Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

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)

Not sure how many people there still are here who are interested in Australian cars, but you might want to visit Holden Commodore (VB) as a test case. Not stuart60 has been pruning somewhat radically across a number of articles - I recommend weighing in if you have any interest.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah i've been keeping a weather eye on him, no reverts as yet. There's a lot of repetition and fan cruft he's getting rid of. Greglocock (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hard-working editor Musikgeniesser has been adding massive technical tables to articles about transmissions, including ZF 6HP transmission, Mercedes-Benz 4G-Tronic transmission, ZF 4HP transmission, and at least a dozen other articles. I believe that these detailed technical tables are not appropriate content for Wikipedia and should be completely removed. I am seeking a second opinion here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's quite insane. I think they easily fall under WP:NOTGUIDE #7: Scientific journals. I say roll them back to before such tables and details were added. And sheesh, never put a table before the table of contents. --Vossanova ^o< 17:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles to look at. I don't know that all of them can be rolled back, due to subsequent constructive edits; removing the tables might be the right option in some cases. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Whoah, my eyes glazed over immediately - and I have a degree in maths. That's excessive by a large margin. Trim mercilessly.  Stepho  talk  22:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. I tagged one back in November, to little effect. The tables are all but incomprehensible but I was reluctant to unilaterally do a mass removal of that much content and risk deleting something worth keeping. --Sable232 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't delete, just collapse!

My fellow Wikipedians,

Thank you so much for your commitment!

it's okay to call me insane. Nevertheless, I think there may be a misunderstanding here.

It's about creating transparency.

1

Necessary condition

Wikipedia can contain all knowledge that is accessible to or comprehensible by readers without any special prior knowledge. The four basic arithmetic operations and the ability to read mathematical terms are sufficient to calculate all the values listed. Differential or even integral calculus is not required. In Germany, this is roughly the level of an eighth-grade education; no mathematical degree is required. I find this reasonable and therefore appropriate for Wikipedia.

2

Sufficient condition

In the technical field, too, there is a lot of half-knowledge and even false knowledge. In addition, advertising and marketing have a very strong influence, especially in the automotive industry. The best way to counter this is to create transparency, so that anyone who is seriously interested is given the tools they need to form their own opinions. These tools are included in their entirety in the tables. All you need to understand and verify the calculations is a calculator or spreadsheet program, nothing else.

3

The tables are likely to be of little interest to experts, as they work with transmission design programs that take care of all the complicated term conversions for them. However, no normal person has such transmission design programs, and this is not part of general school education. Therefore, transparency can only be achieved by deriving the bridge from the gearsets to the gear ratios and specifying it, if at all possible.

It is possible, and without gaps. Wikipedia can therefore create transparency in these cases. This is done in the tables, without gaps.

4

If there is one thing that does not belong in Wikipedia, it is lists of vehicles in which the transmissions are used, because copying brochure information is more suited to marketing platforms.

5

To keep the extensive tables clear, there is a very clear structure that I adhere to strictly.

- Table 1: Overview

- Table 2: Economic efficiency

- Table 3: Details with assessment

6

You have now reached the following status:

- ZF 4HP: table from perhaps 2 years ago

- Ford-GM 10-speed: current overview table

- ZF 3HP: table from perhaps 2 years ago

- ZF 5HP: table from perhaps 2 years ago

- GM 6L: current overview table

- ZF 6HP: no table at all

Is this consistent?

Follow-up question: what does this mean for the respective lists of vehicles in which the transmissions are used? Are they all the versions with the current status, or in cases of rollbacks to the old tables, perhaps also the corresponding old status?

This means that data quality has been lost. Who will restore it? Thank you in advance.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Cheers

Peter (from Germany) Musikgeniesser (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I only checked two of these but I fully support removing the tables.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't delete, just collapse!

·

My fellow Wikipedians,

thank you for your interest and commitment.

·

Without these tables, the articles would be nothing more than product advertising (in this case for automotive spare parts) and would therefore only be suitable for marketing platforms. Let's be honest: none of these articles, or indeed the entire “WikiProject Automobiles,” would have any place in a traditional encyclopedia.

