Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Over at Nissan Murano, I noticed a revert someone did. The edit was from (2009-) to (2009-Present). The Murano has been out for months now as a 2009, and while (2009-Present) doesn't make much sense neither does what's currently written. I'm looking to build a consesus to refer to all cars by manufacturer model year, with a reference to production date starts when applicable; in parenthesis, etc. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrefron (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit belatedly... Wasn't this raised & rejected? Not all countries list by model year, nor do all manufacturers; production start dates aren't always good indicators of "model year" in any case; & such data may be difficult, even impossible, to find, especially for older models. Not to say "2009-present" is rational, unless it's made by Delorean.... L. H. McCoy, M.D. 6 September 2005 (UTT)

Likewise, not all countries use the calendar year.

I've advocated a regional approach to this all along, yet I get blown off every time the issue arises. I'd keep my mouth shut but it looks like that isn't going to allow the current system (which is essentially what I want, only clarified and formalized) to continue as it has in the past. --Sable232 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue should be solved somehow, it is not good to have two system in use in same field, either we add model year field or use only one system --— Typ932^{T | C}  05:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Production" is "production". Not "marketing". I believe "model year" can be mentioned in the article, this is an encyclopedia, not Consumer Reports or Edmunds. We should focus on facts, not on trying to conform with specialist terminology and whatnot everytime. Wikipedia articles are intended for laymen, if you are a specialist in the field, you should look for info in dedicated sources, a Wikipedia article should only give a brief overview of the subject to the reader. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are intended for laymen...

Exactly. To you, model years are "specialist terminology." What you don't seem to understand is that in North America, model years are it. There is nothing else because everything revolves around the model year. It's not a marketing gimmick, as so many editors here like to say. It is the system upon which the North American auto industry is based. A layman from the U.S. or Canada, looking at a Wikipedia article, would be quite confused when he is looking for basic information and does not find the model year range he expects.

Generally, when a person wants production information for a specific year, he wants the model year. The question is "How many 1977 (MY) Trans Ams were built?" Not, "How many Trans Ams were built between January 1 and December 31, 1977?" The latter is meaningless to the average North American reader.

Hope this explains it. --Sable232 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A layman is a layman. He or she won't ask "how many 1977 Trans Ams were built?", he or she would ask "What on earth is a TransAm"? For the former information, Wikipedia is not a good source, as it is not intended to cater for such specialist info. If you are into cars enough to wonder how many 1977 Trans Ams (I guess they were TransAms, but anyway) were built, you should look for better sources than Wikipedia, and probably wound find (ask @ GMI, for instance).

Model years can be explained in the article, we do list comparative statistics in the infobox. Also, the infobox has to pertain to all variants of the model, and in many cases, the model would be sold in both North America and other markets, where model years are not only less relevant (European automakers also use model years, but nobody cares), but also could be entirely different (Astra C arrived in North America some 3 years after production commenced).

That said, the Infobox and its usage rules need an overhaul... PrinceGloria (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I was trying to give an example of why model years are the pertinent "overview" and not calendar years. --Sable232 (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I perfectly understand, and I believe you chose a wrong example - the person in your example is not a layman. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Production should be production, but model year should absolutely be represented in the infobox since it is so predominant in, let's say, the US, which has only been the number one market for automotive sales since forever. roguegeek (talk·cont) 07:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the party, I guess, and my bias is showing. Could someone do a rundown on how cars are listed in different markets or link me to that info. This to me seems like a huge issue that needs to be discussed and standardized, as we're currently comparing apples to oranges it seems. Vrefron (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For me, it seems fairly simple. Americans use model years. Laypeople outside America tend not to. People outside America do read articles on American subjects, and vice versa. So articles about American cars (or cars with a strong connection to the U.S.) can use model years as per the Manual of Style (WP:ENGVAR), but to avoid ambiguity for non-American readers, at least the first time the term model year is used, it should be preceded by the wikilinked "MY" (in the infobox), or "model year" in prose text. To do anything else seems to be making far too many assumptions about where readers are from, or how much they knew before they started reading the article.

