Knowledge talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 6: Difference between revisions

5821:(which was made by maybe a dozen "companies" at various times and in various places - and depending on how you count them), I opted to put the most well known company name into the infobox - then used a company timeline template at the bottom of the page to describe the history of the corporate envolvement. If they care who owned what and when - they can follow the link in the infobox or look at the timeline to discover the history and corporate ownership stuff. This avoids duplication of information (which leads to errors and inconsistancies) and allows for a full exposition of the facts without cluttering up the actual car article. The average reader probably doesn't care much who made the car - they want to see "Volvo" up there because that's what the badge on the car (and the car dealership) said - and "Ford" would be confusing - but we most definitely want them to be able use Knowledge to DISCOVER that Ford were involved if they care about that. So placing that information somewhere on the page is sufficient to help the user navigate to the information they are looking for - but confusing them by making it overly prominent may not be a good thing either. It gets even worse when the top-level corporate ownership of a company like Volvo changed partway through the manufacturing run of a particular car model. Some Volvo C70's may be truly, genuinely made by a Swedish company called Volvo - where other later models were made by a Swedish subsidiary of Ford. I think the answer is to use the most common name in the body of the article - and to punt the discussion of who owned Volvo and when to a separate article about the Volvo Car company where full justice can be done to the historical details without getting in the way of all of the interesting information about a particular model of a particular car. By all means put a timeline template at the bottom of the page if the corporate history is complex enough to justify it. Take a look at 3893:

pages, specificly). I've noticed that there is general agreement that there should be an infobox, but as to what information it contains and how that information is displayed there is no general consensus (unless I'm overlooking one). There also seems to be no agreed upon example page, which is pretty disheartening. This project has been going on for a while now and yet there's no definite example to go by? I also noticed that there seems to be no uniform layout for all those templates. Compare the Volkswagen Group to the Ford to the Lancia templates (though if I could vote for the style I like best I'd pick the Lancia one...). If there really is to be some uniformity regarding model pages, I think we're all going to have to reach a consensus as soon as possible regarding page layout, infobox layout (and what information to include), external links layout (and what to include/exclude), templates, and any other aspects of a common Knowledge entry that I failed to mention. With this consensus, throw an example page together and we'll all go from there. If I'm overlooking anything that has already been officially decided, it's probably because there is no clear mention of it on the main project page. Any official decisions made about layout etc I definitely vote should be referenced on the main page. What a great idea for a project, and if any online community can pull it off it's this one. Now it just needs to be more standardized and uniform. Questions? Responses to questions? Comments?

960:

S-Type, which is related to the Mondeo, for example it stated Jaguar instead of Ford as the manufacturer, even though Ford aquired the company in 1989. My question is: should we state the marque in the space for manufacturer, as was the case for the Jags, or should we put in the manufacturer the parent company. I prefer the latter since stating the brand name twice, once in the infobox header and once under manufacturer is redundand. As to the issue on who is the manufacturer I think any company which has a controling share in the brand qualifies for being the parent company and thus the manufacturer (So, yes for the new Mazda 3 its Ford). I also don't think we need to mention the entire coperate history in the infobox. For the Range Rover I think we can just mention, Rover, BMW and Ford as manufacturers with dates behind in parentheses. For the LR 3 we only need to mention Ford as it was not produced while Land Rover belonged to BMW but only under Ford ownership. Also I have noticed that the Primier Auto Group is used as a manufacturer for Land Rover, by this logic Lincoln-Mercury should be mentioned for the production of Lincolns instead of Frod. Citing the next highest subsidary in the coperate hirachy is not specific enough and PAG doesn't tell the readers anything, Ford does. Redards.

4218:

which could really use a standardized makeover) but is there an example page to go by for layout and other aspects? If not, I vote we get on that, too. If a company like GM owns many subcompanies (Chevy, Hummer, Pontiac, Saab, GMC, etc etc etc) in the same way that a company like VAG owns subcompanies (VW and Audi), many of which own further subcompanies (VW owns Bentley, Bugatti, VW, etc; Audi owns Lamborghini, SEAT, Audi...), and most of which work with other sub-companies within the same parent company and other companies altogether.... if you don't follow, my point is proven. It's a confusing mess. So for the good of all, I propose that any company linked to another (sub-/parent-/partner-/etc-) company, be done in an easily understandable, uniform method, perhaps through a template with a standardized layout (though obviously the contained information would change depending upon which companies it is linking). Again, any official decisions should be noted on the main page of this project for all contributors to access easily and use in their updates and new pages. Thoughts?