·

Traditional encyclopedias had up to 300,000, maybe 400,000 keywords. Wikipedia has over 7 million and says itself that it goes beyond traditional encyclopedias. That's why the “WikiProject Automobiles” is justified. But that doesn't mean you can write about anything and everything.

·

For automotive transmissions, it is the explanation of the underlying gearset concept, provided here in the tables, that transforms a mere product advertisement into an article of general interest. Therefore, all of these articles are justified in the first place by such explanations. The fact that a complete explanation is possible at all is therefore a fortunate circumstance. Deleting the tables would turn the articles back into mere product advertising.

·

In order not to unnecessarily hinder the flow of reading, I have set all tables to “collapsible.” I am also setting the two tables on economic efficiency and details to “collapsed” so that those who are less interested do not have to hide them and feel annoyed, but rather, only those who are interested will have to display them in the future.

·

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Cheers

Peter (from Germany) Musikgeniesser (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Based on your discussion here about Wikipedia and WikiProject Automobiles, I think there is some disconnect between what you believe they are for and what others believe. Collapsing the tables and charts is an option to improve the readability and flow of the articles, but the question remains if the data is appropriate for a Wikipedia article to begin with. First, it needs to be available on other sites or in some publicly available source, as there must be references and no original research is allowed, even if it's deduced from available figures. Second, please reread WP:NOTGUIDE point #7. Third, please do not revert changes until a consensus has been reached, per the WP:BRD policy. It seems like it already has, though if arguments can be made to keep the data, they should be made here to keep them in one place. --Vossanova ^o< 22:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

First and foremost, I thank you for your efforts. Whatever else, you have been trying to improve Wikipedia.

However ...

As pointed out, WP is not a guide book or manual on how to fix things. See WP:NOTGUIDE, points 1 and 7. An encyclopaedia's purpose is to literally encircle all knowledge but only to a broad level of detail. Readers are expected to follow the references for further details. Hence, we explain how a diff works at differential (mechanical device) and then in various car articles we simply list which cars had which major diff options (ratio, type of LSD).

This is not advertising. Advertising has weasel words, hyperbolic wording and never mentions any bad points. Our articles do not do that (if you know any that do then please list them and we will fix them). We stick to basic facts with straight forward wording and list the good and bad points with equal bias - in much the same manner as a magazine would do an independent review. For that manner, many magazine articles list the diff ratio but very few list the details you have added.

But not everything we have to say is negative. Most of what you added is not appropriate for Wikipedia but much of it is appropriate at Wikibooks. See https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page  Stepho  talk  00:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your efforts, Musikgeniesser, I agree with the others that this level of detail is too much for WP. According to our own definition, 'an encyclopedia is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge (...)'. The details you are providing in those tables go beyond summary, and due to their abundance, the overview over that knowledge gets lost - while the overview is the purpose of a summary.

I know the German culture very well, including the German approach to communicating, and I recognize where it differs from the communication ways of other nationalities: it wants to be thorough and possibly totally extensive. Then I would suggest that if you feel that the knowledge in those tables should not be lost, it might be in a better place in German WP articles, where its extensiveness will be better understood and probably more appreciated.

Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, these tables can be deleted (not made collapsible).   Erremm   Erremm (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I see User:Musikgeniesser is still making edits to transmission articles which include all the technical charts and tables we discussed. The consensus here is that they should be removed from Wikipedia. I understand this is information which could be useful to some people, so if you wish to publish this on an open-source site (it will always exist in previous edits even after deletion), I would suggest Wikiversity, specifically a WikiJournal within. --Vossanova ^o< 23:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the tables from some articles, also tagging them for cleanup of header capitalization. There are many articles. If you delete tables, please ensure that you do not leave big red error messages at the bottom of the page due to removal of references or notelist templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Myself and @Mr.choppers seem to have an opposite opinion on the content of Mercedes-Benz E-Class wrd the section on the predecessors see this edit.

