::::It seems the IP editor is a little upset. They are stalking the editors here and reverting their edits. [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 11:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::It seems the IP editor is a little upset. They are stalking the editors here and reverting their edits. [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 11:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::: Deletion or re factoring of talk page comments is generally frowned upon
== Handling of recalls and controversies on manufacture's pages ==
== Handling of recalls and controversies on manufacture's pages ==
This 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
This page is not a forum for general discussion about automobiles. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about automobiles at the Reference desk.
Hi and sorry for my english. This problem refers Commons so I preferred to consult the community more numerous, that English. This file could be wrong both in its name and categorization. According to this identification guide the air intakes for the rear brakes are characteristic of A2. The file has been uploaded from Flickr where there are no useful information, and the user who uploaded it appears to be inactive. Confirmation or denial? It should be enough recategorise or is it better to rename it as blatantly misleading?--Stefanobiondo (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DriveTime logo and article update
Hi, I'm curious if anyone who is interested in editing articles about automobiles would help update the article for the used-car sales company DriveTime. The existing article that has evolved over the years is currently tagged as reading like an advertisement. In fact, the article contains unencyclopedic language and focuses a lot on DriveTime's predecessor, Ugly Duckling. The draft that I created and am proposing eliminates WP:POV issues. It is neutral and well-sourced. I'm new to Wikipedia and I've studied the site's guideline on conflict of interest and policy on paid editing. As an employee of DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc., I won't edit the article directly. The draft you'll see in my user space is essentially a complete rewrite. I originally posted an edit request on the DriveTime Talk page. Another request for editors was posted at WikiProject Companies. I also uploaded the company's logo (File:DriveTime_logo.png) that needs to be attached, otherwise it will be deleted soon.
Would someone please check Volvo 900 Series#Engines. I was alerted to that page because recent edits broke a {{convert}}, but the whole table seems strange. The "Torque @rpm" column shows a lot of entries as 1 N·m with no rpm. Is that intended as a placeholder for unknown values? If so, they should be commented out to remove the junk from the article? Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crossover vs SUV
What is the difference between compact SUV vs compact crossover vs compact crossover SUV? We should use a clear, common form, depending on each case. For example how shall we designate the Peugeot 2008 or the Renault Captur? Mini crossover, Mini SUV or Mini crossover SUV? Also, I find it inappropriate for the Mini Countryman to classify it as an SUV.
I believe cars with the height below 1,600 mm should be classified as crossovers, without the term SUV.
Examples of vehicles with height below 1,600 mm that should be classified crossover, and not SUV (in my opinion):
I would like to know some other opinions about this subject. I don't know whether there are sources on the internet that clarify this matter. There are a few talks about it at Talk:Crossover (automobile).
And secondly, is there SUV accurate for body style designation, instead of the more clear hatchback or station wagon, depending on the case? Thank you. BaboneCar (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't just make up our own definition of what designates a crossover vs. an SUV, especially not using an arbitrary measurement. I understand that the term "crossover" has been overused/abused as a marketing term, and that the auto industry may not have any clear definition of the term, but it's still best to go by what term the majority of media sources (and the automakers themselves) use to classify the vehicle. For what it's worth, "crossover" and "crossover SUV" seem to mean the same thing and are interchangeable. --Vossanovao<18:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everybody, long time no see. I would like your experienced opinion on how to deal with the Hyundai Ioniq new line-up that consists of three electric drive models,: HEV, BEV and PHEV. Such electrified powertrain line-up is completely new, so I do not know how to cover the three models in the infobox. Also, any suggstion as to how to organize the article is more than welcome. So far, I created a dedicated section for each type of powertrain. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the body is similar for all three powertrains, I would say make a primary infobox at the top, and then either break down the powertrain info in that infobox, or, add a new infobox to each section (Electric/Plug-in/Hybrid) that includes only info specific to that model. --Vossanovao<15:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is Businessweek a RS for automotive styling comentary
As part of the reception and criticism section on the Ford Pinto page there is a kind of list of "worst" articles discussing the car. Two of the sources, Time and Forbes, list the car as a "worst" related to the fuel system fire issue. Businessweek lists the car as a "worst style" [[1]]. Is a click bait type article really a RS for automotive design opinion? Springee (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, is Bloomberg Businessweek a reliable source, for its own views, with clear, in-text attribution, not in Wikipedia voice, as in:
In 2009, Bloomberg Businessweek included the Pinto in their Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years., saying "The design devolved into hexagonal headlight housings, a grille that's only a few inches tall yet wide enough to become the car's focal point, and a rear end that apparently melted from the roof."