3956:

type aesthetically resemble other templates of that same type (model timelines in this case). If that makes more sense. For example, same colors, same font, same graph, etc. It looks like that is also being handled. But there are other templates, too, that list a company's models (without putting them in chronological order). For example, the Volkswagen model template and the Lancia model template. These two look nothing alike layout-wise. My idea was to find a style that can be used for this type of template so that from page to page and company to company there is a better organized feel to our Automobiles project, rather than a collage of many differently styled templates. Are the model timeline templates being designed to phase out the other model template style? Or will they both continued to be used? Perhaps I could try to start us off by replicating your Lancia template to use for another company. So um, does that sound better to you or equally as useless? Haha, oh well I'm new to this. I will find a way to contribute somehow, I promise!--

819:

to go in and fixup hundreds of links that used to point to it that now point to a dismbig. The word "Corsa" (for example) is too short. It might have other meanings in the future - which means that it might have to become a disambiguation page eventually - so it's a terrible name for the main article and should be a redirect. But I really don't think it matters whether "Opel Corsa" or "General Motors Corsa" is the name of the article - just so long as whichever one ISN'T the "One True Name" is a redirect. The user types "Opel Corsa", hits the "GO" button and finds themselves at "General Motors Corsa" and probably says to themselves "Huh! I didn't know Opel was owned by GM." and happily reads the article. However, we should be very careful to say (somewhere in the first few sentences of the introduction) "...also known as the

918:

a lot of people won't know who owns RR. So the info box should clearly mention all of the parent company names that are not part of the name of the car...but go ahead and add that name too because of the issue we've been discussing of "Opel Corsa" versus "GM Corsa". Some people will know the car by one name and some by the other - so BOTH need to be in the info box so that whichever kind of reader you are, you get to find out the other name. One could argue that this should be discussed in the body of the article - and perhaps it should - but the Infobox also serves the purpose of nudging the article writer (and the Peer reviewers, Good Article nominators and Featured Article nit-pickers) to make sure that all of this information is present in the article SOMEWHERE.

1996:(coming to the front page on 29th April!), we put a very 'typical' Mini photo into the infobox (which is only supposed to be an 'at a glance summary') - and attached other photos where the narrative of the article demanded them. If you put more photos into the infobox, it's going to scroll the numerical and other data down off the bottom of the screen - which is less useful for people who just want to find a quick fact. If you get into showing all of the varients then for some cars (Mini included) you'd need a dozen photos wedged into the infobox. We'd have needed Morris, Austin, Innocenti, saloon, Elf/Hornet, pickup, estate wagon, panel van and jeep to cover all of the main varients). The infobox needs to be kept short and contain the bare essentials. 3159:

since an article on future vehicles, unlike an article on concept vehicles, features descriptions of events that are planned by have not actually taken place. Articles on future vehicles feature speculatory content that is sbuject to change, as is the nature with any article concerning planned events. Articles on concept vehicles on the other hand describe a vehicles that was actually built and goes into further detail concerning the reasons for the production of the vehicle. The difference is quite simple, a concept car is a vehicle that was actually built and the article concerning it, should not feature as much speculation as an article on the planned production of a vehicle. Regards,

5845:. These brands manufacture their "own" vehicles in their "own" factories located (mostly) in their respective countries of origin. PAG maintains overall management control over the brands, and is responsible for the financial accounting aspects, including producing a profit, and also sharing engineering knowledge and simple parts where feasible. Ford Motor Company is not so bullish as to claim to be the "manufacturer" of Volvo cars in the strictest sense, any more than a parent would claim responsibility for a son's game winning home run. The "Ford side" needs to lighten up and let the kids play the game, and the kids need to recognize that daddy is in charge overall. -- 900:

which is in part owned by Renault? I think listing both comanies might be a solution if it is somewhat unclear who the parent company is, in the case of Mazda, both Mazda and Ford would be listed. If we don't mention the manufacturer but just the brand, we would have to remove Toyota Motor from the infoboxes on the Lexus articles and replace it with Lexus, we would have do the same for Lincoln, Cadillac and all the other GM and Ford brands. It seems that the best way to go is to always list the company which has a controlling share in the marque. So, for Jag its Ford and Bentley its VW, for Chevy its GM and Dodge, DaimlerChrysler. Any other suggestions? Regards,

