andra Febrian (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think something needs to be done at some point, because letting some people adding a country in encouraging other contributors adding their country, thinking that's a normal thing to do. I think 95% of what I posted can be deleted and replaced by something like "The Toyota Yaris Cross has been launched during second half of 2023 in various Latin America countries such as Costa Rica, Peru, Bolivia, Jamaica, Trinidad, Chile, Panama and Guatemala.". And honestly, it's already too much in my opinion. Monettt (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can see where they are coming from. Years ago, most articles had just US, UK and maybe Australian editors (with Canada often being treated as US plus one). Each would make a detailed section for their country that listed introduction dates and specifics for their country. All fine when there are only a few countries. But now Wikipedia has become more popular internationally and naturally each country wants to be listed alongside those previous few countries. It's kind of hard to tell Chile that we're going to have a massively detailed US section but Chile can't have a single entry.  Stepho  talk  22:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it's not that hard, the only thing that should matter is specificity. Many vehicles have an US-spec model, because of different regulations and different customer needs, on a market that is big enough for the manufacturers to provide adaptations. No vehicle have a Chile-spec model, because there is no such thing. When there are specificities (as the Citroën Citroneta, which is a Chile-spec Citroën 2CV), they definitively should me mentioned, but it's pretty rare. However, even when there is nothing specific in Chile, we can include Chile indirectly. For example : "The second-generation Citroën C3 was manufactured in Europe, except for models sold in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay which were Brazilian-made, with specificities including an ethanol engine, a new dashboard, [...]". Chile is here included with the European-made models, as they were offered this model, and not the Brazilian-made one.
Don't get me wrong, I also hate when we have unnecessary details for the US, the UK, Australia, it happened a lot and still happens. And I also advocate for giving smaller countries entries, when there is something to say. For example, I recently added to the Toyota Corolla E90 article a mention and a picture of a panel van model, even though it was only sold in very selected countries such as Portugal. That's a specificity.
Knowing that the Toyota Yaris Cross uses the same motor in Trinidad than in 50 other countries in the world is not a specificity. Monettt (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I also advocate for giving smaller countries entries, when there is something to say. - this, a thousand times this. These additions are not useful and just add turgid masses of equipment levels to wade through.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pickup i/d please

Can anybody identify this pickup truck seen in London for me please? Just to aid categorisation. Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Hilux Monettt (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, many thanks! Alansplodge (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Article improvement

I feel, one of the key article of this wikiproject, Automotive engineering needs a good revision and copy edit. I would love to help in the process as much as viable. Being a civil engineering student I am unknown of some key terms. In addition, i see the need of forming a new article Automobile engineering much famous in South asian countries including Nepal and India to flourish the information regarding the subject and make the area of study open to fellow readers.Franked2004 (talk)

Car article image changes

I'm not sure if anyone cares, but there is a user changing infobox images for many automobile articles. I've reverted a couple because I feel that if the infobox image has been there for awhile, I don't see any reason to change it, unless it's the same image that has a better resolution. I feel that it should be discussed and a consensus be reached. But with that said, if nobody has an issue with this then I will leave it alone.Pennsy22 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a problem as long as the new image is at least as good as the previous one and obeys WP:CARPIX.  Stepho  talk  22:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion regarding the editor in question at AN/I; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Antares600. --Sable232 (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Marque" and WP:PEACOCK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DACIA, A BRAND REBORN

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

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

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

@DeFacto: The example would be just as valid if it said "If you are not so worried about having a premium brand car you could buy a brand new one with a budget marque". From my location, ye olde Google search for "budget marque" (in quotation marks) returns 100% French-language results, not relating to cars, "budget brand" millions but again not generally car related. "Budget marque" car has 4,870 results and "Budget brand" car 155,000. "Luxury marque" has 190,000 results, in large parts thanks to crossword puzzle clues with ACURA and LEXUS as the answers. "budget car marque" has 7 results, whereas "budget car brand" has 118,000 results. My east-coast US version of Google clearly shows that "marque" has aspirational connotations, but I am curious to see the results others get.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Marque" seems reasonable for articles on British cars, and car articles written in British English, but the word has near-zero currency in American English (the US term is "make", as in "make and model: Mazda Miata"). I don't know about Canadian, Australian, etc. That said, The Cambridge, Wikitionary and Merriam-Webster entries show the typical usage for this word, and it's really not a coincidence when three of them use the word luxury and fancy in it seems like a valid point, and might bear additional investigation. If there is any non-neutral implication given by this word, it should probably be avoided. I really don't know where "car brand" came from, though. That doesn't seem to be a common term in either AmEng or BrEng.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative of "marque" is "brand" - which is not specific enough for most cases. Thus, "car brand". "Automotive brand" is a mouthful, while "automobile" has an American English tendency (so does "automaker").
"Car brand" is used over 14 million times according to Google (in addition to 32 million for plural "car brands"), so it is quite common. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning "make", I left that out.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Make" is typically used as an attribute of a car, for records such as DMV, insurance, police, etc., and included with Year and Model. For example, the Year/Make/Model of that car is 1998/Toyota/Camry. "Brand" is used as a unit of a car company, for marketing and business. For example, Chevrolet is a brand of General Motors. In that sense, I think it makes sense to keep the existing use of "brand" (as applicable by region) here, and define Make under Brand or Make (disambiguation). --Vossanova o< 01:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of the word "luxury" without attribution

