This page is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This page is not a forum for general discussion about automobiles. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about automobiles at the Reference desk.
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)
Checking the sources, it appears that the article is made of sources put together from three different press releases, besides one about a concierge service - one about its introduction, winning a design award (one is WP:PRIMARY) and one about the last model built.
The same could be said for Ferrari's Special Project cars such as the SP3JC, which has so much in common with the Monza SP. An argument against it will be; the only thing separating it will be the body. As mentioned in my now archived argument against the McLaren F1 LM, does that and the Monza SP have the significantly high press coverages that the Porsche 911 Carrera RS 2.7 has? I would've been supportive of a separate article about the Monza SP if it has the coverages it has with their mainstream models. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the strongest opinions on article mergers/separations for related vehicles, but it is worth noting that the SP1, SP2 and SP3 are part of Ferrari's Icona series and are series produced models, not one or two offs like the rest of Ferrari's Special Project cars. Also, keep in mind that since I wrote most of that article when the car had just came out, there are more sources that have came out since then that I haven't gotten around to putting in the article. For instance, there's now a full Top Gear review, a review in EVO, and a Car Magazine ride along at Goodwood. TKOIII (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particular feel like creating the content but if you create the content then I will tidy-up the formatting, etc. I've already tidied-up what little is there. Remember that you are writing for an international audience and that not all readers will know US customs and that what is true in the US is not necessarily true outside the US. Stepho talk04:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is linked by one article, trailer (vehicle)#Electrical components, it summarizes this article well. sometimes you need another device to connect the lights on the trailer to a car. I am not sure that there is much more that is encyclopedic to say about it
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Japan Mobility Show (former Tokyo Motor Show) needs rewrite[edit]
Japan Mobility Show has changed format from biannual to something more complicated described in this official press release. Article could do with an update/rewrite to accurately describe what the new format of the show, as it's a pretty significant change. 2.107.248.41 (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
DonebyUser:Gnisacc. Stepho talk 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Talk:Pilot (automobile)