949:...indicating that BMC manufactured the car under both the Austin and Morris marques with the car having different names in each case - with BMC becoming British Leyland who manufactured the car under a different set of names - and who had two other companies (subsidiaries or consortium members) making the car in other countries...possibly with other names. The trouble with this is that this diagram will be too complex to fit into an infobox in some cases - and we already have a complex set of templated diagrams that attempt to capture (with varying success) the tangled web of companies, parent companies, factory names, marques, car names and model names. 4016:

can get pretty cumbersome in case of brands present in various different market, exisiting over a longer time, frequently changing models or simply having a wide lineup. You can often find yourself in need of placing two or even three timeline templates beneath an article, which makes them take up more space than the entire article, and defies the major function of a template - making navigation through articles more convenient. I believe that we might consider either using more advanced tools to develop more sophisticated, concise and good-looking templates, or move timelines to separate articles, which is what I believe is a good idea for now.

1143:- and linked to from the car article. So if you take that view then it's much less critical what we say in the car article - so long as we link to the place where the full details are explained. I conclude that we should take a relaxed attitude and use the most common name for the most commonly accepted "car company" (whatever that means) in the infobox (which really needs to be kept short) - and just make sure that we link to the in-depth information in the article itself. Also - use the available car company timelines and 'cars made by' templates - which do a great job of expanding on that information. 811:

shortest form of the name. "Corsa" - not "Opel Corsa" or "GM Corsa" and FOR SURE not "General Motors Corsa" because it's too much typing - but whatever the article is named - you should most certainly have redirect pages from all of those other names so that the end user is not presented with a 'search result' when they wanted a quick way to find a simple answer. That is our job here in naming articles...one stop shopping. If by some fancy set of "rules" posted by Wikiproject Automobiles, we cause a single user to have to make an extra mouse click - we have made things worse.

4054:

However, if you have any more specific information for me about the unique style, please explain that. If you mean how the color of the template matches the colors in the image, or you were referring to the image itself or the way the models were arranged, or something else altogether. Basically, whatever you feel is unique to Italian design or Lancia more specificly, I will try to avoid replicating in my own version. Sometimes I can't always grasp every little meaningful detail and nuance in an object of simplicity unless it is explained in some detail. Thanks again.

793:

Therefore just like the Holden Statesman article is called Holden Statesman, the Opel Omega article should be called Opel Omega and not General Motors Omega. Also it was never my intend to merge the LS and S-Type, I said calling the Opel Omega article General Motors Omega is like calling the Jaguar S-Type the Ford S-Type article or the Lincoln LS article, the Ford LS article - which is nonsense. The Omega is only made by Opel not Vauxhall and not Holden (we have seperate articles for those); thus the article should be called the Opel Omega. Thanks.

827:

the actual manufacturer or by consortiums of companies who happen to use the same design. No convention will ever withstand all of that messiness. So lets make the convention a pragmatic one: I propose: "Pick any one of the possible names - but be sure it's one that won't ever need to become a disambiguation page in the future. All other names should become redirects. Make very sure that somewhere in the introduction of the article, you give all of the alternative names so that the reader does not think he's been sent to the wrong article."

639:

Ford Motor Company Mondeo to cover the Ford Mondeo and the Jaguar X-Type; the DaimlerChrysler E-Class to cover the Merc E-Class, Dodge Charger/Magnum, and Chrysler 300; the PSA 307 for the Peugeot 307 and C4; the Toyota Motor Corporation Camry for the Toyota Camry, the Lexus ES, and the Daihatsu Altis; etc.? Do you see the absurdity of the artifical "GM" brand for cars like the Opel Corsa and Opel Astra? Therefore, I propose that in keeping with the home-market naming scheme, all cars that currently have the artifical "GM" name in them (the

