Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Article improvement

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

Idea

I was thinking of creating a list of what we'd consider "reliable" and "unreliable" sources on the WP Automobiles project. Pinging such editors as @Andra Febrian, Mr.choppers, and Stepho-wrs: to see their opinions on this. 750h+ 04:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I'm open for it but Wikipedia policy WP:RS feels sufficient for now. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like Top Gear (magazine), Classic and Sports Car, and Autocar (magazine) would be top-tier reliable, while Carsales and Autoblog might be on the concerning-spec, and blogspot and Best Selling Cars Blog would be unreliable. 750h+ 16:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:RS is largely sufficient, to be honest. If anything, I'd like to add a note regarding those spec compilation sites (automobile catalog, carfolio, and ultimate specs - in order of reliability IMHO) can be trusted for basic specifications but are considered to be of less weight than reliable, secondary sources. Same thing for manufacturers' publications - fine to verify specs, dates, etcetera, but not for anything contentious or any value statements.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Same, let's just follow WP:RS. Most of the the well-known car magazines are very reliable sources. The compilation sites I don't trust much - some of them have merely scraped data/images from my own site and I'm reasonably sure they do no fact checking of their own. Non-car magazines (eg New York Times) are fine for very basic facts but are usually not written by or for car enthusiasts - more like telling rich readers which car makes this year's best image statement. Manufacturers are also fine for basic facts (eg wheelbase, engine size, release dates but not power, emission or fuel economy figures) - as always, if there is a buck to made for "enhancing" the truth then it will be stretched within an inch of its life.

I'm not seeing a big problem with choosing reliable sources. Is this a major issue that you are seeing?  Stepho  talk  00:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna go against the grain here and say I actually think this is a decent idea since i've found many larger general sources which are considered reliable by WP:RS such as the NYT to be less reliable and substantially less detailed than smaller and less established enthusiast run news sites and blogs, and certainly less reliable than established enthusiast sites and magazines. There are also a handful of semi well established car news sites which seem to have suspect reliability but are cited in many articles. Off the top of my head, HotCars comes to mind, as its basically a quantity over quality content farm. TKOIII (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Late resp: I was just thinking about something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, which would help editors choose between what sources to and not to use 750h+ 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. This discussion so far has been about magazines and newspapers which are not exactly scientific studies, they're chat at the end of the day and often based on or consisting of paid material even if the final text is written by the publication. A decidedly reliable source can repeat the same press release as a decidedly unreliable source, doesn't change anything about the quality of the information. Unreliable claims should be made on case basis, and if a source can be found that is questionable without a reliable one being found by the editor, than the substance of the article should be considered more than putting a list together somewhere else. Rally Wonk (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Before I start a massive RM

I've been wondering for ages why articles about EVs in regions are all called "plug-in electric vehicle in X", for instance plug-in electric vehicles in the United States. I don't think that's the WP:common name (anymore?), and people almost uniformly refer to these cars as EVs now. Before I open a RM with >100 entries, I thought I would ask here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You may want to consider that an EV is technically any vehicle that is driven purely by electric motors and that the electricity may come from different sources. Sources may include purely batteries (PEV or battery EV), fuel cells (FCEV), a petrol engine (series hybrid or electric drivetrain), solar power and others. Add in petrol powered range extender options that can charge batteries but not fast enough to power the vehicle in motion.  Stepho  talk  00:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Is that true? The DOE defines an EV as relying on batteries. Similarly, the IEA defines an EV as a BEV + plug-in hybrids. The Wikipedia article on electric vehicle uses a 1996 source for its definition on the other hand. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

But that is a US only definition. Remember that Wikipedia is international. Australia defines 4 types of EV - BEV, PHEV, FCEV and regenerative hybrids. See https://arena.gov.au/renewable-energy/electric-vehicles . Other countries may differ again.  Stepho  talk  09:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Stepho - the current titles are clearer and more understandable internationally. --Sable232 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chrysler#Requested move 20 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chrysler#Requested move 20 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

First

After 20 years of this project being open, our featured list has been promoted! It is List of Mercedes-EQ vehicles for anyone who's interested. 750h+ 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Toothed belt#Requested move 29 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Toothed belt#Requested move 29 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi people of the project, could i ask if you all consider Electrek a reliable source? 750h+ 11:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty spotty. I think it was discussed at RSN a while back. They were big on Tesla a while back (sycophant level) but that enthusiasm may have waned. A large portion of their content comes from a single author. If they are the best source you have it's probably content that we should question. Springee (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's fine for basic facts. I generally trust Fred Lambert's articles. As with any magazine, take care when they give opinions.  Stepho  talk  23:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Could i also get some opinions on Top Speed? 750h+ 08:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Top Speed the magazine is excellent. The TV show is utter crap presented by clowns for laugh value only.  Stepho  talk  10:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Top Gear and the Top Gear TV series. I'm talking about Top Speed. Are we referring to the same thing? 750h+ 10:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I was thinking of Top Gear. I have no opinion on Top Speed.  Stepho  talk  11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Tesla Model S