In the case of the original question, since Nissan is not an American company and the Murano is built in Japan and sold around the world, I don't see why an American style should get precedence. But then again, I don't see why inches should get precedence over metric units in BMW 3 Series either; countering systemic bias on Wikipedia is a rather Sisyphean task I've long since given up on. --DeLarge (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But MYs should not be in production field, it is confusing if there are two different systems. --— Typ932^{T | C}  09:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how things are done elsewhere. I don't know how American cars built under the model year system are dealt with elsewhere. I do know, however, that a Ford Taurus with a "K" in the VIN is a 1989 Ford Taurus and as such, has all the changes (generally) that were made for the 1989 Taurus whether it was built in September 1988 or June 1989. Are early-build '89s sold as '88s in Europe?

I'm not trying to force the North American system on anything else. I only want to make sure it doesn't get run over for the sake of European clarity.

If any of our articles are to make sense, model year needs to be expanded to explain how this works around the world. --Sable232 (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how VINs are dealt with, perhaps the article is right, the fact is that people in Europe DO NOT CARE. The car is referred to by either specific generation (i.e. Golf V, Astra C), or more specifically, the year of build or year of first registration. On the continent, cars built until 31st December are "last year's", and from 1st January are "this year's", with the former usually available at a discount once the year turns. This has nothing to do with modifications done to specific model, which can happen in autumn, but also at any time of the year, and they are rarely announced if they do not constitute a major mid-life facelift. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So this is simply a matter of the NA system being swept under the rug because it's not acceptable to EU readers? --Sable232 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says anything about sweeping, I tried to explain the European "system" to you personally. I'd still say that "production" is "production". Much like I prefer "length" and "wheelbase" to help readers identify how big a car is than arbitrary classifications such as "small family car", "full size" etc. I'd prominently state in the description of a model that, e.g., the Saturn Astra was launched in 2007 as a 2008 model, just like we can mention that such-and-such Austin Allegros were all K-regs or whatever-regs (I have no idea). 212.76.37.180 (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia is about sharing correct information with people who are interested to learn same, then you should surely try to avoid ambiguity.

If your info box label says 'Production' then logic suggests that you should enter the period during which the car was produced. Right now, ‘Production’ is the label used. I think we all agree sufficiently about what ‘Production’ involves. Humpty Dumpty had a belief that words meant what he said they meant. That's fine for Humpty Dumpty. But Humpty Dumpty was a talking egg.

(Parenthetically, it seems to involve a complication too far to have an info box label spelling out when the thing was sold, because frequently that will imply different periods - always months apart and sometimes years apart - in different markets.)

If you think US readers will appreciate knowing the car's model year in the US market, I guess that's fine for those cars that were sold in the US market in significant numbers. If they were sold in significant numbers in China, I suppose you could enter the Chinese model year too. I think the Chinese new year is somewhere between that used by the Gregorian calendar (which the US and Europe currently follow) and the Julian Calendar (which the US and the UK followed till the 1750s) and Chinese years are identified not by numbers but by animals. So at the same time as we learn about the calendar used by the US auto industry, we might have the opportunity to learn more about the calendar used in China. Certainly there’s nothing to be gained by sweeping the US market model year under the mat. By all means enter an info box heading that says 'US & Canada Model Year' or something if you think significant numbers of readers will be helped by the information. But, assuming you want to communicate knowledge, nothing is gained by pretending that the US market availability period as defined in terms of US model year is the same as the production period. Plainly it is not. And as ever, where the info box threatens to become overburdened, there’s nothing to stop us spelling out relevant details in the body of the entry instead. There may be a case for thinking that we all ought to think like Americans (or like Chinese) but (1) thus far we don't and (2) I don't think a project devoted to sharing knowledge internationally using the world’s most popular second language is the place consciously to apply the custom of one country when it is (surely) apparent that doing so will not inform but merely obfuscate the facts for readers whose parents failed to take the simple precaution of having them grow up in the USA. Or Canada. Or China.

