Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions

Power and Torque units

I have restored the original Power and Torque section; this was changed without consensus by MrsSnoozyTurtle back in 2019. Snoozy is currently using their own change as an excuse for eradicating all mentions of metric hp from all BMW articles, which I cannot accept without a proper discussion. Cheers.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Choppers. Actually it is the other way around. The section above shows that your proposed changes were not supported by consensus. That you have made wording tweaks in the meantime to this version of the section makes it quite strange that you are trying to go back to the unsupported version without warning. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You do not get to make a unilateral change to the guideline and then claim a consensus where none exists. If you feel that the use of PS is deeply damaging to Wikipedia and readers would be hopelessly confused by it, then the onus is on you to get a clear consensus to remove it. Multiple editors reverted your unilateral removal of pferdestärke from the guideline. --Sable232 (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

MrsSnoozyTurtle, I restored the version as it was before you made a bunch of changes in 2019 (link above), not what I think it ought to be. Also, please read WP:OWN and consider your rigid attitude towards all articles concerning BMW automobiles.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to side-step the whole who change to which version issue (both sides will feel like they're being blamed for evil doings).

The difference between the 2 version boils down to a time reference. One version says that if a car was referred to in PS when it was new then WP should continue to use PS as the primary unit in articles about it. The other version omits the time part. The time part means that period references in PS would dominate the choice of units for WP. Without the time part, current references (typically in current magazine about class cars) dominate.

Now comes the hard part. Magazines about old topics tend to use the old units too. So European classic car magazines continue to use PS - which explains Mr Choppers' position. English classic car mags do a similar thing with hp. This is certainly a strong argument. On the other hand, we could say that these are specialist magazines and WP is for a general readership. But on the third hand we could also say that anybody interested enough to read WP articles about old cars will also be reading those mags. My own take is to use the units for each country according to the current general use by that country - ie metric for most countries and hp for the UK/US.  Stepho  talk  06:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Stepho-wrs. Thank you for your input on this issue. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing, most countries have used and continue to use both metric horsepower and kW - the transition period is not yet over, not even in Germany and certainly not in Japan, Korea, or most of the remainder of the world. UK/US overwhelmingly use imperial hp alone, while Aus/ZA (and NZ?) skipped straight from hp to kW and never bothered with legacy metric units. Let's call these groups of countries "Metric", "Non-Metric", and "SI".

This overlap of units is easily dealt with using conversion templates, which allow for more than one unit to be used when appropriate. That is why they exist. This also eliminates the steady stream of well meant "corrections" to hp outputs. If references say 286PS/210kW then I do not see any danger in including PS (and hp as well to make things super clear). We do not need to use all three units in every mention, but absolutely in tables. Lastly, car data mills such as carfolio.com or automobile-catalog.com always include all three units, and do y'all know why? Because all three units are relevant and in use by enough people across the world to make it worthwhile to include them.

And Stepho-wrs, PS is in no way whatsoever restricted to classic car magazines in Metric countries. To stick to Germany, here is from today's Auto-Bild and from Auto Motor und Sport. I was actually very surprised to see PS used exclusively in every article on combustion engined cars that I clicked on (well, all two of them), I had truly expected kW/PS or maybe PS/kW. Perhaps this is a mark of the coming end of petrol and diesel, with kW being "reserved" for electrics? As for "specialist magazines", weekly news magazine der Spiegel uses PS only when discussing the BMW 750iL. There is clearly no fear that the readership will be confused by an obscure and obsolete unit. In Europe kW is the specialist unit, something one would hear an engineer or maybe an insurance agent use, whereas most regular people stubbornly insist on talking horsepower as evidenced by the links. I am only showing German conditions here as MrsSnoozyTurtle is apparently in charge of all BMW-related articles, so that is where the argument is centered.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Just came across an edit from yesterday in which a well-meaning IP editor in Bulgaria tried to include the 507PS output of the E60 M5.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm slowly being converted (but not quite there yet). I still reject the time part - we should only use units according to what modern readers use - otherwise articles on Roman history would show distances in stadia.