This is a very peculiar case and is debated amid MB fans and historians: can the pre-1993 cars be considered as E-Class, and how deep into history do we go? Mercedes-Benz Public Archive, M@RS, treat the situation in a very good compromise: E-Class and predecessors beginning the story in 1946 when post WWII production was restarted. The German wikipedia emphasises the 1993- onwards models as the de jure E-Class, and then has a small section covering the predecessors at the end. The Italian wikipedia completely ignores the pre-1993 history.

The English wikipedia's section on the E-class was always exploded, so in this framework it does make sense to cover the history of the mid-range products before they officially became the E-Class in summer of 1993. In that sense I don't see why we can't begin in 1946 and include the 170 series amid these predecessors, because as early as 1949 there was a clear hierarchy in MB products, from where the lineage of the future E and S classes are traceable.

The alternative would be to drastically condense the article focusing on the product line with only skeletal information on the particular models with (as per German wiki) or without (Italian) the pre-1993 history. Carfan87 (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

That article is about the MB E-Class. That long history section belongs in a more generic MB history article instead of the E-Class article. I would cut the predecessor section back to only what is currently in the "1993 re-branding" section (although that is still quite confusing and could use a major rewrite).  Stepho  talk  11:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

First of all, Mercedes-Benz themselves are not a reliable source for things beyond specs and dates and such. See WP:PRIMARY. Any analysis or anything contentious, or likely to be disputed, needs a secondary source.

As for restoring the earlier text, this page is for the E-class, the predecessors having stub entries is appropriate. Another thing we need to halt is the creative descriptions for section titles - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, the section headers read more like chapter titles in a book.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding article condensing - I agree that it needs to be shorter given it is an article about a product line, not about a particular vehicle, which is why I am not insisting on restoring the bloated sections as such.

However, the question is - why begin at 1953 and not 1946? I did not see any arguments defending this position. You yourself say anything beyond specs and dates and such, well isn't it's classing the 170 series as part of the E-Class predecessors a 'spec' per this very logic? Shouldn't the company have the ultimate decision as to what belongs to it's product line or not, even if it is retroactively applied for example? If it is a formality that you want a non MB source for this have one. Carfan87 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

1953 was the stable date; as per WP:BRD if you want to change it and someone objects, you have to provide a reliable source. If the 170V then why wouldn't the start date be 1936? That's when the Mercedes-Benz W136 first appeared. The W136 was also the 170S, so that's why some wouldn't consider it the beginning of the E-class. On the other hand, why not begin with the Mercedes-Benz W15, introduced in 1931? Picking the beginning is not a straight forward fact, it's highly subjective.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Retroactively applying the post 1993 hierarchy, to 1946 makes sense, as it is traceable. Retroactively applying it to pre-WWII ... good luck making that attempt. 170S is indeed questionable, considering it shares the chassis with the W187 and, in fact, 300 series. This logic could also be applied to the W105 and even to the W111, particularly the 1965-68 230S. Which is indeed why in my original edit I removed the 1953, which you restored. I am not insisting on 1946, I am only insisting in giving the 170 series attention no more or greater than any other E-Class predecessor has. Carfan87 (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I was just trying to show you that it is not automatically clear when the line of predecessors begins, not argue about which or when.

What matters is that you have to find a reliable, secondary source if you want to change the date. This doesn't have to be available online, it can be a learned tome or a dissertation or a big book on benzes. Or perhaps we don't pin down a specific ancestor but throw in a few different potential starting points - but again, WP is a collection of published knowledge not our own original research.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The lineage of predecessors to the "de jure" E-Class all have their own articles, so nothing more than a very brief overview should be in the E-class article. I think the infobox should state "1993-present" as that is the what the article covers. --Sable232 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I am attempting a sourced expansion on the history of the "product line", with intent of collapsing everything else. I believe it is consensus of the above that the bloated article needs condensing. Carfan87 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Great Wall Pao#Requested move 3 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 13:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:GMC Sprint / Caballero#Requested move 21 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 14:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