I notice that the adjective "luxury" is often used without attribution to describe models whose status as luxury cars is questionable at best. I assume that this is either the result of overly-proud owners adding the term to the article about their cars (I think I once saw it come up in the article about the Rover 200 or another similar model) or editors simply being unfamiliar (perhaps because they are kids or not native English speakers) with more appropriate terms (ie. "premium", "executive", etc). Ignoring the aforementioned more-egregious cases, I still believe there are various issues with this usage, such as:

  1. Some models may have luxury trim levels without it being appropriate to describe the entire range as a "luxury car". For example, the Mercedes-Benz E-Class can most certainly be a luxury car in its higher specifications, but many (possibly most) E-Classes are cheaper variants with small diesel engines that are intended to be used as taxis or other fleet vehicles.
  2. A car may have a high initial purchase price, however the defining characteristic of a luxury vehicle is generally that it is expensive to own, and not just to buy new. A brand-new BMW might be a luxury product, but a fifteen-year-old BMW is usually just another used car. A Rolls-Royce remains a luxury car that is expensive to run indefinitely, even if depreciation means it loses most of its sale value.
  3. "Luxury" is fairly unambiguously a MOS:PEACOCK term when used by someone who has a vested interest in selling a product. Generally speaking the term should only be used with attribution in prose unless a consensus amongst independent reliable sources that a particular item is a "luxury" product can be demonstrated. (Obviously WP:COMMONSENSE can be applied in certain cases, I do not think it is necessary to have an argument about whether a Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Maybach, Toyota Century, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Bugatti Royale, Cadillac V-16, Daimler DS420, or a Lagonda Taraf is a luxury automobile).
  4. Conversely, the term "luxury" can be used by those who wish to dissuade others from purchasing a particular product to give the impression that the item in question is snobbish or overpriced. This is a particular WP:NPOV concern when the term appears unattributed in articles about more mainstream models such as Minis or Volvos.
  5. Sources often have differing definitions as to what constitutes a "luxury car". In particular, models in what might be called the "premium" or "executive" segments will often have some sources saying things like "it's one of the cheaper luxury cars on the new car market" while others will say things like "it isn't very luxurious for the price point", which fairly unambiguously makes the unattributed use of the term "luxury" a WP:NPOV violation.

Given the concerns above, I think that it would be advisable to draw up some sort of guideline about how, when, and where it is appropriate to use this term. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree, but I think there are a couple of issues that will make this difficult.
  1. For perspective, in the case of the E-Class specifically, those non-luxury trims aren't always available in all markets. This doesn't warrant calling it a luxury car (or not), but it could explain some confusion.
  2. The standards for luxury change with time. Aspects like features, build quality, and interior finishings that were exclusive to luxury cars 20yrs ago are available on budget models today. Should we be evaluating whether something was a luxury car in its day or by modern standards? The V12 7-series is an interesting edge case I think and one could argue that simply having a larger, more powerful, engine doesn't make it more luxurious than an otherwise similarly equipped 8 cylinder 7-series.
  3. In the US at least, entire brands (or marques) are often considered luxury and anything falling under that brand is therefore a luxury vehicle. example. Supposed reliable sources seem to apply the term willy-nilly as well. second example.
I don't think something being expensive to own is an appropriate measure for luxury as there's a lot of factors that affect operating cost unrelated to how luxurious the car is. Avoiding the use of the term "luxury" altogether might be a viable option given how subjective it is. IPBilly (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electrics voltages