Joseph, Damian (October 30, 2009). "Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved March 6, 2016. The Pinto doesn't seem so bad—that is, until you remember how sexy Fords from the 1960s were. The design devolved into hexagonal headlight housings, a grille that's only a few inches tall yet wide enough to become the car's focal point, and a rear end that apparently melted from the roof.
Barring odd circumstances, a self published source would always be considered reliable for it's own views. However, the question is article weight. Do those views carry enough weight to make them worth including in an article? If your source was Car and Driver or Road and Track then I think you would have a case. I can assure you the car forums I participate in always are dismissive of non-automotive sources that put together auto opinion articles such as that one. Springee (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weight? These “click bait” type articles are typically sophomoric attempts at humor that consist of anecdotes and the author's perceptions. They frequently rehash similar previous opinion pieces and never contain verifiable facts nor provide any references. Most often, these authors have likely never experienced a particular car they are reviewing, nor the contemporary models that competed against them. They consist of juvenile editorializing, such as making fun of the then popular styling and colors, as well as sweeping generalizations about their performance, engineering, or quality without any context. Encyclopedia articles should contain information that is factual, not unsubstantiated claims or original musings that are characteristic of these so-called sources. CZmarlin (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your general comments about "click-bait" type articles. Would you care to look at the specific source, linked above? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI from Wikiepdia:
Bloomberg Businessweek has received numerous awards since the Bloomberg L.P. acquisition. In 2011, Adweek named Bloomberg Businessweek as the top business magazine in the country. In 2012, Bloomberg Businessweek won the general excellence award for general-interest magazines at the National Magazine Awards. Also in 2012, Bloomberg Businessweek editor Josh Tyrangiel was named magazine editor of the year by Ad Age. In 2014, Bloomberg Businessweek won a Society of American Business Editors and Writers Best in Business award for magazines, general excellence.
"The "Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years" piece written by Damian Joseph (October 30, 2009) is unreferenced hyperbole and heavy on irreverent humor. It contains only the author's opinions, and none of them are based on any facts or automotive history. The author has a degree in journalism from Northwestern University, but apparently lacks experience in the automotive field. There is no evidence of a background in the design area, which would seem to be a prerequisite for expounding on the "ugliest" cars. Even though Damian Joseph writes for Bloomberg Businessweek, this article is nothing more than a "click-bait" piece that is not worthy of any inclusion in an encyclopedia. CZmarlin (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There are some other issues related to WEIGHT currently under discussion at the Pinto article page. As an editor involved with automotive topics we could use your voice on the subject if you are interested. Springee (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent additions of roadtest.com links to car articles
Hello, I stumbled upon the recent addition of roadtests.com URLs to various car articles (see link summary above, most of them during the last 1-2 weeks). As I am not a topic expert, could interested project members please comment on the site's reliability? www.roadtests.com seems to lack any author information or other credentials. I have opened a thread for further checks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#roadtests.com - spam? - any input about the site's usability from topic experts would be appreciated there. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider their opinions reliable. It looks like one of those compilation websites, similar to a click-bait list site where the content is likely paraphrased from one or more other web sources and/or manufacture's websites. I would think any facts from the site such as vehicle options, prices etc can be taken from other more reliable sources. Any editorial statements or opinions can't be attributed to an author. I would say no as a RS. Springee (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking. The site is now blacklisted (after repeated citation spamming during the last months). As always, legit single usages for reliable information per WP:RS could be whitelisted on a case-by-case basis. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RfC, Ford Pinto article related to fuel tank fires
I'm not sure how to make the RfC system auto generate a message so I've copied it from another page that was notified. I didn't create the RfC but given it's automotive it clearly should include a notice here:
Should the following epigraph, a long direct quote from Lee and Erdmann (1999), and content sourced to Schwartz (1990) and Danley (2005), be included in the section lede of the "Safety issues, recalls, and lawsuits" section?