Assuming that modern European readers still prefer PS over kW (ie far more modern references use PS than kW), this would be more like WP:TIES and MOS:UNITS. Ties/units currently divides the world into US, UK and the rest. We would have to further divide the rest into those that prefer PS (Europe and Japan?). So we would have a guideline that says US=hp+imperial, UK=hp+metric, Europe+Japan=PS+metric, rest=metric. This is a little against ties/units but ties/units does allow for industry-wide things like hands for horses - as long as modern references strongly support it.

Note: this is a little like Australia in the 1990s. We were officially metric for a couple of decades and the companies advertised in kW but the magazines stuck to hp. By about 2000 we swapped to kW for everything except the classic car magazines.  Stepho  talk  23:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess and I hate having to use three units. South Korea also uses PS and are even stuck using kgm, while from what I can tell all of Latin America uses PS+kW. Please remember that the convention of using "PS" as the abbreviaton for metric hp is in no way the norm. Most countries just write "horsepower" in whatever language they use, and unless they were once colonized by the Brits then they tend to mean metric horsepower. I just clicked on the first Malaysian article I could find, and it uses PS only. I cannot say for sure, but it seems to me that only South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia managed to avoid the legacy metric units (which are still metric, just not SI). I think of the automotive world as non-metric, metric, and SI - the first ones should use hp/kW, the second group kW/PS/hp (excepting pre-1972 cars, when PS ought to lead), while the third group should use kW/hp. Maybe hp ought to be left out for the SI countries, but I feel that most Americans and Brits have zero relationship with kilowatts and I don't think we ought to push them too much.

As for time, I still believe that the Holden 48/215 should lead with hp, and the Borgward Isabella should lead with PS. I don't think we should ever lead with kgm, since this unit is no longer commonly used outside of Japan and South Korea AFAIK. 1972 is a nice (and non-arbitrary) point to begin the change over, although obviously it gets complicated when writing about the VW Beetle for instance. 1978 seems to be the year by which the SI process was officially completed in many countries, so perhaps these seven years can be in a bit of flux.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Such large deviations from MOS:UNITS are not justified IMHO. For example, List of tallest pyramids is not written in cubits. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, and as shown dozens of times by now, metric horsepower remain in widespread use across the entire world, by specialist and non-specialist sources alike. There is no comparison.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Using the units used in reliable sources is precisely what MOS:UNIT tells us to do. You are the one proposing a "deviation". It states we should use "such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" where they differ from SI units. I already provided a counterargument to your incorrect claim about the pyramids back in the earlier discussion, which I quote: "MOS:UNIT does not say to use the unit used historically/in context. As pointed out above by User:Mr.choppers, we should use the units conventionally used to discuss the topic in reliable sources. I'm no Egyptologist but where I've seen the height of the Great Pyramid written down with any precision it's in metres, not cubits, so it makes sense here to use metres, as do reliable sources. In many cases, especially for older cars as outlined by others above, this will either be PS or hp. A conversion to kW should still be given, but I think it best to lead with the unit which is actually being used." A7V2 (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The WikiProject automobiles guidelines differs from MOS:UNIT in that they state use metric primary whereas the MOS states use SI primary (except for UK and USA). There is a difference, PS might be metric but it's just another version of horsepower and is not an SI unit. As Stepho-wrs has pointed out it can take decades for magazines and the general public to change to newer units. But Wikipedia if for the here and now and the future, where in the end power will be only in kW, even in the USA. The MOS:UNIT trumps this guideline. Avi8tor (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You should watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2-JKO0c2I on horsepower and watts Avi8tor (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Avi8tor The MOS does not state that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit choice and order states (emphasis mine): "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) " ("in all other articles" meaning not including non-scientific articles with strong ties to the US or UK). So following reliable sources is certainly more than acceptable. It is not up to us to try to predict the future. A7V2 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There are so many replies to your statement I'm not following what it is you mean when you say the MOS does not state that. Are you suggesting the MOS does not state "use SI primary (except for the UK and USA"? I take the MOS to mean that SI will be the primary unit and you can add whatever other units you want. Unless the article has strong ties to the UK or USA, in those 2 countries you can have their preferred unit first. Avi8tor (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I directly quoted the MOS. While it is true that the MOS does say that, it is the first half only of the sentence. Read the bolded part again. It is perfectly acceptable, according to the MOS, to use non-SI units where they are conventional in reliable sources discussing whatever it is. There is no inconsistency between the recomendations of this page and the MOS. A7V2 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree as long as they follow the SI unit. The only SI unit for power is kW. Hands and RPM are also not accepted for use for use with SI units. I think this is a case of a poorly written style guide where some folks think they have an exception to the guidelines. For horses you can have centimetres and then hands. With 95% of the planet's population living in countries that have standardized on SI why would we want to have no SI units first just because a magazine in the UK or elsewhere quotes only horsepower or SP? The MOS is written for a worldwide audience. Would this allow someone to take the same liberties with US and UK articles. They no longer use gallons anywhere in the UK, but the style manual perpetuates the use of gallons? Why? Avi8tor (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to argue about the merits of the MOS here, what is written is what is written. If you want the MOS itself changed this is not the place, but as it is there is no problem using non-SI units first when they are the conventional units. Of course a conversion to kW should always be given at the very least, but is that not already the case already? A7V2 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been pointed out to Avi8tor on like a dozen occasions by now, he just believes that that sentence ought not to exist. Which, of course, means that pointing to WP:MOS is inappropriate. FWIW, the French public still commonly uses ch (that's metric horsepower) to describe their cars today. Fifty years of officially being SI has not changed this, and it is not for Wikipedia to change it either. Kilowatts is reserved for government or insurance documentation; in France as in most metric countries, horsepower linger on when we discuss cars - in large part because no one aside from engineers does any math with a cars power, so it is irrelevant how it relates to other units. Again, Wikipedia is here to describe the world, not to change it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not the French Wikipedia and is written for a worldwide English speaking audience. Everyone can pick and choose their sources. MOS does state SI shall be primary! Avi8tor (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for consistent use of section anchors