The matter has nothing to do with acceptability or unacceptability. It has to do with the avoidance of wilful ambiguity.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a discussion like this is happening just shows how much of a divide there is. Both production years and model years seem equally important enough to be represented in the infobox. I suggest a new attribute of modelyear is added to the template with a wikilink on the tag itself. Is there any reason not to add this? roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because the infobox is getting unwieldy, and this is not "basic info" explaining what the subject is. We also do not add "distribution channel" for JDM cars (Honda had three separate dealership networks in Japan, Toyota has seven or eight), "trim levels", "special models" etc. - let us inform the reader of how the car was/is marketed in the article's body, this is one thing that can be very well explained in prose. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of vrefron and other recent arrivals to this particular everlasting festival: this is a debate that will never, ever have an either/or solution involving a single infobox field that works for every article. That is because motor vehicle administration and regulation is done differently in different markets. The North American market has long operated strictly according to model years. This was initially a de facto standard created by the planned obsolescence practise of restyling vehicles each and every year. When safety and emission regulations came into force in the late 1960s, the model year was codified for regulatory purposes, and so the model year is firmly established in North America as the means by which vehicles are regulated and identified and their repair parts specified and supplied.

Other markets do things differently. For example, in many markets, vehicles have long been sold and known by model, not by model year. For example, the car sold and known as a 1962 Valiant in North America was sold from 1962-'63 in Australia as an SV1 Valiant and in those same years in Argentina as a Valiant II. In those markets, emissions and safety are regulated and repair parts are specified by vehicle production date.

Still other markets, such as the UK, have tended to lean heavily on registration date for vehicle identification and sales, though in this case production date is used for safety and emissions regulation and parts specification.

So, no, there will never, ever be a single infobox field that will adequately get the job done for all the world's vehicles. We can argue about it and have neverending "my-home-market's-bigger-than-your-home-market" scrums until the cows come home, and there will still never be a satisfactory one-fits-all field.

If we must pick one or the other, let's keep in mind that the production date range works easily, supportably, and without distortion for vehicles made and sold around the world, but the American model year works only for the vehicles marketed in North America, and must be distorted, fudged, or fabricated to work for the vehicles sold elsewhere.

If no consensus can be developed, then I fear the only workable solution is to provide two fields in the infobox — model years and production dates — and have an understanding that one or the other or both may be used as appropriate to the specific situation. I think this would be considerably uglier, more problematic, and would lead to knock-on problems with supportability, proliferation of infobox frass, and suchlike. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just say Production Year in the infobox will correspond with calendar years and put model year in parentheses adjacent to the generation section title. (i.e. | Toyota Matrix First generation (2003-2008)--Flash176 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Beuller? Beuller? This isn't meant as a dig at anyone here, but seriously, I think this is what's wrong with this project. People may make suggestions, but everyone gets too caught up in arguing over what's best instead of compromising. I see no reason why we can't specify in the infobox that the years made are actual production years and, if applicable, say that the years in parentheses on the header are model years. I don't know, maybe it seems more confusing to you than me, but after something like this is implemented in the guidelines, it'll work itself out.--Flash176 (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous to group "model year" into the same category as all of the other bs sitting in the template. Are you really going to sit here and tell everyone "designer" is more important than model year? And if you're worried about the infobox getting "unwieldy", we had a discussion to trim the thing down and absolutely nothing was done. Model year is, at the very least, a totally objective value unlike, say, "class", "bodystyle", and "related" which all have very loose or no standards what so ever to them. Those fields alone boarder on WP:OR in almost every automobile related article. Considering the North American (and specifically, the US) market is the largest automotive market in the world by far, important and objective data such as model year should absolutely be represented in the infobox. Automotive legislation is becoming heavier in every market in the world right now as well and guess what. roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no benefit in keeping model years in infoboxes as opposed to article body. I would be glad to reopen the discussion on "compacting" infoboxes. Anybody apart from Roguegeek and Sable wants model year in the infobox? PrinceGloria (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing against including ‘US Model Year’ in the Info Box. It’s probably relevant and important for many people interested in (for example) the Chevrolet Corsica. On the other had, for most people interested in the Opel Ascona, entering anything under ‘US Model Year’ would be somewhere between unhelpful and mega-misleading.