I think you meant the first group, not the former, is compact. Though, in European classification, SUVs are collectively grouped in the J-segment. You are right with your comparison. All of the rivals that you named have similar dimensions (I would also add the SsangYong Rexton) and they have smaller compact siblings in their brands' range: the CX-5, Sportage, Tucson, ASX and Qashqai (and the Korando). In the latter group, the CX-9 and Montero, classify as full-size, while the Murano and 4Runner seem to be mid-size, because there are the Patrol and Land Cruiser as full size. However, having smaller compact siblings doesn't necessarily make them mid-size (they could be classified as compact too, as you can find references for that, see my first message). My question remains how shall we classify it in the article? BaboneCar (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had pondered this same issue before with the Captiva, and from memory external sources quote both. As such maybe we should state that it straddles the compact and mid-size segments. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
":I think you meant the first group, not the former"
Hello, can you update that list? I can collaborate a little, especially with Chinese cars, which we have plenty of in Uruguay, and of course Latin cars (Gol, Agile, Palio). --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings NaBUru38! I am not sure where the list you have linked comes from because it is hopelessly incomplete. However, you can go to "Category:Wikipedia requested images of cars" that is made up of all the templates attached to the talk pages of articles that need pictures. Hope this helps. CZmarlin (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A user using two IP address (49.196.145.218 and 121.215.155.45) is changing many articles about pick-up trucks (eg Toyota Hilux, Mitsubishi Triton, Nissan Navara) so that they say 'utility vehicle', claiming that 'pick-up truck' is a regional term (presumably US) and that it therefore violates WP:ENGVAR. Utility vehicles come in many forms, including vans, wagons, fire trucks, tow trucks, pickup trucks, snack wagons, ambulances, mobile cranes and many more. Pick-up trucks come in one basic form - a cab in the front and a small/medium sized flat cargo area at the back. Vehicles such as the Toyota Hilux are most accurately described as 'pick-up trucks' rather than the very generic 'utility vehicles'. Does anybody think his claim has merit or should we continuously revert him? If we don't agree with him then we could protect the page from anon-IP edits but that rarely stops persistent people. Stepho talk05:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same topic, that topic discusses the use of one regional term in preference to another. The point here is to use international usage in place of regional terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.155.45 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a complex beast, trying to satisfy people with different levels of understand, from different backgrounds and different terminology. WP:ENGVAR is meant to address some of thes issues. Some are simple spelling issues like tyre/tire, colour/color, litre/liter. Some are for terminology, like in our case. Since there is usually no universal answer that will keep every editor and reader happy, ENGVAR takes the more pragmatic approach of saying all major forms of English are equally acceptable and that the first major contributor of each individual article gets to choose which form that article will use.
In this case, saying 'pickup truck' is a regional (I presume you meant N.American) is explicitly against what ENGVAR is saying. ENGVAR is saying that since there is no universal term, a regional term is quite acceptable. In fact, I could even say that the term 'pickup truck' is close to universal anyway - people in Australia know what a pickup is even though we prefer to say 'ute', and people in S.Africa know what a pickup is even though they prefer to say 'bakkie'. Go to the US or UK and say 'ute' or 'bakkie' and you will get a blank stare.
You can argue that 'utility vehicle' side steps the problem. I agree that side stepping the problem with a universal term is a good way to go and I have done this myself many times. However, the new term must still represent the subject at least as well as the term you are trying to replace. Unfortunately, 'utility vehicle' is a rather vague term. It can mean anything from a pickup truck to a tow truck, to an ice cream van, to a delivery van, to a farm tractor, to a station wagon, to a school bus and many more. If you asked the typical man on the street to describe a utility vehicle you would get many different answers - although maybe Australians would have a higher percentage of people equating it to a coupe utility (ute) just by the similar sounding name - but that would be regional :)
Thus, your change went from a very specific term that is well known in most forms of English to a vague term that is not well known to many English speakers.