We seem to be in a storm of editors whose only mission is to change pictures back and forth and argue about it. Users such as ~2026-12024-51 (talk · contribs) (who sprung out of nowhere fully formed with lots of existing opinions on other editors) and GaryJAllen (talk · contribs) are filling my entire watchlist with image changes (although Gary mostly seems to be responding to the anonymous editor's changes). Is this what we want? Is this building an encyclopedia? Not sure what tack to take and I would love to see a community consensus on this.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As a veteran image churner myself, I have to come to the defense of the practice. I feel that the image changes made recently have been an overall net positive. Some are better than others, and I've reverted at least 20-30 such edits recently, but on the whole I've found them helpful. On image churning as a practice, I understand why it can be annoying, as there's more subjectivity than other types of edits, leading to more disagreement. However, I believe high quality images are incredibly important for an encyclopedia, more than they're given credit for here. Images visually illustrate topics in ways that text simply can't, and a bad image can harm a reader's understanding of a car/topic as much as outright errors.

I also think that the problem will be partially self correcting. The past few years, we've made big strides in improving the image quality of automotive Wikipedia, thanks in large part to people like yourself uploading high quality photos. I think that the more that images improve, the less room there will be for image churning. People will still make image changes, often unnecessary or bad ones, but not by the hundreds.

I also don't think that we should be determining what edits are worthwhile based on whether they clog up other editors' watchlists. If it's that much of a problem, lobby the WP team to add an individual mute feature for accounts or IPs to the watchlist filters. No one complains about bot edits filling up their watchlists because you can just hide them. TKOIII (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: when I said clogging I meant that I feel impelled to review the changes, since they are fifty/fifty to be useful. But points taken.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Every so often, it seems people will show up and decide that images on automotive articles are mere decorations that they can play with ad nauseum. The compulsion to replace a 55/100 image with a perceived 56/100 image is of no benefit (except to the edit count of the one doing it). The current situation is about the worst it's been in a while, with at least two Chinese sockfarms, the recent TA (who certainly behaves like someone who's been here before, and although I'm not sure who I have a guess or two), and someone who appears to be a child, all doing the same as GaryJAllen, although without the attitude. (I don't think the Chinese editors can read/write English, compounding the problem.)

In fairness, there are plenty of subpar images out there that are getting replaced. However, most of the editors who obsess over this have a poor track record of judging images, to the point where I wonder if they're just guessing and getting an improvement about half the time.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what can be done about it. General sanctions were suggested the last time one of these dust-ups landed at AN/I - I think that's using a log splitter where a butter knife is needed, but this is a recurring problem going back decades at this point (anyone remember Bull-Doser?) and it's exceptionally difficult to get these accounts blocked when the behavior is disruptive. The TAs could easily be taken care of as soon as a conclusive link to a sockmaster can be discerned though. --Sable232 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Changing images seems to be 'Baby's first steps' on Wikipedia. Annoying to us old hands but something that newbies can easily grasp (almost always replacing a good pic of an old generation with a bad pic of the latest). Human nature is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. I try to shepherd them when changing the main image (giving reasons and links to WP:CARPIX in my revert summary) but I don't fuss too much for general images through the article. But having said that, once they've done a few we should discourage them from making image changes their life work. And of course outright vandals should get the boot.  Stepho  talk  23:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like we all agree that the kids can stay on the lawn, we just need to make sure they're not digging up the roses or hiding their identities. I think that's reasonable. I would like to see some of them begin to expand into more useful activities, though.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I feel like this issue is so consistently disruptive that we might actually need sanctions. This has been a problem as long as car pictures have been uploaded to this website. There isn't a foreseeable end to this type of DE. Cutlass^Ciera 13:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You say this has been a problem forever, but I can't think of any major automotive article that has worse images than it did 5 or 10 years ago. From what I've seen, the image quality on automotive Wikipedia has gone up noticeably over the years, so I'm not seeing the argument that these edits actually made things worse. The worst crime they seem to have committed is clogging up people's watchlists. TKOIII (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The only reason the image quality has not gone down is because us old hands revert the bad changes. If left to itself then every article would have a bad photo of the latest generation with high glare, high gloss paint with reflections, cluttered backgrounds and trees and light poles growing out of the roof and low angles that make it look like a dog trying to sniff your crotch. And it would flip-flop weekly between each editor's home country.  Stepho  talk  08:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