(butting in) What is wrong, however, with leaving this info for the lead paragraph? PrinceGloria (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m all for compacting the Info Box, but that does not need to mean removing all the options. I do not care who designed the Chevrolet Corsica. I suspect a committee of bean counters may have been closely involved along the line. I do mind who designed the NSU Ro80 and the Mini, because these were brilliant engineers who refused to be talked into ‘excessive’ compromise by corporate cost accountants (possibly inflicting fatal financial damage on their employers’ businesses in the process) and who exercised massive influence over many aspects of the cars that many of us drive forty years later. The Chevrolet Corsica sold in large numbers in very few markets. The Toyota Corolla sells in large numbers in a huge range of disparate markets (and Toyota further complicate things by selling sometimes the same and sometimes different versions in different places at different times). They both need succinct informative InfoBoxes, but the InfoBox fields that actually need usefully to be filled will not necessarily be all the same ones. The Corollas may have two different widths and five different lengths in any given year. The Corsica one and two. Fuel tank sizes that vary according to what could be fitted under the body or how much fuel the engine consumed or…and is there, please, a hybrid Corolla yet or haven’t they yet shrunk the batteries that much?

The InfoBox debate is not the same as the Model Year debate. But I do think the Model Year debate elegantly illustrates the dangers of trying excessively to apply ‘one size fits all’ to the InfoBox. And if the designer of the Chevrolet Corsica is reading this, then (1) you really should not care what I think: I suspect you don’t. And (2) I happen to think the Corsica offered an elegant solution subject to the evident constraints imposed.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

PrinceGloria, this isn't the first time this topic has popped up, so try not to pretend like it is. This isn't an isolated discussion and there aren't just two editors saying model year is important. Also keep in mind Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'm sure if more editors knew this discussion was happening, it might have a different feel which is why we might need to consider requesting comments. roguegeek (talk·cont) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Charles01, that's a good point. Considering the current market, how much would certain articles benefit from a hybrid electric vehicle infobox? Very much so in my opinion. roguegeek (talk·cont) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Steering back onto topic

Discussion 11 September

Whether to compact the infobox is a separate debate. Same with whether or not "Designer" belongs in there, and same with whether to devise a hybrid electric vehicle infobox. Don't let's distract ourselves from this discussion with those other (worthy) discussions. In this discussion, let's try to work towards consensus on how to express dates in the infobox.

I think probably our best way forward is to create provisions for both production dates and model year in the infobox, and have a convention calling for the use of one or the other in any given article, but not both except by consensus in extraordinary situations. This would mostly solve most of the problems: It would greatly reduce the temperature of the debate over which system is more righteous — and in so doing, would probably cool off the spurious side-debates based on such specious factors as the perceived primacy of the US market.

It would facilitate presentation of the best information available, whatever the article's developmental stage. For example, whoever would create the article on the Toothgnasher SuperFlash could put "Model Years: 1977-1983". If another editor then finds reliable sources to support greater specificity, s/he could remove the Model Years entry and replace it with "Build Dates: Sep 1976 - Jun 1983". The next editor to come along with evidentiary support for even closer precision could then change this to "Build Dates: Sep 26 1976 - Jun 9 1983".

It would provide the infrastructure upon which to build consensus for any article in which the date presentation might be contentious for whatever reason; talk page discussions would be centred around which of the two existing fields to use, or in special cases discussing why both should be used, and might not tend so easily to stray off topic into generalised discussions of the infobox, the worthiness of various non-date-related infobox entries, and suchlike.

And perhaps most importantly, it would give most of us most of what we want, most of the time. That would free us up to put our impassioned arguments into more substantial matters.