I've been noticing a lot of Cewbot fixing section anchors lately, and it reminded me of an idea I had.

I think we should determine a standardized way of using Template:Anchor for ease of section linking and to minimize the need for broken links to be fixed if the section heading changes, especially for redirects.

The simplest way would be to include the generation as just a number, the first year of the generation, and a type code if applicable.

Anchors are occasionally employed already in some articles, but they're misused. Per the template documentation, anchors should not be in the section heading directly unless substed.

The anchor simply links to a particular line on the page, not any nearby text, so it technically can be anywhere. It can go below the heading, which has the side effect of hiding the heading itself when the anchor link is used, or above the heading, which technically places it in the previous section. Or, it can be substed in the header, but that makes the markup more difficult to read and edit.

For example:

==Seventh generation (1989–1997)==
{{anchor|7|1989|MN12}}
{{Infobox automobile

{{anchor|7|1989|MN12}}
==Seventh generation (1989–1997)==
{{Infobox automobile

==Seventh generation (1989–1997)<span class="anchor" id="1"></span><span class="anchor" id="1989"></span><span class="anchor" id="MN12">==
{{anchor|7|1989|MN12}}
{{Infobox automobile

I'm not sure which placement I'd prefer, but I do believe that it would be helpful to use anchors and use them consistently. --Sable232 (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There are some fine points to work out.

Generations can sometimes be a problem when some markets didn't get the first generation - ie what one market thinks is the first generation is considered by another market to be the second generation. Probably not a huge problem but we should make it clear in the convention that it is a worldwide thing.

Calendar years vs model years is still an issue. Cars sold only in countries that use model years (typically North America) should probably use model years. Everything else should use calendar years. Eg, no Corolla article should ever have a model year as an anchor, but the Oldsmobile Toronado would best use model years.  Stepho  talk  01:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

To your points, I'd say the anchors should reflect the article content - that is, what the article calls the first generation is "1" for purposes of the anchor. If there's an extraordinary situation where numbering generations is impossible, it may be easier to omit them and use only the year, but I can't think of an example off-hand.