I would also like you to have a quick read of WP:BRD. This says that you can be bold to make a change (like you did the first time) but if it gets reverted then you should have a discussion before doggedly trying to force the issue. Sometimes it is you that misunderstood and sometimes it is the other person who misunderstood but discussion and understanding is always better then a war of attrition until one side gives up and leaves Wikipedia forever. Stepho talk05:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand what you are getting at the vehicles in question represent a platform upon which many of the utility vehicle types (as defined in the article]] may be represented however the definition of pickup truck from the opening sentence of that article only references a single configuration being a 'light duty truck' with 'low sides and open cargo area'. So not only is 'pickup' a violation of WP:ENGVAR it is also the broadly incorrect as it only refers to a single configuration. The whole catagory system needs a reorg but fixing these opening statements and is a good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.1.42 (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this and sympathising with both lines of thinking I followed the link to the pickup truck article and began to read. I am forced to make one amendment. But as I read down the article I came to something interesting and to the point of this discussion. Meanwhile reviewed my own memories as to what a light truck was called when I was growing up (answer truck or light truck whether flat tray with drop sides or low-loading well-sided tray —in those days between the wheels— whereas the higher flat tray went to the edge of the vehicle). Then blow me down I came to this statement:
"In the U.S.A., the 1963 protectionistchicken tax distorted the light truck market in favor of American manufacturers, stopping the import of the Volkswagen Type 2,[1] and effectively "squeezed smaller Asian truck companies out of the American pickup market."[2] Over the intervening years, Detroit lobbied to protect the light-truck tariff,[1] thereby reducing pressure on Detroit to introduce vehicles that polluted less and that offered increased fuel economy.[1]"
"Ute" is short for "Coupe utility", which is a car with a truck bed, and a different class of vehicle than a body-on-frame pickup truck. Coupe utilities are common around the world except for the US and Canada, so it's fair to use that term for that type of vehicle, and pickup truck (I understand light truck or light-duty truck to mean the same thing) for the other. --Vossanovao<14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think there are any such vehicles currently in the US market their have been quite a few over the years including the El Camino, Ranchero, Subaru Brat and the early 2000 Outback with bed, and the VW Rabbit truck to name a few. Vehicles like the Honda Ridgeline also might qualify. The "Ute" term was not a common way to refer to such a vehicle in the NA market when such vehicles were common. While body on frame is a typical "pickup" design not all things that have been called pickups were body on frame. Springee (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, this is a case where the terms are not precisely defined so a one size fits all solution just won't work. We had a similar issue with the AWD/4WD topic as those terms are also not consistently used or defined even in the automotive engineering literature. If "pickup" is the best known English language term then I would use it for cases that are not market specific. The Hilux is solid throughout the world and thus I would classify it as a light truck or pickup or perhaps a pickup body style of a light truck vehicle. I'm reluctant to rigidly define pickup to include a bed since I would still consider a Ford F-150 chassis-cab as a pickup or a pickup based vehicle. I certainly oppose the general term "utility vehicle" as it can imply SUV as well as things like a John Deere Gator [2]. Springee (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Light commercial may be reasonable. SUV and a gator are not so distant from these vehicles, in fact some are marketed as SUV's. Is a gator not similar in form and function? Pickup is too narrow a definition and also a violation of ENGVAR. If Utility Vehicle is not an ideal term perhaps Utility Truck however it is far more appropriate than pickup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.72.247 (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have full protected Nissan Navara, Toyota Hilux and Mitsubishi Triton. As I don't see a FAQ on the talk page or anything obvious that says "consensus is that the term "pickup truck" should not be used - see FAQs a, b and c", I am going to have to treat this as a common content dispute and assume all parties are edit warring, hence the full lock. I primarily know the Hilux through Top Gear, and the team's Wile E. Coyote-esque attempts to try (and fail) to destroy it. The first source I picked, the show's official website describes the model as "It’s the Toyota Hilux pickup, the most indestructible car in the world". So I think consensus needs a revisit. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood ENGVAR. It tells us that there are variations of English that have different spelling and/or terms. Eg, colour (British) vs color (US). ENGVAR doesn't tell us to not use these these spellings/terms. It only says to not change them from one dialect of English to another without consensus. So if an article uses 'color', I am not allowed to change it to my preference of 'colour'. Likewise, if another article is already using 'colour' then another editor is not allowed to change it to their preference of 'color'. It does not say that regional terms are forbidden.
However, common sense says that if a universal term can be found that means the same thing and is understandable by all readers then it is better to use that term. Eg, I often replace 'gas tank' (US), 'gasoline tank' (US) and 'petrol tank' (British) with 'fuel tank'. It is understandable by all readers, avoids the dispute about whether we use 'gasoline' or 'petrol' and is just as accurate.
Your choice of using 'utility vehicle' is trying to use the commendable option of a universal term. Unfortunately if fails because it does not describe the vehicle type as accurately as 'pick-up truck'. The term 'pick-up truck' is well known around the world, even in countries such as South Africa and Australia that have their own preferred term. For the few readers that do not understand the term, a link takes you to a very specific article that describes it to you. On the other hand, the term 'utility vehicle' is not accurate - it could be an ice cream van, a tow truck, a hearse or many other types of vehicle. The link you provided takes the reader to a generic article that does not tell them what specific type of vehicle this is. The term and the link provide very little useful information for this case.