If enough of us are bound and determined to sabotage the consensus-building process by continuing to demand one or the other, ever more stridently, to the point of insinuating bad faith and dragging jingoism into it, that'll be very unfortunate and completely unproductive. I will not join the shouting, but I will (again) point out these facts:

The model year is neither objective nor precise. It is intrinsically arbitrary, for it has no fixed start date, no fixed end date, and no fixed length. It is not the same for different vehicles in a given market. It is not necessarily the same for the same vehicle in different markets. Its start, finish, and length are whatever the maker or marketer of an auto wants them to be for any given auto in a market that operates according to model years. It works cleanly only for the vehicles marketed in North America, and must be distorted, fudged, or fabricated to work for the vehicles sold elsewhere (and sometimes for vehicle sold in America...there were Corvettes built in 1983, but there were no 1983 Corvettes, for example).

Build dates, by contrast, are precise and objective. They apply easily, supportably, and without distortion for vehicles made and sold in every market around the world, regardless of how differently the world's markets assign fiducial dates to vehicles. No matter that Germany and the UK go by date of first registration, the US and Canada go by date of first sale, Australia goes by build date, and Elbonia goes by date of first stolen radio antenna; the vehicle's build date is the most robustly- and objectively-documented date of the bunch. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and do this in steps. I think one of the biggest things getting muddled here is thinking they are comparable. Model year and production date aren't just dates with model year being a higher (less specific) level of the same information. Apples and oranges. They represent different values. Agree? Disagree? Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and, as Scheinwerfermann said, the latter aree precise and objective, unlike the former, which is one of the reasons I believe they should not be treated the same way, also to avoid confusion of lay readers. Let the model years be covered by the article's body. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But no. I still don't think the distinction is being made. Production dates are precise and objective for production dates. I completely agree with that. I also completely disagree with terming model year subjective. I understand it not being able to relate across markets, but that doesn't make it subjective. Manufacturers are very clear about what model year a vehicle is. Enough so that it is permanently stamped into the VIN. Model years define a vehicle generations and available specs/options where as production dates define the date range in which that model year was produced. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to take back my word. "Subjective" and "objective" are not appropriate - what I meant is that the production date is universally comparable and understandable. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the model year clearly defines a vehicle's generation, specifications, or available options. There are numerous examples of significant model changes made in the middle of a model year. These are often referred to as, for example, a nineteen-ninety-eight-and-a-half Audi A4. Such a vehicle and its significantly different earlier-production counterpart both have the same letter in the 10th position of the VIN. As for specs and options, these change all the time during model years. Everything from engine availability to sunroof availability — surely you've read enough new-car brochures to see the fine *-Late availability text applied to various options — paint colour availability, interior trim availability, optional accessory availability and more...all are highly variable at the manufacturer's whim within a single model year, with no changes to the model year identifier in the VIN.

RogueGeek, I know you like model years, but please step up and make your case in terms of the pertinent question at hand: What purpose does the model year serve in the infobox that (a) is not served by production dates, and (b) cannot be served equally or better by referring to the model years in the article text? It's entirely possible those of us who don't share your preference are simply not seeing or understanding the encyclopædic rationale for using model years in the infobox.

Also, please comment on my proposal to have both fields in the infobox template, with a convention calling for the use of one or the other but not both in any given article except in special situations. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion 12 September