Year usage should, of course, reflect the heading/article content and follow our existing guidelines. --Sable232 (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Just asking that they be made explicit in the guide because we know some people will get it wrong.  Stepho  talk 

According to Template:Anchor, using subst:anchor within the header is the "correct" way to do it. That must have been a recent decision, as last I saw it, adding the template before the header was the recommended method. Apparently still up for debate is whether to put the subst:anchor after the header name or before it.

Regarding anchor names, it's best to cover your bases and add multiple variations (e.g. 4|4th|fourth|Fourth|1995), but if I had to pick a standard, it would either be just the generation number (e.g. 4), or the lower-case ordinal (e.g. fourth). Model codes can still be used as anchor names too, of course, as long as they're mentioned elsewhere in the page so people know what they mean. --Vossanova ^o< 19:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for amending Rule 5 of images

I've noticed over the past several months, there have been numerous clashes between editors when it comes to changing the Infobox images, specifically the main Infobox image. Rule 5 states that "The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other.". This, I feel, is the reason for the clashes. Since there is no set rule in place (basically implying any image can be used so long that quality is good), numerous editing clashes have occurred as a result (ex. Toyota Alphard, Buick LaCrosse, Toyota Crown, and the infamous Honda Concerto edit war). I'm proposing adopting the standard of the main Infobox image being of the latest generation of a model (including facelifts) in order to reflect changes in a brand's design language and identity (such as Buick's new Pure Design philosophy and new corporate logo, for example). This would help to reduce editing wars over which image is acceptable to use, as well as set the standard for vehicle pages going forward.

I also would like to propose that any images of a model's latest generation can be used, so long as the lighting is good (as in not dark), and the vehicle can be seen. Way too often have I seen images used, only to be reverted on the grounds of "disruptive", which is subjective. Antares600 (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The point of that guideline was to prevent the endless occurrences of poor-quality images replacing good-quality ones in the name of recentism. This is an encyclopedia; its purpose is not to serve as the automotive press nor to market a brand's latest design language. --Sable232 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Latest is best" is an example of WP:RECENTISM and is often pushed by youngsters who neither know of nor care about anything more than 2 years old. We try to cater for a spread of readers, both older and young and choose the photo based on the quality of the photo. Even with this new rule in place there will still be clashes, such as at Holden Commodore where the latest (FWD) generation is absolutely hated by many fans of the 4 decades worth of RWD generations.  Stepho  talk  21:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not meant to cater to fans, it's meant to provide accurate, up-to-date information. Having the header infobox image be the one that's a fan favorite over the latest (because fans hate it) shows bias and willingness to bend to pressure instead of standing your ground. And even encyclopedias are to be updated with the latest information in order to remain a reliable source of information, be it automotive, public figures, or otherwise. Wikipedia should be held to a high standard for information. Otherwise, these clashes will continue to the end of time. And "latest is best" is not what I'm saying, I'm saying that latest is the most accurate and up-to-date in information. Antares600 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, a perfect example of WP:RECENTISM. Your argument swings both ways - we should avoid fanboys of older generations and also avoid fanboys of the latest and greatest. Up-to-date information does not mean that we favour the latest generation. WP covers all generations of a vehicle equally. We keep up-to-date by providing information on all generations (including the latest) but the latest generation has no special significance as being better (or worse) than any other generation.  Stepho  talk  21:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is not a marketing site and there is no need to feature the most recent generation in the main infobox. It should be a high quality photo and not of an unrepresentative model, that's all. People replacing quality photos with low quality ones of the most recent one, like here, is to be avoided at all costs.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Soft oppose - Mainly because of the example Mr.choppers had presented (which is by the way, done by the proposer). However, these will keep happening because many passersby are not aware of the rule, editors who thinks newer is better, etc, so my personal stance is to let the infobox images to be 'updated' only if the quality is superior to the image it is replacing. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Gallery styles

I've noticed there are a variety of different styles of galleries being used across automotive articles and wanted to see if any editors here have a preference when it comes to which should be used, whether for aesthetic, formatting, or accessibility reasons. I personally like to use packed galleries for a lot of the articles I edit as I think it produces the best look, but I know that the traditional layout is still the dominant format. TKOIII (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the packed look is awful (sorry); in general I go for the unmodified versions of templates unless there is a really good reason to change it. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)