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)
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)
No, "pickup" is North American. Ute (not Utility) s Australian, Bakkie is common in South Africa, Truck or 'Bus' is common in the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.155.45 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1]. Springee (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [[4]] it shows they have moved on from blatant vandalism of articles to trolling articles/talk pages. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Geolocation information for those ip addresses all points to Perth. So yes, it's very likely the same person behind all of them. ⛐Boivie (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
The gallery looks fine to me (apart from the aftermarket customised dent in one image). If this was an overview article like Toyota Corolla that has a separate main article for each generation then I would say that only a single image for each generation suffices. But since this is the main article, the galleries show the differences between grades and markets. Stepho talk03:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
OSX is referring to the use of "Gallery" subsection titles, which I prefer because in my opinion they make the articles look more tidy. It can happen that the article talks about something, such as the "Facelift" section in the Elantra article, and then follows the image gallery. You have to differentiate that gallery section in a way, because it has images of both pre-facelift and post-facelift models. It is not just a gallery for the "Facelift" section.
Also in my opinion, a gallery is a section of its own and it has to be tagged with a section title. Just like the engine specification tables often are. It is not the same like creating a section title for the infobox, because that is clearly a floating element, unlike the gallery which is content of its own type and creates a new row in the article. It is not pointing obvious things but tidiness in my opinion, which is what section titles are for.
It is better to differentiate content based on its type, than to mix it all the way up without paying attention to aspect. BaboneCar (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
1913 Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost at vintage vehicles show in Fürstenfeld (Bavaria)
Those two images look appropriate to me - although the Pakistani photo could use some gamma adjustment. What's wrong with them? Stepho talk00:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
They're awful and we have plenty of better ones? The rear view is unrepresentative ugly bodywork. The front view is a portrait of the man, not the car. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
LUTZ Pathfinder (self-driving vehicle) entry
Hello,
Hopefully this is the right place to comment on the LUTZ Pathfinder entry? I work for the Transport Systems Catapult which is overseeing the project and would like to help supply some more information for the page as we noticed that the info up there at the moment is fairly bare (and quite out of date).
Would one of your editors like to take a look at the updated version below and see if they can use it to update the entry? I can also supply images of the pod for free usage.
Thanks and best wishes,
Mark
LUTZ Pathfinder project
The LUTZ Pathfinder project is a UK-based trial of self-driving vehicles, taking place on public pedestrianised spaces in Milton Keynes. Overseen by the Transport Systems Catapult, the project involves three electric-powered “pod” vehicles.
The vehicles were designed and built by Coventry-based manufacturers RDM Group and will be equipped with an autonomous control system developed by the University of Oxford’s Mobile Robotics Group . The trials are being supported by Milton Keynes Council.
The first prototype pod was shown to the public in February 2015. Manual driving of the pods on the pavements of Milton Keynes began in early 2016, with the autonomous driving part of the trials due to take place later in the year.
The pods will have full automated capability but will retain steering wheels and pedals, so that a trained operator in each pod can take control of the vehicles if necessary .
The findings from the LUTZ Pathfinder project will feed into the larger three-year UK Autodrive programme which is set to trial a fleet of 40 pavement-based pods alongside regular road-based cars equipped with connected and autonomous technology.
Contents
Specification[edit]
The pod is a two-seater electric car with space for luggage. It has a limited top speed of 15 mph (24 km/h) and has a range of 40 kilometres (64 km) and can run for over four hours on a single charge. The self-driving equipment includes 19 sensors, cameras, radar and Lidar . The autonomous control software is being developed by the University of Oxford’s Mobile Robotics Group.[4]
Partners[edit]
The LUTZ Pathfinder project is being overseen by the Transport Systems Catapult in partnership with RDM Group, the University of Oxford’s Mobile Robotics Group and Milton Keynes Council. The project has received £1.5 million in funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, along with similar levels of investment from the Transport Systems Catapult. Investment in kind has also been received from the LUTZ Pathfinder Industry Group, which comprises several key players in the automotive, general transport and engineering sectors .
The ‘LUTZ’ part of the LUTZ Pathfinder project name refers to the wider LUTZ (Low carbon Urban Transport Zone) programme that is currently being piloted in Milton Keynes and which seeks to demonstrate the application and advantages of low-carbon transport for cities.
I've been working on Draft:TopSpeed.com for some time now, and I think the draft is close to satisfy the web notability requirements, but it needs a few more sources that are actually about the website, not the website's content. However, sifting through sources is fairly difficult to the the site's name ("Top Speed") and the amount of references it gets for its content. I've already tried AfC, with no answer though, and the live chat, where someone directed me here. Any help finding more sources would be much appreciated.