Hello contributors of the project, the article Tesla Model S, one of the most important electric vehicles of the 21st century, has been put up for FAC, if you would like to leave your comments, they'd be highly appreciated. Much thanks, 750h+ 13:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC concerning an article which may be of interest to this project

See Talk:Flying car#RfC on the inclusion of Whitehead's No. 21 machine in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Holden Commodore (VE)

I'd like to insight from a variety of editors. Would we call GoAuto, carsguide, drive.com.au, and carsales reliable sources? i plan to bring Holden Commodore (VE) back to FA from which it was demoted in 2020, and would like to make it one of the site's best articles. 750h+ 10:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I consider goauto.com.au and drive.com.au as completely trustworthy for facts and expert opinions. carsales.com.au is also trustworthy but only covers basic facts and does not offer opinions (expert or otherwise).  Stepho  talk  11:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Stepho. Pinging more experienced editors like @Andra Febrian, Springee, and Mr.choppers: to see their thoughts on these sources 750h+ 12:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

All of them should be fine, I used them several times. Andra Febrian (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Trustworthy, but obviously not gilt-edged references like newspapers and learned journals and the like. Good luck!  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with those sources but in general if the sites appear to have some level of editorial oversight and if the claims in question are not controversial I would err on the side of use with caution. Looking at the sites it appears they do offer articles and they aren't just some enthusiast blog (not that some of those blogs aren't really good). Yeah, I would be OK so long as the claims aren't extraordinary/red flag. Springee (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Most car websites do have some kind of the editor's opinion of some sort. On the safe side just avoid the car review articles. Andra Febrian (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Chrysler

An article that been involved with (Chrysler) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Stellantis North America). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Adriazeri (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent undiscussed page moves

For everyone's information, BrightDrop Zevo was recently moved to Chevrolet BrightDrop, and GMC (automobile) was recently moved to GMC (marque). The former appears to be at least technically correct, as GM recently announced that they're now selling those vans as Chevrolets. The latter, the previous title was the result of an RM, but that discussion was from 2011. --Sable232 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

For the latter, I think there should be a concistency within the project. Why does Pontiac, Plymouth, Mercury, Envoy, Geo use "(automobile)" but Mini, Rover, Sterling, Smart uses "marque"? Why MG is "MG cars"? Why is Chrysler (brand) named like that, is it because "marque" is associated with British English? Then why are we using "(marque)" for Chinese brands? I think this should get sorted out...

Andra Febrian (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It probably isn't possible to get a project-wide and trans-Atlantic consensus. If it was easy it would already have been done.

You might have already seen the various opposing thoughts in this recent discussion, that you started. Rally Wonk (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind a regional consensus. If the decision is to use automobile in America and marque for RoW, then so be it. But this time we can't really say that the title "GMC (marque)" is an inappropriate title, other than the fact that it is an undiscussed move. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd support reversion to (automobile) if necessary. However, I think GMC (automobile brand), GMC (automobile marque) or GMC (automobile manufacturer) (whatever the article needs to be) is better. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend using natural disambiguators for marques that have them (e.g. Jaguar Cars or MG Motors).

Then:

• Marque in brackets for British and European marques which need to be disambiguated and don’t have any other possible way which would follow Wikipedia:Commonname.
• Brand in brackets for North American marques with the same conditions as above.

Adriazeri (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

What if there's another brand with the same name? For example, Mercury. Andra Febrian (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It’d need to be car brand in that specific circumstance then. Adriazeri (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally use British English so I recognise marque as being in respect to an automobile brand. If that’s not agreeable to speakers of North American English, or it’s not considered appropriate for use on a North American auto marque. Then brand would make sense. Adriazeri (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Marque can still be used for other vehicles and even products nothing to do with transport: yachts, busses, rifles, shoes, pens, jewellery ... and so on. Although, it's fair that it isn't widely used.

Marque is more accurate than brand because it's the brand of the maker/manufacturer when models/model ranges, trim levels, performance specs, technologies are also usually always brands. Subaru Impreza WRX STI has four brands in the name, whereas the manufacturer is (or was) Fuji Heavy Industries. DS is an automobile marque spun off from the Citroen DS sub-brand which was inspired by the Citroën DS model. All brands. I'm not sure what GMC is, but the problem there is within the content of the article, not the disam naming. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Marque, make and brand are just synonyms. Different countries had preferences for each but at the international level they mean the same thing. And just like how some companies own other countries, you can have marques, makes and brands owning other marques, makes and brands. Beware of trying to count how many angels can dance on the badge of a car.  Stepho  talk  00:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

They're not all synonyms, unless you can show an example of product branding being described as a marque. Marques are branding of the manufacturer/seller. The selling manufacturer is not always the maker manufacturer and related ownership is not always the case. Brands don't own anything, so marques cannot own other marques, but sometimes the marque is synonymous with the manufacturer/company name, e.g. Ford.