In North America, a car is defined only by its model year. You don't know what date your car was built unless you squint at tiny type on a sticker somewhere, but you know its model year. For cars only available in the North American market, this is the only standard used to describe their ages. Changes to the vehicle, from a full redesign to a new color, almost always are limited to model year changes; the half-dozen exceptions are not relevant to setting a broader policy or precedent. At the very least, cars sold only in the North American market should be defined in all references by their model years, and anything that's sold in NA should have its model years clearly mentioned somewhere. And I hadn't been following this discussion closely enough to know whether this has come up, but a car marketed in North America as a 1998 should only be identified as such when discussing American options or providing an illustration of an American-market car. IFCAR (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's try to keep the discussion factual and avoid basing arguments on exaggeration, which doesn't move anything forward. By Federal law, every vehicle sold or imported into the US has the vehicle's build date in plain sight, and in legibly-large (not "tiny") type on the VSCL, which is not located in a random "somewhere", but is — again, by law — on the driver's door or driver's doorframe. Midyear production changes cannot be dismissed as anomalies; late-production colour changes, for example, have long been extremely common; I've got lots of paint chip charts with half a dozen chips annotated "late production only" or suchlike. Anyhow, there's little point in quarreling over the number of "model-year-and-a-half" vehicle changes in the last few decades; whether it's six or sixty, they're common enough to factor into this discussion. But (again) steering back in the direction of topical relevance: How about having both fields in the infobox template, with a convention calling for the use of one or the other but not both in any given article except in special situations? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If only we could convert the heat this stuff generates into petrol (that's gasoline if you learned your English west of Iceland - only in my own case it's generally diesel) we could maybe make a dent in the world energy shortages. I'm not sure that all the tambourine banging advances the matter too much, however.

Anyway, Scheinwerfermann has given us a very careful and objective analysis of what we have and where we're at, and based on that he builds and offers (in my judgement by a mile - that's approx 1,609 km en francais) the least bad solution. I don't have a better idea. I endorse his recommendation. Whether this will be permitted to morph into a sufficient consensus to support implementation - whether we'd all recognize a consensus even if it biffed us on the nose - is beyond me, however. I think that if you believe the higher wiki project objectives need for us to be capable of moving towards a consensus in cases such as this, partisans need to step back and (unless they have a better idea which till now I don't see) figure out why we're building wikipedia. Who are our customers this week, next month and maybe also next century? How do we best support their requirement for objectively factual information? In case these paras may get split up, here again is how Scheinwerfermann summarized his proposal: 'How about having both fields in the infobox template, with a convention calling for the use of one or the other but not both in any given article except in special situations?' Do it. Please.

RegardsCharles01 (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont (maybe some others too) wanna see only model year in box, because I want exact manufacturing years to make it easier to compare same aged cars, then we have to decide also category vehicle introduced in XXXX and timeline templates, this could also be made clear in this same discussion. --— Typ932^{T | C}  06:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Typ932 - having either this or that field is very confusing and does not resolve the matter - i.e. infoboxes are not comparable and universally understandable. I propose keeping production in infobox and prominently explaining model years in the article's body. I.e. "The Ford Contour was first offered in late 1994 as a 1995 model". In case of vehicles introduced early in a year with "next" model year, production might have even started two years "before" the MY. Anyway, this could all be and WILL be better explained in the article's body. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Example problem

As an example problem for discussion, the Ford Fusion (Americas), which is built in Mexico, is scheduled to begin "Job 1" production of the 2010 model year in December of 2008, after a short run of the 2009 model year Fusion (and Milans and MKZs). By US government regulation, the freshened version cannot be called a 2010 and go on sale before January 2, 2009; so they will have to be stockpiled until then. In any case, we will have (barring delays) some number of 2010 model year Fusions built in calendar year 2008, and continuing production throughout 2009, and presumably far into 2010, until the 2011 version is introduced - that is unless the "Global" European-American Fusion under development jumps the line directly from 2010 to the 2012 model year. The infobox, or something, needs to be flexible enough to address this presumably long production run for a single model year. Would like to know how this sort of example would / should be handled... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I guess I came across this a little late...