In summary, the regional term is accurate, well-know around the world, links to an article describing this vehicle type very accurately and is allowed by WP:ENGVAR and does not violate any other Wikipedia policies/guidelines. On the other hand, 'utility vehicle' is less accurate and links to an article that does not provide any helpful information in this case. Stepho talk00:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No answer? I notice that the anon-IP gives the shortest possible answers after excessive delays and doesn't address the points raised. This feels awfully like a troll who is only here only to waste our time. Stepho talk23:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a troll, intentional or not. Classes of vehicles like SUV, crossover (???), station wagon, van, and even common things like "car" or "motorcycle" are not and never will be well-defined. The English meaning varies by context, jurisdiction, dialect and degree of formality. We will never have a precise, complete, or consistent set of definitions for any of these terms. You could give the legal definition of a "truck" in the State of Georgia or in the UK, or a NHRA "truck class" for competition, but those are limited by jurisdiction. In the vernacular, there's no dividing line between any two classes. Marketers continually and deliberately redefine these classes, and deliberately muddy them, for purposes like product differentiation. Hence "crossover". Or "roadster". Even if we had all the classes sorted today, tomorrow some brand will throw a ringer out there that doesn't fit, or goes by a name other than we would have defined it.
These articles should just give a sampling of common definitions and remind the reader that there is no one perfect definition or taxonomy of vehicles. Discussion of classes should be kept to a minimum because it is nebulous and therefore lame. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important that editors recognise that their choice of language influences readers (to start with it influences Google - what more effective way can there be?). Choose pickups as has been done and I believe the word will be used universally maybe even in Chinese languages too within a generation. If we fix on a word or definition and stick to it it will become recognised everywhere so when we do make these decisions as we have here with pickup it should be recognised by editors we are setting a pattern and a real attempt should be made to define a (pickup) to everyone's satisfaction. (Maybe pickup's been done already but) there are many other words that as Dennis has pointed out are used casually which if we fix on their proper meaning will in time mean just that one proper meaning (or there will be less misuse). Let's not allow that very casual use of what should be very specific words within WP. See? I think WP is very powerful in that respect and it has to be recognised. Eddaido (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should indeed be aware of the risk of doing exactly as you say, influencing language or ideas, and make sure we do nothing of the sort, per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. This is why readers must be made aware there are multiple definitions of these terms, and that we have no good reason to elevate one definition above any other in most cases. Writing about these subjects with a tone that expresses certainty or authority is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. We should reflect only what our sources say, and never our own preferences. Not disclaimers, but when sources are in disagreement, we should make sure the reader is well aware of that lack of agreement, and not make Wikipedia the referee. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is very sensitive but it ignores the simple reality of cultural imperialism. The online Oxford English Dictionary 2016 "the definitive record of the English language" still makes no allowance for truck to mean anything other than barter or a variation of exchange. However in its other guise of Oxford Dictionaries online it has "Truck; a large, heavy road vehicle used for carrying goods, materials, or troops; a lorry." I have used lorry in WP and had startled reactions from Engvar editors. Furthermore a particular editor went to a great deal of trouble quite recently to settle on just one (size fits all) (north american) name for all kinds of cars and he seemed to receive support from Dennis Bratland! So I'm surprised to read the above comment. Pickup is simply a typical example of of cultural imperialism, always a (small or, formally, light) truck to me - as I show above it is in USA and no, never lorry. Eddaido (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, where I come from (New Zealand) ute, utility vehicle, and pick-up truck all are in common use and are quite interchangible. I don't think it is worth the argument, so long as it is clear to the reader what is meant. Edit warring over this by the IP editor is a pointless waste of time. NealeFamily (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though some SUVs share platforms with pickups, and some SUTs share platforms with both - it's damn easy to notice which one looks like a work vehicle (hint, it's a pickup) and which one looks like an SUV with the back chopped off. The whole world understands the term "pickup" - when I hear "sports utility truck", I think of some strange crossover vehicle with extreme sports and iPhone connectivity in the brochure.