I've doubts to what 'make' is commonly used for, but see this coachbuilder example. For me, the marque is Overfinch, the make is Range-Rover, the vehicle manufacturer is Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, with branded product options like Aurora, Shadow Chrome, Centurion and Cyclone. As sold straight from JLR, a Range-Rover is then the marque. I wouldn't call JLR Ltd a brand, but the rest all are.

If this is not important to you then I think that's a shame. I think it should matter to anybody contributing to improving articles. Rally Wonk (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

marque redirects to brand. There it mentions branding irons (used to mark ownership of cattle). Also mentions making marks on pottery to show who made it.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/marque says "a well-known make of a product, especially a car, that is expensive and fashionable". Clicking on "Word Origin" says "early 20th cent.: from French, back-formation from marquer ‘to brand’, of Scandinavian origin."

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/marque says "a well-known make of a product, especially a car, that is expensive and fashionable".

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marque says "a brand or make of a product (such as a sports car)"

This shows that all 3 mean the same thing. It's just that certain regions prefer to use one over the other in certain circumstances (eg, in Britain they like to use French words for fancy stuff and English words for common stuff). However, other regions choose different circumstances, making the distinction useless in an international encyclopedia.

I find it a shame that we waste time on trivialities instead of actually improving things.  Stepho  talk  14:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is timewasting to continue this discussion with you. There's nothing I can possibly say that will return value to my efforts. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We had the same discussion in 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_29  Stepho  talk  14:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you’re over complicating things:

• Brand or marque simply refers to the manufacturer or the brand that the manufacturer operates under.
• Model refers to the automobile itself

Adriazeri (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I asked WP:Brands to help out as you saw, but as I'm sat here waiting for a bus, I did my own research and found out I was correct all along:

• Marque refers to how the manufacturer wants to brand itself.
• Model refers to the products a manufacturer will without doubt brand as part of standard marketing procedure.
• Manufacturers protect their marque's and model's branding (and trim/technologies/coachbuilding/auxiliary services) legally using trademarks, including registering brand names

Sources:

• law firm
  • "A brand consists of several elements, including: Image, Character, Identity, Personality, Essence, Culture, Reputation. A trademark can be used to protect various aspects of a brand, including: Brand name, Signatures, Words, ..."
  • "all trademarks are brands, but not all brands are trademarks"
  • "The brand name is chosen by the business on how it would like to be identified. Trademarks, which are sometimes called “service marks,” carry legal weight and protect the business and its services and products."
• legal advice site
  • "All trademarks are brands, while not all brands are trademarks."
  • "Trademarks can be specific words or phrases, .. which are a vital part of your company's brand.
• IP company
  • "All trademarks are brands. However, not all brands are trademarks."
• Agency that picks brand names for products
  • "While the following product naming rules are simple, our clients find them very helpful as we work together to create a winning brand name."
• article on product branding
  • "The company's brand positioning focuses more on innovation and being a long-standing leader in its field, while its product brands each have their own unique brand identity."

If brand and marque are interchangeable as you say, then model names like Impreza, Evoque and Camaro are not brands, right? Nor WRX, AMG, Quattro and other non-car products like say, almost everything on Template:Kraft_Foods_Group. If they're not brands, they are not trademark protected as per the above sources. I simply don't believe that.

Hopefully somebody finds this useful. The next person to tell me I'm wrong really ought to use some sources or examples if they want to be convincing. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Camaro, Evoque and Impreza are model names of a car brand, to try and liken a name to a brand is a bit peculiar in my opinion.

I don’t know why you’ve brought up non-automotive at all, but your thing about Kraft Foods is also wrong, those are all brands that Kraft operates under, just like for example Cadillac is a brand GM operates under. Adriazeri (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Rally Wonk, going through your sources:

• law firm - this compares trademarks vs brand. We are not talking about trademarks. It does not talk about brand vs marque vs make. So we can reject it.
• legal advice site has large sections that are word for word the same as the previous source. Same deal. Rejected.
• IP company has different words but the same faults. Rejected.
• Agency that picks brand names for products talks about choosing a name. This is quite different to defining what the words brand/marque/make mean. Rejected.
• article on product branding has different words but the same faults. Also diverges into product branding, which is not the same as company brand (it even says so itself). Rejected.

Something they all had in common was they talked about brand image. "Brand image" is different to "brand". Coke is a brand. The red colour, the white swirl, and the font are brand images that conjure up the brand in the customers mind and have a lot of protection under the law but are not the brand themselves.