Donnie Park Thanks for the response, I understand your concern. While I am familiar with the site and its owner, I've put the best effort in writing the draft using a neutral, objective tone, in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines. If there's anything regarding the draft's content that might come as promotional or commercial in any way, please feel free to remove/edit as appropriate.WikiAlexandra (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I would like to get other editor eyes on Automobile safety. Some recent additions to the article seem questionable but it would be good to get the views of other editors on the subject. I think the question is should a list which currently includes safety devices and regulations be expanded to include events such as recalls or lawsuits? The relevant talk page discussion is here [7]Springee (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tesla superchargers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Is this image of any interest to you? According to the piece of paper in the side window, it's a 1938 Citroen Traction Berlin Normale 11. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't necessarily to do with automobiles - but it is to do with things that an automobile must display.
I am a license plate enthusiast, though not a member of the Automobile License Plate Collectors Association (nowhere to store license plates where I live, alas). Hence, I am a frequent contributor to license plate articles - particularly the ones for US states.
Usually when editing these articles, I add passenger plates from the past that weren't previously there, or expand descriptions as appropriate (point out where on the plate a state name or slogan is positioned, whether the serials are embossed or screened, whether or not the plate is reflective, etc), or point out the most recent serial issued.
Perhaps I can come across as being a little too enthusiastic, and I'm more than willing to admit that I can be a bit selfish now and again. But my heart is always in the right place - and I make sure to provide a summary with each edit, too. (The only edits which I do not provide summaries for are the most minor and trivial ones - which is never the case with license plate articles).
Unfortunately, there have been incidents where other users have rather strongly disagreed with my edits to these articles. On the Pennsylvania article, a user called ALPCA 5632 went so far as to keep undoing my edits without providing summaries, sparking a dispute which ended with him/her being blocked indefinitely. Such was my guilt, I have been reluctant to edit this article ever since.
And on the Wisconsin article, a user at several IPv4 addresses in the 32.218.x.x range - specifically 32.218.37.209, 32.218.38.25, 32.218.36.127 and 32.218.46.123 - has, for eighteen months now, been claiming that this article is overly detailed.
This user is perfectly entitled to disagree with my edits to this article. And (s)he is also perfectly entitled to feel that there is more detail in it than necessary.
What I don't believe (s)he is perfectly entitled to do, however, is claim that the article is overly detailed and then not back up this claim by pointing out the things in the article that (s)he believes should not be there.
I have suggested to him/her, several times at this stage, that (s)he point out these things - adding that it would be easier for him/her, for me, and for other users, if (s)he did just that. But for whatever reason, (s)he just won't comply.
In any case, though, I do not agree that the article is overly detailed. In fact, out of all the license plate articles for US states, it's actually one of the least detailed: even with the {{Overly detailed}} tag, it's less than 15,000 bytes in size, whereas the California article is around 26,000 bytes, the Connecticut article 37,000, the Alabama article 40,000, and the New York article over 52,000 - roughly three-and-a-half times the size of the Wisconsin article.
What's more, I do try to reduce detail in these articles where I can. For instance, where passenger plates went through periods of simply alternating between color schemes (e.g. New Hampshire alternating between white-on-green and green-on-white, and Kentucky alternating between white-on-blue and blue-on-white), I simplify the descriptions of all but the first plates that used these schemes (e.g. "As 1963 base, but with "75" embossed in top right corner"). And where the Serial Format column contains instances of "(variable number of digits)" and "(following exhaustion of above format)", I remove these, as I feel that these constitute clutter.
But, it seems, this 32.218.x.x user would rather continue to single out the Wisconsin article, without backing up his/her claim, and without looking at any of the other states' articles. It's an attitude I do not agree with.
Yet I do not want to put this user off editing Wikipedia altogether. It is not, and never has been, in my nature to drive other users away. As I said, I felt guilty when ALPCA 5632 was banned - and I wouldn't feel any less guilty if this 32.218.x.x user decided, "Stuff this, I'm not going to bother editing Wikipedia any more if this is how it's going to be."
I do want to continue editing these articles, however. As long as I remain a license plate enthusiast, I will want to edit these articles whenever the opportunity arises.
So what would be the best course of action to take?
Agree entirely. That's why I have told him/her that it may be in his/her best interest to participate in this discussion, regardless of the IP address that (s)he is using. Bluebird207 (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Today's fastest cars article (formerly List of fastest production cars by acceleration)
Is it me or is the current Today's fastest cars article (formerly List of fastest production cars by acceleration (in it's former state)) borders on original research - it used to be a list of fastest accelerating cars, now it borders on being another original research article about cars very few people can afford tailor made to suit it's audience, teenagers who hang around in London in the summer during the Supercar Season. This article reminds me of the former supercar article. Let's have your opinion in that article concerned, thanks. Donnie Park (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The article title has been reverted, as it should have been. I don't see an issue with the subject matter, as long as it's all backed up by reliable sources. --Vossanovao<14:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Automobile Drag Coefficient
On 24 March 2012, the Cd for the Citroen SM was altered from 0.33 to 0.26. Although sleek looking, this seems very low for a car of that age. My own understanding was always that it was in the lower 0.3s, I've seen 0.336 mentioned. Was there any verification with the 2012 alteration? If not, I'd suggest it might be wrong.SPCT2000 (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)SPCT2000
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.