Yeah, I'm sure the troll is rolling on the floor laughing at how much time he/she/it made us waste. Can we just return it back to what it was and get on with something more productive? Stepho talk04:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calling others names does not give your opinions more weight or automatically assign you consensus. Please interact in a mature and respectful manner. 60.230.206.154 (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of resolving all this take a look at Car classification which shows that it all depends where you come from as to what term may be applicable. My suggestion is to use the term most appropriate based on the vehicles point of origin, not our personal preferences 22:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Could the IP editor, please make an account. Your IP address is constantly changing (intentionally or not) - so it might be thought that you are changing IPs in order to evade certain rules regarding edit warring. Thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either way. Seeing as the Car classification article recognizes pickup and that the vast majority of articles use the term, can we assume that consensus approves of the term, and in that situation BRD tells us that as an editor made a change, and was reverted, that if a change is proposed then it will require a change of consensus as well? We can't go round in circles forever, reverting the numerous IPs that he uses. It's a waste of time. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps asking for the article to be semi-protected would be useful, as the IP troll doesn't seem to have any willingness to respect discussion or consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would second that. It's clear the IP editor isn't going to listen to consensus. Semi-protected isn't going to impact most editors. Springee (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Continual name calling and declarations which ignore the content of the discussion do not grant consensus. The original use of utility vehicle was criticised only as it was non-specific, a more specific term which does not violate ENGVAR has been used to no avail. The Classification article is mostly un sourced / poorly sourced and suffers from the same language bias as the articles in question. It will need review in line with this discussion. This is no longer merely an ENGVAR issue but also a select group of editors violating WP:NPOV rather than participating in an open and honest discussion. To use a term from earlier in the discussion 'cultural imperialism'. This is unfortunate as this is an excellent opportunity to look at the classification system in general with a good number of active participants. Lets try to work together, pickup and/or well body is a body style, these vehicles can also be configured as cab chassis, panel vans, TT (table top) and a variety of other body types. This is why Utility Vehicle may be a good fit, light commercial may also be reasonable however in some areas this means GVM over 4 tonne. I will review the classification article and return to discuss further. SUT does not solve this problem, a sampling of terms that depending on the origin of the vehicle may include pickup could be used to describe the potential layouts available but a broader term should be used for the opening sentence. 1.127.48.223 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately IP 1.127.48.223 you seem to have missed the point. There is always room for debate, but when the debate moves into what appears to be a series of disruptive edits from a range of random IP addresses the debate ends. I personally do not care what anyone calls a pick-up truck, in my country we call all sorts of such vehicles ute's. Also, please understand that regardless of merits of your opinion others are going to disagree from time to time, which means you may find you have to defer to their opinion occasionally. As with all Wiki articles, every opinion given can be challenged with a Cite reference - it is not contributors opinions that count but independently fact based referenced information. If you are serious about editing Wiki you should follow Spacecowboy420's earlier advice and open account. NealeFamily (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one is required to register, registered users are at least as anonymous as IP editors and also capable of being sock puppets
No one is required to register but even IP editors are required to follow the rules. Your reverts have been against consensus and are disruptive. Please respect the group consensus so that the articles don't require semi-protected status. Springee (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pickup truck. It's known as a pickup truck in the majority of its markets and in the majority of media. Why would it be changed to make 1% of the readers happy and 99% of the readers think "what the fuck is a sports utility truck?"
Zachlita (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if readers are not familiar with the term "sports utility truck" there may be specific vehicles that fit that criteria. That isn't to say they are not better served with the term pickup, but the sort of vehicle that is obviously derived from an SUV and has a pickup bed, such as the Avalanche or Ridgeline might deserve that term in the lead. However, they are the exception, not the rule.
They are referred to as pickups pretty much worldwide. Example: the awards won by the Amarok:
Auto Esporte - Pickup of the Year 2011 (Brazil)[32]
Safest Pickup 2011
Auto Test - Cruze, One and Amarok, the best of the year according Auto Test (Argentina)[33]
Parabrisas - Pickup of the Year 2011 (Argentina)[33]
MotorTransport - International Pickup Truck of the Year (UK)[34]
OFF ROAD - Pickup of the Year 2011 (Germany)[35]
Magazin Jäger - Goldenen Keiler (Golden Boar) Best Hunting Car (Germany)[36]
ROAD - Russian Automobile Dealers Golden Klaxon - Special Vehicles Class (Russia)[37]
What Van? - Pickup of the Year 2012 (UK)[38]
4X4 Australia - Ute of the Year 2011 (Australia)[39]
Delivery - Ute of the Year 2011 (Australia)[40]
Zoo Magazine - Manliest Motor of the Year 2011 (UK)[41]
British Insurance Vehicle Security Awards - Best Pickup of the Year 2011
Not one mention of "sports utility truck"
Two mentions of "ute" from Australia exclusive publications.
Six mentions of "pickup" or "pickup truck"
We should be striving for commonly understood English, of course.