You asked for sources but gave irrelevant sources of your own and totally ignored the dictionary definitions I listed earlier (using both British and American definitions).

You mentioned model names. Agreeing with Adriazeri, in most cases they are not brand names. In "Ford Mustang" we have the brand/marque/make "Ford" and the model "Mustang". Only in a few cases do model names become brand names - eg "Morris Mini Minor" later became the brand "Mini (marque)".  Stepho  talk  08:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I ignored your dictionary definitions because if you look up Brand in the same dictionaries you do not find them using the word Marque. Your argument that this makes them synonyms is weak. A dictionary is not a thesaurus, and even if you used a thesaurus we are discussing technical differences that they wouldn't.

Maybe we easily mix brand with brand name and brand image across this discussion. Have a look into this context (Global brand variables#Brand name). 'A brand name constitutes a trademark', it says. But you reject talking about trademarks as irrelevant. It's absolutely relevant. Do you want to tell me that any of the brands we discuss as either marques or models are not actually brand names? Is this not the conversation we are having? Do we disam GMC as GMC (reliable, trustworthy, affordable) instead or something? That section also specifically mentions names of products. Please don't continue to write that off and tell me I'm wrong without using sound logic, reason, evidence.

You are right, the second source is very similar to the first. There are a plethora of other search results to choose but I'm wasting my time if it's all still irrelevant.

I was curious and found where Ford registered just the word (no images or text extensions) Mustang in the UK with the Government intellectual property office: 1 2 3 4 5 There are plenty more registrations for the string Ford Mustang and also their slogans, logos... there's thousands for Ford. We've been told trademarks are brands from multiple sources. Do you still want to reject it all using your own conjecture? That's your choice, but I will remain unconvinced by it. Rally Wonk (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it is peculiar, but sources say that it is that way. These models are trademarked, trademarks are brands. Wikipedia is built on sources, not conjecture of the loudest/ biggest bully editors. I don't know how to spin out discussion of that point.

Years ago, Honda had a brand reputation of making cars for old and retired people in the UK. Meanwhile, Honda had a brand reputation of making hot hatches for youngsters to tweak and attend cruises on retail park car parks. Maybe the branding of the products, trim, technology had something to do with achieving that duality?

With the Kraft point; If you're saying Kool-Aid is the maker (like a marque), not the product, what is the product or is there not a product? Because that article makes it sound like a product. "Kool-Aid was invented by...", "this powder was named Kool-Aid", "Kool-Aid is usually sold in powder form, in either packets or small tubs." If you are saying that article needs many improvements than this is where I am with so many car articles too Rally Wonk (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs has demonstrated that your “sources” are irrelevant to the matter. Brand image is also irrelevant to this matter.

It appears to me that you’re grasping at straws because you’ve been proven to be bringing up points which are not relevant to the discussion. Adriazeri (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

! Rally Wonk (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's some more peculiar straws in the form of ordinary use of car models being described as brands. I've tried to restrict this to reputable sources:

"Mustang Dark Horse is the most track-ready series production Mustang and the foundation for the Mustang brand’s motorsport campaigns." Ford.

"This is the V8 version of Chevy’s muscle car Camaro brand, known as the SS." BBC Top Gear

"But the appeal of the Beetle brand gives the concept a better chance of appearing in showrooms." Daily Mail

"the continued success of the Impreza brand. And it is a brand; from its early beginnings as a misunderstood and unglamorous rally car spin-off for the road to cult hero and supercar baiter, the car and brand is a core part of Subaru's operation." The AA

"have Land Rover taken the Evoque brand a step too far?" Auto Express

"the Coupe makes the Altima brand stronger by appealing to a new segment of buyers" Nissan

"The debut of the Civic brand in July 1972 represented Honda's first 'mainstream' car" Honda

"the manufacturer wants to leverage its existing investment in the model Y brand" Google (Not Tesla but same context)

"minor model changes were also made to increase the luxurious image associated with the Corolla brand" Toyota

I can't make my points much thorough or suitably sourced. Brands/brand names/branding are not restricted to marques/makers/companies; marques are not restricted to cars, and car models and general products can be brands. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You keep bringing up Mustang; it is considered somewhat a sub-brand of Ford. It almost acts as a spun-off brand of Ford but it is still a Ford model, a little bit like what Range Rover is to Land Rover. The article for the Ford Mustang still has the brand Ford in the title because Ford is the maker.

The other ones you mention such as the Beetle are by definition, models of the manufacturer’s brand, and would never be titled on Wikipedia as their own article without the brand in front. As is demonstrated with Volkswagen Beetle, clearly having Volkswagen in the title as Beetle is not its own brand. Adriazeri (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)