I noticed we have 42-volt electrical system and 48-volt electrical system; are there articles for 36-volt electrical system / 24-volt electrical system / 12-volt electrical system (ie. current industry standard electrical/ignition system) / 6-volt electrical system (ie. the old standard ignition system) ? -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the answer to your question. However, the 42-volt electrical system article is specifically about a cross-industry effort started in the 1990s to (potentially) have a number of manufacturers and OEMs develop a new standard, and 42-volt electrical system was the particular WP:COMMONNAME that the group decided to call themselves, for the decade and a half before the initiative stalled. On the other hand, the 48-volt electrical system article is more about the actual company-by-company and vehicle-by-vehicle practice of using 48 V in some hybrids and some electric vehicles, beginning after circa 2018. N2e (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla Cybertruck has an RfC

Tesla Cybertruck, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for can Munro & Associates media content ever be used as a source in the Cybertruck article. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. N2e (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lancia Delta

We used to have two articles (three including the Delta S4) for the Lancia Delta: one for all of the generations, and a standalone called Lancia Delta Group A which covered the Group A rally iterations. Someone requested a technical move since that was not the actual name of the car, and asked it to be moved to Lancia Delta HF (rally car). Then some well meaning person moved that page to Lancia Delta HF, which changes the scope of that page.

Before, we had one article on all street-legal Deltas, including all generations and all equipment levels, and one article for the rally car. Now, we have one article for Lancia Delta and one for any version of the Delta which includes the letters HF.The original Delta HF was a front-wheel drive, turbo model introduced in 1983, not at all with rallying in mind. The later HF 4WD was also not intended for rallying; that was a decision taken after Group B was cancelled. Putting those versions into a separate article does not make sense.

Furthermore, there are Delta HF versions of the second generation Delta, which make for an even more uncomfortable fit at Lancia Delta HF.

I propose either of the following:

Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who made the change, as the car was never called Lancia Delta Group A. I made that because I strongly objected to that name. Furthermore, I changed it to Lancia Delta HF for the same reason as the articles for its other Gr. A counterpart with their own articles such as Toyota Celica GT-Four, Ford Escort RS Cosworth and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution.
As with proposal A, didn't it also do Group N rallying? If so, what about its career?
Because I had looked to merge the McLaren F1 LM article into McLaren F1 GTR, which is a road legalised version of the latter, sans safety equipment, considering that version was largely ignored. I know this will be objected by Forza clowns.
As with proposal B, wasn't the first generation better known to everybody but I think the HF was the only memorable model of all. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The S4 is an almost entirely unrelated vehicle so trying to bundle it into the same article as the other Lancia Deltas doesn't make much sense to me. I think the Integrale's history as a rally car is almost certainly noteworthy enough to warrant a separate article as well. An article titled something like "Lancia Delta in rallying" that covers the Integrale's competition history alongside the S4 may be appropriate. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping the Delta S4 separate; sorry if that was unclear in my proposals.
I'm not sure what SpacedFarmer is saying regarding McLarens, but I do not think they are analogous to the Delta. You raise a good point in that the Delta was definitely campaigned in Group N as well, which is why I favor creating a standalone article for the first generation Delta. As for the HF being more memorable, many Delta HF were not rally cars (and not intended as such until years after the equipment level was introduced), many were of the second generation. Most Deltas built were not the HF model, and personally, I find the quotidian versions every bit as interesting as the sporty ones.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about Lancia Delta HF (Group A) and Lancia Delta (831)? Delta S4 is a Group B silhouette not a Delta. YBSOne (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Lancia Delta in rallying as the Delta S4 was one of Lancia's better known rally cars. I would prefer back to Lancia Delta HF (rally car) but I would prefer Lancia Delta HF (first generation), the latter out of recognisability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ybsone: SpacedFarmer pointed out that the same car was also used in Group N rallying. The problem is that we used to have one article for all generations of the Delta, one for the S4, and one for the Group A (and Group N) rally versions. The recent renaming changes this division, and is now trying to make a separate article out of Deltas that use the HF badge, for which there is no logical reason. Why should the front-wheel drive Delta HF from 1983 be in a standalone article? It's just a Delta with 25 horsepower more than a Delta GT.
As I see it, Lancia Delta (831) (or some variant of that title; I like to include "tipo" but it's of marginal importance) should be its own article and it would comfortably encompass the non-Group B rally content as well. Lancia Delta S4 remains untouched, and some day maybe the Nuova Delta (tipo 836) gets its own article.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Lancia Delta (831)" is gibberish to anyone who didn't work for Fiat in the 1980s. "Lancia Delta (first generation)" or "Lancia Delta (1979)" are infinitely preferable. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5: regarding tipo 831, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Nomenclature: Version: more often, automobile models are ambiguous temporally; they refer to different vehicles produced at different times. In order to avoid ambiguity, reference to vehicles with multiple versions should be explicit in which version is being referred to. With respect to article titles, when the information is scant, there is no need to use more than one article. If the article becomes unwieldy, splitting into multiple articles should be considered.