If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk22:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Given both generations are quite short why do you see the need to split? Generally this is only done when the articles become too large. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The revert was correct, although the reverter should have left a reason in his/her/its edit summary. WP deals in facts. From your reference, "Buick will no longer offer its entry-level Verano sedan after the 2017 model year, reports Automotive News, citing two unnamed sources." Information that only comes from unnamed sources must be treated as rumour or speculation, not fact. WP:CRYSTALBALL covers this. Stepho talk03:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess it is a matter of opinion. Should Wikipedia accept speculation from "reliable" speculators? Or blanket ban this practice? OSX (talk • contributions) 13:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Normally, I would say take it out until there is official confirmation. But the fact that multiple reliable sources are reporting this might be noteworthy in itself. Although, "in North America" should be added as the 2nd gen Verano (formerly Excelle GT) is already on sale in China. --Vossanovao<14:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Has Buick announced the cancellation of the Verrano?
If yes; ammend the article accordingly.
If no; do not change the article. Speculation and gossip have no place in wikipedia. If the gossiper is a GM employee then it is official gossip, but still not fact.
Has Buick speculated over the future of the Verano?
If yes; do not change the article. There is always speculation. Does not mean it will amount to anything. It's why we have a policy about WP:SPECULATION.
There is an edit warring going on at Template:Škoda, in which user Etonmessisthebest insists that there should a "Sister Marques & Companies" first group in the template (while this template is not present in all "sister" marques articles and this group of links is present already in Template:Volkswagen Group, I see no point in duplicating it). Also, he insists on including a large photograph of the logo in the template, while I prefer not to for a cleaner look. He has been constantly reverting his changes, against the WP:BRD policy, although there are discussion topics open on these two matters on the talk page and he achieved no consensus for them. You are invited to express your opinion. Thank you, BaboneCar (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I notice the above change has been made by user:No such user . Should not the other items have been changed to automotive to match to it. My understanding is that recently automobile is preferred to car. Am I wrong? Eddaido (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I moved a dozen articles yesterday to (car) disambiguation. This is more or less the complete list, along with Ponton (car). I apologize for being (over)bold, having read Talk:Pillar_(car)#Requested_move_27_May_2015 I was under impression that (car) was the preferred disambiguation, so I only wanted to move one or two, and I ended up with a dozen. Still, they hadn't been consistent even before (using "automobile", "automotive", "vehicle" etc. as disambiguators), so at least we're no worse off. No such user (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Mmm to be honest, I think it miss the point. The Audi R8 article still has a lot of content about the first-generation car and that kind of invalidates the purpose of splitted articles, which is to make them easier to read and navigate. I think a good example of what should be included in the first generation section is something like the Ford Focus article (even if it's far from perfect), a summary of the car characteristics, without giving too much detail on topics such as variants, awards, engine specs, marketing, etc. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The fact they are different doesn't seem a good reason for splitting to me, there're a lot of automotive articles covering very different cars only linked through the name. If the article is divided, it should be done because it became too large to read, and I'm not that sure that's the case here. The article is certainly large, but it has a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced statements, so we'd end with a lot of of nearly-unsourced articles. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know but... Why splitting must be a priority? In my opinion, the priority should be improving the articles and then splitting them when they are acceptable but overly large. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Why split should be good? I still disagree and hold up what I said before, as the fact the current article is poorly sourced remains, and the size issue could be greatly reduced by removing all unsourced statements. Wikipedia policy states clearly caution should be taken when splitting. However, if there's a consensus from the splitting side, it can be done obviously. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Those long articles would be good to split, they are quite hard to read , I think Supra and that Audi for example -->Typ932T·C06:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the Audi R8. As for the Supra, it seems several editors have a consensus to split up, so it can be splitted also. However, no one addressed my basic concerns, and I think "too large" is not a good reason for splitting in the Supra case and is a weak argument, as many of the sections making it large are unreferenced, so I uphold my minority opposition. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Admittadly, the Supra information, especially regarding the specifications, are referenced. They are really detailed to be pulled from somewhere randomly. Thus, I will not do anything. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Further, as the relevant Celica generations do not have their own pages the Supra DEFINATELY should not. Your basically giving sporting models WP:UNDUE attention when compared to the originating models. --Falcadore (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Falcadore, I agree with you about the Celica article - we should split that too. I'm non-committal about whether each generation should have separate or merged Supra and/or Celica articles. Stepho talk18:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I think there're more valid arguments to create separate articles for the Celica than for the Supra. The Celica article is somewhat better sourced and it basically covers seven different cars. The Supra models may be covered in each corresponding Celica generation, so the models covered with detail within the Supra article would be reduced and the "too large" argument would be null. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure either the Celica or Supra pages are really long enough to warrant a split. The need for smaller articles is not what it used to be 10 years ago when dial-up connections were still in use. Splitting a page requires additional maintenance and somebody to watch it. Content on articles split up also does not get as many views as readers tend not to universally read the main articles. Some of the articles that have been split are good candidates to be re-merged. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You have good points there, I admit. Maybe we're rushing things a bit with all this "splitting" spree when there's no really such an urgency to doing so. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
i was looking at this and the article struck me as odd. the 2nd article has an independent article but the 1st and 3rd do not?? the information makes the whole article a little uncomfortable to read. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
This is because there is far greater content allocated to the second generation than the others. There is nothing uncomfortable about this. Who is to maintain all these extra and unnecessary pages? OSX (talk • contributions) 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Your insistence on splitting everything seems very ideological. Each section of the Lexus LS page is relatively compact. Due to another editor wanting to explore the 2006 onwards model in greater detail, a dedicated page was created for it. Only when individual sections become unwieldy would we consider a split. The first, second, and third generation cars do not warrant a split. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
DYK nomination for Ferrari 330 TRI/LM article
Can I get any second opinion regarding my hook for the Ferrari 330 TRI/LM article as a reviewer does not think it is particularly "hook worthy" and "most cars get driven around after their first owner sells it after all" especially if that's a Le Mans winner and the last front engined car to do so.
DYK is an exemplar of all that is worst about the Wikipedia editing model. I have nothing to do with it.
It selects from new and largely unreviewed articles. These are unlikely to yet be in their best state.
DYK is carried out by people who have had the least contact with the subject before and they actively avoid the involvement of those likely to know anything about it. As a result, DYK are frequently inane and all too often simply wrong.
I like the original hook, BTW. This time the inane part seems to be with the "most cars get driven around after their first owner sells it " comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Volvo Cars nationality
I want to bring to the project's attention a series of edits by multiple IPs in the Volvo Cars article. They are indicating different locations, but I strongly suspect it's in fact the same person behind all them. At first, he/she kept changing "Swedish" to "Sino-Swedish" without an edit summary and in a very disruptive way. Recently, he/she did include an edit summary, but the reason he/she gave to keep adding "Sino-" was the lack of "autonomy" of the company. I don't know what he/she means with that, as no corporation is completely "autonomous", they must comply with shareholders' ruling anyways. The consensus with non-ambiguous situations like this was always to use the legal base to determine nationality. I think we must keep consistency with similar automotive company articles across Wikipedia. If you agree, I request editors to add Volvo Cars to their watchlist. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently doing work with Volvo, so I shouldn't edit the article directly but I will add my 2 cents here. Volvo Cars is owned by a Chinese company (Geely) but Volvo still registers its headquarters in Sweden. Similar to how Holden is an Australian company even though it is owned by an American company General Motors. Stepho talk03:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and I think that's the point. If we say Volvo Cars isn't Swedish, then we'd have to change a lot of articles. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Saturn S-Series has a Third generation section which, for a reference, has a Saturn fan forum thread discussing this very Wikipedia change. This puts up red flags as WP:OR. From what I'm seeing, the 2000 sedan/2001 coupe changes were a new front end, interior redesign, and minor engine changes, which are considered a mid-cycle refresh or "facelift" for most other cars. I appreciate the details and photos these people added to the article, but this seems to be the biased opinion of one or more Saturn owners/fans rather than consensus from automotive media. Any other agreement one way or the other? --Vossanovao<15:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be just a facelift. Even the text says "In 2000, the second generation was facelifted for the final time before the S-Series was discontinued in 2002". Third generation ought to be merged in with the second iteration. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Cars discontinued in (year) categories
User:99.198.31.233 has been adding non-existent "Cars discontinued in (year)" categories to many car articles, such as these. For example, Category:Cars discontinued in 2007. Is there any interest in adding these discontinued categories? I don't see much precedence, other than "disestablished" categories for companies, events, etc., but not products. If not, I will revert these changes. --Vossanovao<20:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
An editor has expressed concerns over the examples and overall quality of the article car classification and, according to what he/she said, he/she plans to bring major changes to it. Please comment at the article's talk page. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. RfC update: To date, this request for comment has broadened the discussion by bringing one (1) new editorial voice to the discussion. Please join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