I'm guessing that no Australian is going to be confused by the term "pickup"
I'm also guessing the the rest of the world is going to be confused by the term "sports utility truck"
The media refers to them as "pickup trucks"
I also think the IP editor is getting rather close to an edit warring/sockpuppetry/disruptive editing report - it's damn clear they have no respect for any of the rules we have regarding edit warring, BRD, multiple accounts & it is equally clear they are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you look at edits such as this [[5]] it shows they have moved on from blatant vandalism of articles to trolling articles/talk pages. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of the multiple IP edit warring editor. Consider this a 3RR warning. Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is the current list of IP addresses that have made the same substantial edit to Toyota Hilux:
1.127.48.146
1.127.48.152
1.127.48.156
1.127.48.195
1.127.48.249
1.127.48.254
1.127.49.105
1.127.49.85
1.127.49.90
121.215.155.45
202.94.72.250
49.196.0.239
49.196.1.42
49.196.11.62
49.196.134.235
49.196.14.143
49.196.145.218
49.196.3.191
49.196.5.67
49.196.6.21
58.169.244.234
60.230.206.154
66.87.124.21
68.113.245.29
Those that differ in only the last 1-3 digits are from the same ISP, probably the same user after a disconnect/reconnect. I suspect it is the same user doing it from home/work/uni. Totally pointless leaving notices on his/her/its talk page because the IP address changes so often. Apologies if I made a mistake anywhere. Stepho talk02:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has gone from discussing content, into having to deal with an IP sock/vandal. Are there any admins connected to this project who can protect the article/deal with the sock IPs? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that even when reverting this troll/sock, please don't fall foul of 3RR yourself. I've contacted one admin who has encountered this IPs idiotic edits in the past, hopefully they can shed some light on the best way to deal with this troll. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many names you choose to call people your argument is still fundamentally and demonstrably flawed as the previous discussion conclusively shows. Canvassing a posse of meat puppets does not change the facts. Your continual ignorant personal attacks only reinforce the reality that this project needs a significant shake up as the current most active editors suffer a considerable personal bias.
You're funny. Please point out where I canvassed for opinions? Just because every single other editor disagrees with your point of view, does not mean anyone is canvassing, or that they are meat puppets - it just means that you are wrong. It's called consensus.
Edit warring and changing IPs does not really help. Well, if you want more of the IPs blocked from editing, then I guess it helps, but if you want to show that you are here for anything other than childish disruption, then you aren't exactly doing well.
I don't really need to say much more, you've already shown that you have zero respect for rules about edit warring, sock IPs, consensus, etc, etc. I see nothing more to prove, you no longer have any valid points to make. Have a great day ! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not every editor, not even close. Your opinion on what constitutes a valid point is irrelevant, you do not own the articles. You also clearly do not understand IP addresses and how they are issued. None of this is my problem and I do not feel the need to educate you further.
Ok, I'll byte. Let's address the raised issues one by one
Some vehicles come as well bodies and some come as flat back trays (possibly with drop down sides). Not a problem, both types are still pickup trucks.
Some vehicles are delivered as cab-chassis (ie no rear body at all). Not a problem, some people like to get their own body made (often a flat tray). In practically all cases the custom body is still a pickup. In very few cases it might be a van or something else but these are few and far between and we shouldn't change a vehicle's category based on a very small percentage of custom work. Any car can be customised to be almost unrecognisable (eg the Jaguar E-type hearse in the film Harold and Maude doesn't stop the E-type from being a sportscar).
"Pickup truck" is region specific. Yes and no. It is the term of choice in the US. "Ute" and "bakkie" are the terms of choice in Australia (my country) and South Africa. However, practically all Aussies and S.Africans will recognise the term "pickup" if they heard or read it. But the point is moot because WP:ENGVAR does not say that we can't use regional terms. ENGVAR says that if one regional term is used then we cannot replace it with a term from a different term. The use of "pickup truck" does not violate ENGVAR in any way whatsoever. ENGVAR does allow us to replace a regional term with a universal term (if a suitable one exists) but the new term has to be just as accurate as the old term. "Utility vehicle" is vague, covering too many different vehicle types beyond what pickup covers, so "utility vehicle" is not a suitable replacement.