616:

of you who don't know GM's apparatus very well, Adam Opel AG is owned, technically, by GM Europe, which also Vauxhall Motors Ltd., of Luton, England, UK. Now, since most current Vauxhalls are really just RHD Opels (the VX220 and the Monaro being the exception), there is obviously a problem. However, I don't see just a problem in regards to Vauxhalls - I see a problem with all of the Opels in general. Now I know that some people in here that can interpret the "home-market" precedent to what is being done on, say, the

3772:

so i remove it. so i guess what i am saying is, visit each site and if you think certain sites should not be there; remove them. if an ip address adds them back, i say remove them again. cause i mean, if they aren't taking the time to register with wikipedia and get an account i honestly don't think they should be adding any content, or at least what they add should be heavily monitored. but then again, if someone that is registered re-adds the site, i say talk it out with them and come to a conclusion on what to do.

682:

Omega. I for one support your petition for having the name changed from General Motors Omega to Opel Omega, as we already have different articles for similar vehicles (which I favor as opposed to merging articles), and the Omega was only sold under the Opel name. Besdies one could create a platform article to cover the similarities between vehicles. The Lincoln LS and Jaguar X-Type are related, of course there is no Ford X-Type/LS article, but there is an article for the platform both vehicles share. Regards,

2115:

either jump onto the ground and run alongside the car while it's rolling down the street at maybe 5mph - other people climb onto the hood or onto the roof while the car is still moving with nobody behind the wheel. There are multiple movies of cars slamming into trees and telephone polls...you name it. These appear to be ordinary people - not stuntmen or actors. Sadly, this is all too real and the term "Ghostriding" is indeed the most common term for it. Geez...idiots.

1212:

But then, in the infobox they might find the information that the car was made when Volvo's parent company was Ford, Volvo AB or that the vehicle was made at Nedcar. Of course, the same info might be put somewhere in the article, but the infobox (more or less on par with the "summary" in the first paragraphs of the article, or perhaps just the first sentence) serves as a "first glance info" source and I believe that such info is important enough to be put there.

5672: 2572:. There may be other similar banners out there, perhaps even with a stronger warning about adding unsourced speculative information, or against publishing secret corporate "inside information", which could constitute an anti-competitive antitrust violation, and which could be illegal and expose the Knowledge to litigation. If such a banner does not exist, then perhaps someone should make a new one. Anyway here is the one I am aware of: -- 81: 5015: 1060:

automaker was during the production (and presumably design) of the model (any resulting issues should be discussed in the article). The fact that Volvos are manufactured by Volvo should be quite obvious to readers, especially that it is usually stated in the first sentence of the article. Information on the fact that Volvo was an independent automaker or Ford-controlled at that time is very important and should not be omitted.

843:

Rolls-Royce Phantom it states BMW as the manufacturer, same for Lincoln and Cadillac where we state Ford and GM as the manufacturer and Lexus where Toyota is stated as the manufacturer. Should we use the actual manufacturer such as Ford for Jag and Linc, GM for Caddi and Chevy, and VW for Bentley or should we use the marque under which the vehicles are sold such as Lincoln, Lexus, Infiniti, etc...? Thank you. Regards,

727:

always mention the name of the marque under which a car is sold. Its not the General Motors Escalade or the VW Azure. No, its the Cadillac Escalade and the Bentley Azure. It is the same with Opel and the Omega, we already have articles for the Vauxhall, Holden and Cadillac versions of the car, so the Omega article solely deals with the Opel version and thus like all other car articles should be called the Opel Omega.

5682: 304::#I think the opening paragraph above the contents box is too wordy. A shorter summarisation should do, since most of the info currently there could better be contained in the main body of the article, especially ''"developed by Chrysler Europe, but produced by PSA and marketed under the Talbot marque after PSA took over Chrysler's European operations"'', which deserves to be in the 'Development' section. 3913:

over a hundred years in many markets, with a multitude of models. In each case, an appropriate solution must be found to present the information in a useful and visually appealing way. Besides, the whole aim with the Lancia template (which is a stopgap measure anyway, containing only a part of the links it should) was to reflect the brand, which would be rather impossible with uniform template layouts.