By reading the above it looks like the model year is a foreign concept outside of the U.S. and Canada? But here, the model year of a car is much more important as basic information than the calendar year. When someone asks when a car was made, the answer is the first model year and the last model year. Nobody (outside of enthusiasts) really cares about the exact dates. If someone asks me "When did they make the Oldsmobile Starfire?" the answer is "from 1975 to 1980." They're not looking for "to December 21, 1979" because whether it was December 21 or January 12, 1980, they were still "1980 Olds Starfires." If infoboxes are supposed to be the basic overview, then they should be answering the simple questions about a car, not the small details, right? --Olds 403 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have listed Sport utility convertible for deletion. swaq 21:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now listed the corresponding category: Category:Sport utility convertibles. swaq 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just another example of how the body style and vehicle type article need some major cleaning. roguegeek (talk·cont) 07:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently working on getting Procar into GA status, and the last hurdle seems to be a lack of print sources, mostly because I do not have any historical books so most all of my sources are online. If anyone has a book which covers or at least discusses either the development of the BMW M1, or the Procar series and other racing M1s, any references that could be added to the Procar article would be much appreciated. The359 (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have listed Sport utility sedan and Sport utility wagon for deletion. swaq 15:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now listed the corresponding category: Category:Sport utility wagons. swaq 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tornel is labored with atrocious translation, such as,

"When these enterpises closed, put it beards to soak and still the bussines together specialization in the niche sales to retail to vehicles and trucks. This movement it allows still force in the market."

I'd fix it, if I had more than the vaguest notion of what it's supposed to mean. I'm cross posting this hoping somebody with Spanish & decent sources can address it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for information on the history of the clutch. From what I understand it was in the very first motor vehicles ever made, which were initially not made commercially available. I have heard that the very first "motorized" vehicles made their debut in, or around, 1889, 1898, etc. Regardless, I want to know when the clutch itself was first used. Even if it was used in other machines prior to being used in motorized vehicles then I want to know when the clutch was essentially 'born'! I do want to know the history of the clutch in motorized vehicles, but I want to know when the clutch itself had its first beginnings. I don't need specific or detailed engineering descriptions that would make a layman pound his fist in frustration, but dates, names of the companies/corporations who own(ed) the right(s) to the technology that it took to create the clutch and the patents used to maintain it as their cash cow, names of the engineers & scientists who were responsible for the technology, whether or not they were actually given the proper credit for their contributions, names of the machines, vehicles, etc., that it was first used in, etc., would be great!

Thanks! Morpheus —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorpheusOne (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was pretty clear in terms of logic, but an anonymous IP thinks otherwise.

An article for a single model should contain information on that model, not other cars that have their own articles? (see Cadillac Deville, which had been turned into a review on all fullsize Cadillacs). --Sable232 (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that article has been turned into "a review on all fullsize Cadillacs." It's cluttered, but hardly off topic.--Flash176 (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There were all kinds of details on the Fleetwood in there. Unless someone is proposing to merge the two, but the Deville page was hard enough to manage as-is. --Sable232 (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification, it should be noted that the Fleetwood was not much more than a slightly more upscale version of the DeVille for most of the 1980s and 1990s. So some of the info is probably still relevant. That doesn't excuse the lack of focus in the article, but I'm just saying. Duncan1800 (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Did we ever come to a consensus on flag icons in infoboxes? An anonymous user has added a flag in the 'aka' field of Subaru Impreza to designate the country where the other name is used. I see a problem with this being scalable. What if the other name is used in five different countries? Also, I imagine it would be hard to be consistent between articles. If we allow flags in the 'aka' field then there is really no reason to not have flags in other fields, such as 'assembly' or 'manufacturer'. I think if these flags were to be added en masse then the infoboxes would become quite cluttered. I reverted this addition once already, but I thought I'd ask for an opinion here. swaq 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a bad idea.--Flash176 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. It's a really bad idea, per Swaq. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont like, we could remove all flags.... --— Typ932^{T | C}  20:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I happily agree with the Project's consensus NOT to use flags. BTW, we need to set standards on using "additional" info in infoboxes, i.e. "aka Ford Bagabong (Taiwan, China - only Sichuan and Inner Mongolia, but just for 1912 in Inner Mongolia, and only with 2.25 engine)" PrinceGloria (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, many auto manufacturer's articles have flags in the infobox next to their headquarters, etc. I suppose we could look at Template:Infobox Company for an example (no flags there)? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its ok to have flag icon on company pages as most of them have it (also other than car companies)... --— Typ932^{T | C}  11:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)