Model code: when disambiguating between identically named automobiles, or referring to different generations of the same lineage (such as when splitting up an existing article into separate generational pages), disambiguation should usually be made using the applicable model code. In most cases, the model code should be placed in parentheses after the make and model. For example, the fourth generation Lexus LS (2006–present) is designated "XF40", so this article is thusly titled, "Lexus LS (XF40)" and this is also the term used when referring the vehicle elsewhere in long form. Sometimes different model codes are utilized for automobiles that are very similar, and therefore grouped into the same article. For example, the fifth generation BMW 3 Series has different model codes for each body style: sedan (E90), wagon (E91), coupe (E92), and convertible (E93). The most common or prominent version should be given precedence. In the case of the fifth generation BMW 3 Series, the sedan (E90) is given priority, and the article is resultantly titled "BMW 3 Series (E90)". This is because the sedan was the first version to be released, and also because the sedan sold in higher volumes than the others.

It's just a Delta with 25 horsepower more than a Delta GT.

The convention of using manufacturer's internal R&D codes for disambiguation blatantly flies in the face of WP:RECOGNISABILITY in the vast majority of cases (examples like the Rover SD1 or Toyota AE86 are the exception rather than the rule and are usually the result of a model being sold under many different names). There is no good reason in this case to use the obscure and abstruse "Lancia Delta (tipo 831)" over the immediately clear and comprehensible "Lancia Delta (first generation)" or "Lancia Delta (1979)" beyond gatekeeping and pedantry. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5 but that is how we set up those names: Alfa Romeo Giulia (952), Maserati Ghibli (M157). This is not gibberish, this is practised.YBSOne (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And those articles should be immediately renamed because their titles do not meet WP:CRITERIA and are only comprehensible to people who work for those companies or people whose specialist subject on Mastermind is car company's internal R&D codes. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I did not say "these terms are gibberish", I said "these terms are gibberish to a layperson". You are fundamentally misrepresenting my argument here. To the vast majority of people "Lancia Delta (tipo 831)" is either confusing and misleading (it's not the 831st generation of Lancia Delta) or meaningless (there's nothing about the model code that makes it clear which Lancia Delta this is referring to, in contrast with something like "Opel Corsa A" or "Chevrolet Corvette C3" where the nomenclature follows a clear logic that requires no specialist knowledge to follow). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original Skyline 2000GT-R had 30 horsepower more than the Skyline 2000GT-X too, only the former's racing record is why it has an article just like the Delta HF. Bare in mind, the 2nd gen Delta was not as widely available as the 1st gen Delta. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But HF was also used on a host of Lancia Deltas which were not intended for rallying. Also, most people refer to "Delta Integrale" when they mean the Group A/N rally car; Delta HF is not a well known name.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal of McLaren F1 LM article

As I brought it up above, rather than put this through AfD which isn't necessary unless it is a last resort, I propose to merge the McLaren F1 LM article into McLaren F1 GTR.

Compared to the Lancia Delta HF Integrale (as discussed above), the McLaren F1 GTR (whom its based on) as both have strong motorsport record and compared to the Porsche 911 Carrera RS 2.7, which has a high Wikipedia notability potential because it frequent features in magazines, has books or a large subsection in books written about it, often appears on or sometimes tops ‘greatest Porsche’ lists in medias. What has the F1 LM got?

Besides rarity, all that article has is some trivial tidbits without asserting notability. So, why should it be that special to have its own article? I had hoped to merge it if nobody objects. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the LM does not merit a standalone entry, but the LM is not a competition version so I think it would be a better fit at McLaren F1. From the article: The McLaren F1 LM is a track oriented iteration of the McLaren F1 built to honour the five McLaren F1 GTRs built.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XX Programmes

Proposing to merge these following

As with the SF90, if you read though all the sources, you will know that they are all the same. That's because they were all are regurgitated from the same press releases by Ferrari. Other than some claimed lap record, the 599XX also fails to assert notability, hence the rationale to merge both. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also proposed for merger are these...

What is written about the car sounded like it came off a press release. In all, XX Programme events do not get press coverages and do not get covered by the motoring media from looking at web searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpacedFarmer (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Race cars can and sometimes should have separate articles. YBSOne (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except the XX Programmes is not a racing event, events are never timed, more of a trackday. I would've had no objections to a keep if there was more written about it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
trackday is a type of race and on a race track.YBSOne (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, what about the GT3 cars, do they all deserve their own article? SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&oldid=1195403656"