3187:: The text of the proposed template says that the article may contain text of a speculative nature - this isn't really likely. Many concept cars existed far into the past - and so long as the article talks about the actual concept car - and not some hypothetical model that might come out of it - then there is nothing speculative about it. You can write an article about a concept car - such as 1064:

too). The French Government and such are not automakers, so they are not a problem here. Another use for this field is mentioning non-brand-specific manufacturing companies, such as NUMMI, Auto Alliance, Pininfarina and such, as well as clarifying the situations where "shared" models are manufactured solely by one automaker (like VW should be the manufacturer for MK I Ford Galaxy minivan).

3909:

totally unfit for another - what I believe might be the right thing to do is to try to elevate as many articles as possible to GA or FA status, and model the remainder after them (in hope many of them could also become FA or GA in due course). Most issues that really require a uniform decision being cast are being discussed on this very talk page and usually there are consesuses reached.

3100:

should be deleted. I think the real intent here was to try to warn readers that the information and specifications posted on upcoming and possible future automobiles may be very speculative and should not be considered "final". There have been a number of reversion wars over these issues, and compromises, like these templates, are being worked out and tested. Thanks for your input. --

1170:

cases. This way the user just gets more info. Also, in te case of Volvo, considering the control FoMoCo has over the brand and how Volvo and Ford are sharing components and personell, it only makes sense to list Ford in the infobox. Also, Ford controls the factors of production - If you control the factors of production, aren't you manufacturer? Thank for contributing! Regards,

3801:

inappropriate to link to local owner club forums because to do a comprehensive job would require hundreds or perhaps thousands of such links - and Knowledge is not a link directory. I think a reader who wanted to find out about a particular kind of car would be very interested to find an owner club - so pointing to a place where they could find one would be a good thing.

2949:

future product banner. If you do not have authoritive sources for anything you write about that is in the future then what you wrote may be deleted by any other editor. If an article from the Auto Bild states that there may be a redesign in 2010, then only that sentnece may be incorperated, preferable with the sources cited in the text itself.

3740:("Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Knowledge is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Knowledge, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked.") 6221:. I'm having the same trouble with a user repeatedly spamming the Mitsubishi Eclipse article with a link to floridaeclipseclub.com (I've reverted four times in the past 24 hours). Still, it's reassuring to know admins like Jeremy are doing the same thing as myself - makes me feel more of a responsible editor and less of a link nazi. 4223:

edit for a comment on that - each case is more or less different, so we would have to decide on so many rules that it would become pure bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Let us just make sure every brand has an appropriate, exhaustive and visually attractive template (which is more or less what is being done) - how about that?

1109:

that listing the mother company as manufactorer is wrong since it eliminates all form of diversity. All car companies are not run the same (GM) way with all brands as divisions, and the current practice does not acknowledge that. This practice does also eliminate companies like Pininfarina that are hardly recognized at all. --

1533:: If the goal is simply to have the logo on each of the relevant car pages (eg. on pages where they're allowed under fair use), and to not change the visual layout of each of the pages (eg. still display the logo inside the box), then there's another way to do it: I modified {{BMW cars}} to take an optional parameter (image) 755:(various name for the same vehicle as well as same names for different vehicles). I believe we should focus on the technical content, and not the name, but we need to name the article somehow. I believe that the "home market" rule might serve as a rule of a thumb unless it causes confusion (like in the case of Kalos/Gentra). 1330:

magazine does an article on Chevy, do they have to ask GM for permission to use the Chevy logo? And if somebody here got up and did a photo of their Lacetti's bonnet, cropped the bowtie and pasted here instead of the previous Chevy logo, would it be OK (apart from the fact that it would look absolutely horrible)? --

7056:(one of the most reknown auto review writers in the US - published in Newsweek). While reviews may be helpful in certain cases where the car is either a cultural icon and it is important to mention how it is preceived or if the review contains hard factual data. Otherwise, however, there is no need to mention the 315::#Your table of sales figures is very messy, and I think should possibly be scrapped. The problem looks to be that there's 2-3 sources which are in conflict with each other. In that case, I'd say its possible ''all'' of them could be wrong. Better to just have a paragraph with approximate sales figures? 6284:

The main wikipedia MoS on numbers, dates, and units is pretty useless when it comes to all the nonstandard units we use (cc or cm³ instead of mL, ci or in³ instead of, I dunno, fl.oz?, rpm instead of Hz, etc). Do we have a standard or even a guideline for units anywhere? It can be pretty confusing.