What I'm hearing is that an editor joins, makes a series of image changes, the bad ones get reverted, and the good ones remain. This seems like the story of most new editors to the site. I guess the point of contention here would be whether you see image quality as having actually improved. We should also distinguish between image editors who are new to the site, and editors who are already at least somewhat familiar with WP rules and standards. The former come with the same issues as all new editors. None of us love policing them, but that's just the nature of Wikipedia. The latter, who are the ones currently making the bulk of recent image-related edits, can be disruptive as well, but I've found that their changes have, on the whole, been an improvement, particularly those from ~2026-12024-51 (talk · contribs). TKOIII (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The point that this is a time-sink and some of these editors never learn. The TA you mentioned is unquestionably a block-evading sockpuppet, and GaryJAllen's combative attitude and occasional vandalism outweigh any marginal image improvements (and I'm considering the possibility that account may be a sock as well). --Sable232 (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't doubt them being sockpuppets, but that's its own issue. My argument is that editors of that type, as there have been many in the past (like BUTTON74 (talk · contribs) for instance), are often helpful to the wiki in spite of their imperfections and the time required to patrol them. This varies highly editor to editor, of course, but that's why I think sanctions or rule changes would be a negative here. When it comes to image edits, it almost always takes less time to patrol them than it does to make them in the first place. Therefore, as someone interested in improving the images on automotive Wikipedia, I'm fine sinking time into reviewing their edits and pruning the bad ones, since it saves me the time of making many of those edits myself. TKOIII (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I will note that I reported GaryJAllen to SPI and it came up as unlikely. I still think there's a possibility that the account is a sock, however. Cutlass^Ciera 22:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Nissan Rogue article. DrThneed (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tesla Autopilot#Requested move 27 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TECHART 997 Carrera#Requested move 28 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we have a problem with a collection of pages:

• Road tax
• Vehicle licence
• Vehicle registration certificate
• Motor vehicle registration
• Motor vehicle type approval

Some helpful perspective, I'm from the UK so I am familiar with the UK system. We have what is technically called vehicle excise duty but is commonly referred to as "road tax" or "vehicle tax".

• It is mentioned on Road tax#United Kingdom.
• It is now a fully digital system, however it formerly used a physical "tax disc" you displayed on your windscreen, which is the first image on the page Vehicle licence.

When you come into possession of a vehicle/when a vehicle's ownership details change, you register/update the registration of the vehicle. This information is stored in the V5C ("logbook") and the DVLA database.

• This process is mentioned on Vehicle registration certificate#United Kingdom

That's where the first problem arises, because these are two separate processes, yet on the page Vehicle licence (which displays an image of the old tax discs), it's claiming this is called "Vehicle registration certificate", linking to that page.

Our second problem comes in the form of the Motor vehicle registration, which it claims is something "different from motor vehicle licensing and roadworthiness certification."

• The image is of US (California) annual motor vehicle registration stickers. I may be wrong here, but I think this is probably comparable to "road tax" in the UK. An annual fee paid to the government to allow a particular vehicle to be used on the road for that duration.
• Whereas for the UK it goes on to talk about "type approval" system of the UK, which seems like it would fit better in the Motor vehicle type approval page, and seems different from the US registration stickers.

Granted, I am only closely familiar with the UK system, however the fact that these pages seem incredibly muddled with regards to UK information on them, makes me suspect there may also be some muddling with other regions too, and it would seem like we have five pages for three topics.

Specifically, "Road tax" and "Vehicle license" appear to largely refer to the same thing, and "Vehicle registration certificate" and "Motor vehicle registration" appear to largely refer to the same thing.

This doesn't seem to be a simple "merge two pages" situation given that the information on each given page appears to be a jumble between the topics however, so I would appreciate some input from more experienced editors (and people more intimately familiar with these systems in other countries). ~2026-86916-9 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the John Krafcik article. DrThneed (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Tesla, Inc. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there are Conflict of Interest edit requests relevant to this WikiProject (proposing a replacement for a dead link) at the Fuel economy in automobiles article and the Idle (engine) article. DrThneed (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)