Troll like behaviour. A troll is nearly always anonymous - like you. A troll does not listen to what other people are saying but just keep repeating themselves - like you. A troll does not care about consensus but will keep forcing their view of the world onto the article by making the same edits over and over - like you. A troll will ignore all rules, guidelines, conventions, suggestions and etiquette - like you. A troll believes that his own views must be right while the views of many other seasoned contributors can be dismissed with the wave of a hand - like you do. The herd is not always right but if you are going against the consensus then you need strong arguments and you need to back them up such that at least some of the herd is willing to follow you. I have called you a troll because your behaviour matches that of a troll. If you don't like being called a troll then enter a civilised discussion instead of making the same edits over and over. If you can make some valid points then you might get the changes you want. Registering a user name is not strictly required but it would go a long way to convincing us that you are not just a troll. It also makes it much easier to have a conversation with a single person instead of a collection of IP addresses that may or may not be the same person. Also, remember that we are all volunteers who contribute considerable time each day for no monetary reward. Stepho talk06:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You made the points that I was looking for, in a more polite and constructive manner than I was willing to do. I don't actually mind trolls, a troll-like edit/comment can be amusing for a short period of time, everyone giggles, uptight editors get offended and everything returns to normality within a few hours. That amusing period has long past in this situation, it's now becoming a huge waste of time. Thank you very much for the sane wikipedians who put there time into this and thank you very much to the admin who has now protected this article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion or re factoring of talk page comments is generally frowned upon
Handling of recalls and controversies on manufacture's pages
What general guidelines should be followed when dealing with recalls, product problems and other specific product feedback on a manufacture's article page? Not long ago I asked if the group had feedback regarding what controversies were notable enough for inclusion on a company's main article page[7]. The archives includes a discussion regarding which recalls are notable [8] but based on the context of the discussion and the example of the Ford Falcon AU I think the editors may have been thinking in terms of a model's page vs manufacture's page. The consensus of that discussion seemed to be that only recalls that were covered by perhaps more than one mainstream, non-automotive, source would be significant enough for inclusion. Does that mean inclusion in the corporate Ford Motor Company article or just on the Ford Falcon AU product article? I would think if we included every recall discussed by at least two mainstream news outlets the manufacture pages would be dominated by recall notices. Hence I'm asking what limits should we generally follow when talking about a manufacture's article.
I would propose that only the most significant recalls, product related problems, or feedback would ever make it to the manufacture's primary page. This should be material that is notable enough for a stand alone article (even if one doesn't actually exist). Thus the Ford-Firestone tire recall may be significant enough for inclusion at Ford Motor Company. Conversely, even though the extraordinary number off recalls associated with the Ford Focus (first generation) is notable in context of the model page, it would not be notable with respect to the article covering the manufacture as a whole. I would propose a similar standard be used with respect to controversies which would be added to the parent page.
Hello, I think that regular recalls correspond to articles on models. Articles should include recalls that were widely covered, such as Ford's SUV tyres, Toyota's pedals and Chevrolet's ignitions. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NaBUru38I agree with that. What becomes problematic is how do we decide what counts as widely covered. For example (and why I asked), look at some of the recall material that is proposed for the Chrysler article.[9] There is no question that the Chrysler brake booster recall was covered by some mainstream news sources. However, it's hardly the same level as the recalls you mention. I would propose leaving it out. The editor forcing the issue simply states that because it was covered by some mainstream sources it must be included. It seems to me that low bar/standard allow a motivated editor to justify flooding an article with recalls. Basically, I think you and I are agreeing on the standard but I'm hoping for a more definitive definition to deal with cases such as the Chrysler example. Thanks! Springee (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I already included that link in my original question and noted that the example was for a single car model, not for the entire company. What is of reasonable weight with respect to the model may not be with respect to the parent company. Springee (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction
I'm not sure why the editor responsible for the below RfC failed to notify this board.
Link [[10]]
Should the following content be added to the Chrysler article?
Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. In 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat finished at or near the bottom in the Consumer Reports 2015 Annual Auto Reliability Survey. In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing."
"Chrysler has performed poorly" - when? In the 1940s, in the 1980s, in the 2010s? When discussing a century-old company, any comment must describe the time frame. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Excellent point! Please join the collaboration at Talk:Chrysler. Thanks again! Hugh (talk)
Seems like the Tesla Station is for battery swapping, while the Supercharger is for fast charging. The article said that if the Tesla Station trial was successful then the Supercharger stations would be upgraded to included both features. But the trial seems to have good badly and the upgrade didn't happen. I would keep the articles separate. Stepho talk01:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion: use of "gallery" sections
BaboneCar and I are currently in a friendly disagreement with respect to the use of "Gallery" subsections for multiple generation articles, as used in Hyundai Elantra.
In my view, such sections when used in articles covering multiple generations add bloat without adding any benefit. If the section is about the "second generation" and the images in the gallery are within this second generation section, then to me it is very clear what the images relate to. Including a gallery header is completely unnecessary and is basically stating the obvious. It would be like creating a sections titled "Infobox" and "Text". I do not think we need to point out such obvious things to readers.
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. The inclusion of content drawn from three commentators, including a long direct quote, in the lede of section Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation of article Ford Pinto, is disputed. Please comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