5816:

We keep coming back (over and over again) to this question of who is the manufacturer of a car. We debate it a lot - but come to no conclusions. I don't think there is a simple answer. Some "company" names are really just labels stuck onto the cars - others are manufacturing plants, yet others are

4148:

GA is a pretty weak criteria. Most articles simply sit in the list for the required 2 weeks - then go though by default. Maybe nobody even read the article. All we know is that none of the people who read it were moved to object. FA is a different matter. We have to go through Peer review (which

3912:

As concerns templates, well, thank you for your comment on the Lancia template :D I don't think there will ever be and should be a uniform template layout - each and every case is different, we have brands that are present in a single market for less than two decades, and brands with history spanning

3892:

First I'd like to say hello to everyone, as I'm both new to this project and Knowledge in general. However in the few days I've been reviewing this project page and the discussions going on behind the scenes, I've noticed a great lack of direction and uniformity (in regards mainly to automobile model

3214:

Well, i think i may have been drunk or something (if i even drank... pff), cause now that i look back i can't even make sense of what i was originally asking. i really agree that there shouldn't be a template for concept cars. even though it seems like i was aiming at that as my question. plus a lot

2806:

is acting in such a way as to actually hinder rather than help the development of the article. I have made every effort to refine, to source, to cite, and, in general, to use moderated language. There are a scant two paragraphs on the 5th generation, but what is there is cited, it is interesting, and

2607:

I suppose as long as some speculation comes from automotive magazines and newspapers, I don't have a problem with it. The specific problem with the Audi S4 is that this anon user isn't even using sourced information. The future models forecast on the Motor Trend website simply says nothing more "2010

1903:

says, it's a pay-to-view site - which is also discouraged. This link has three strikes against it...I think it should go. Actually, I'd dump the LVC site too - it's also a forum system. I would keep an owner club type site if it had a large, free information content with the forum being just a very

1482:

Have every one of us here chime in on the WP:FUP talk page so that it is clear that we (The WikiProject:Automobiles members) believe that this is not an appropriate rule and should be modified for the specific case of very small company logos used on templates that describe either: The history of the

1384:

Yeah, closely replicating logos would generally be a copyright/trademark violation. Re: Bravada, lots of websites violate copyright, but Knowledge strives for higher standards, particularly because it's a large entity, and does have monetary assets, and could have larger damages awarded against it.

1169:

This depends on each individual case, as I explained to you, the first time I reverted your edits. If I vist the Volvo S80 article, I already know I am looking at a Volvo, I don't need for the infobox to tell me what I already got from the title. So, we mention the parent company manufacturer in most

959:

Indeed, that diagram is a bit complex ;-) Currently we mention the manufacturer (or parent company) in the infobox while the marque and vehicle name are mentioned in the header. The thing is that some on some articles such as those for Jaguars, the brand name was mentioned under manufacturer. For the

879:

I would suggest dropping it altogether if it was just to include the brand (Jag, Mazda etc.), as the (original) brand is usually included in the title of the article. If it was to stay, I propose a solution like the "Corporation Link" @ Global AutoIndex (e.g. Mazdas have "Corporation Links" to Ford).

754:

I of course support Dan in what he said - all the vehicles he mentioned are first and foremost Opels that have been later adopted by other GM overseas divisions. Cars are quite unlike many other subjects of Knowledge articles in that their names are often not directly related to the technical content

615:

The calling of these cars as "General Motors" vehicles creates a problem. First off, these cars (Agila (with Suzuki), Corsa, Astra, Vectra, Zafira, Sintra, Omega, Combo, Vivaro (with Renault), Movano (with Renault), Calibra, and Tigra) were designed by Adam Opel AG in Russelheim, Germany. For those

6842:, was probably intended for articles on very recent concept vehicles, to justify unfounded speculation on the future development and implications of the concept. As we have discussed here before, such speculations do not belong in the Knowledge, and therefore both them and the template are redundant. 5997:

The Concept car page has a subsection titled "Some Concept Cars." As the name suggests, it is imcomplete. An idea I had is that whenever someone comes across, adds, or edits a page about a concept car, check the page, and if that car is not there, add it to the list, and add a quick description as

5902:

Nothing to stop us ditching the manufacturer tag, but linking to the 'brand' page from the infobox, and explaining the ownership structure there. That way you don't get the complication of changes of ownership halfway through a model's life, because (hopefully) individual cars aren't being discussed

5723:

Ah, I'm sorry Bravada! I didn't mean to lose you at all there. I think G.Brendel got my point though. It's that second template that you have displayed there that I kind of had pictured in my mind but didn't see anywhere on the project page. Perfect example of a "template with a standardized layout"

4049:

I will check out the "outdated" layout section in greater detail soon. However it is not that section that troubles me, it's the area on the front page which explains that we, as a project, have no example page to go by. Don't you--or anyone else besides myself--see a kind of urgency here in getting

4019:

Feel free to use the Lancia template as the starting point, but please take note that it has been specifically adjusted to reflect the style of the brand and is only suitable for this individual case. I would advise you to go and search for examples you find appealing in this and other Wikipedias (I

3955:

As for the templates: of course they will and should be different. The template G.Brendel showed below of a company's model timeline would have many different categories, years, models, etc from any other company with a model timeline template. My idea was simply to have any template of a particular

3771:

article there are quite a few links to regional enthusiast sites. i just visit each link and decide by myself if it is relevant and should be there. for example, lately an ip has been adding a link to a site with no real content on the supra (other than three pictures). it is just chock full of ads,

3324:

i have done some heavy editing in that article and i keep seeing people adding bullshit to the MKV section. they are trying to pass the information off and say its a "future vehicle" when it is not, and it never will be until toyota says otherwise (or they surprise us). then they go off and say blah

3267:

This brings about yet another issue - should we really have so many articles on "future", "speculative", "possible" vehicles (and many "vehicles somebody would want to come true"). Today's Edmunds says that the Astra-based compact Saab, previously rumored as 9-2, will be 9-1, and immediately there's

3199:

be useful to have a concept car template (I'm never very convinced of the value of such things) - it most certainly SHOULDN'T give the impression that the article is automatically badly written (because it's speculative) - when in fact it's a perfectly good article about an actual object that really

2167:

As the current discussion page has reached 64 posts (65 posts if you count this one), I would like to archive the first 50, as was done in the first archive. Any suggestions, comments, objections? If there are no objections I will go ahead and archive the first 50 posts in a week (Afterall edits can

1560:

I guess I don't completely grok the no-fair-use-in-templates rule. My understanding so far, is that templates allow images to be spread willy-nilly throughout the encyclopedia, without individual consideration for whether a fair-use image is allowed on a specific page or not. Which is bad, because

1368:

Couldn't we create our own logos using photoshop. With many logos such as Lincoln and Chevy, one could easly create my own copy of the logo. Would such practice still violate the copyright tules (which I mostly dislike as well)? The problem here is of course that some logos such as Cadillac are very

1063:

So, I believe that the practice should be (and in general is, as the cleanup of automotive articles progresses) to mention the top-level automaker, i.e. the automaker of which the brand is a division/subsidiary or which controls the company (so, I would advocate FoMoCo in appropriate Mazda infoboxes

917:

Once again - forget about this being a formal convention - what does the end user need? If the car is called a "Rolls Royce Phantom" - then telling them that it's made by Rolls Royce has very little information content. Telling them that it's ACTUALLY made by BMW has a TON of information content -

826:

You aren't ever going to be able to come up with a single standard - there are enough examples of cars being made by one company in one country - by a subsidiary in another, by a company that bought the original company and either did or didn't change the name - by marques that are better known than

810:

I think that with this debate (as with the manufacturers name in infobox debate below) we should ask ourselves what the reader needs. In the end, that is the ONLY thing that matters. So - for the name of the article: What will the user type into the Knowledge search box and hit "GO"? Probably the

776:

One more thing - the "GM Astra" article, for example, causes the need for not only Opel Astras, but also Vauxhall Astras and Holden Astras to be included, while those nameplates have a different history and therefore deserve individual articles IMHO (even if at some point merely directing the reader

7055:

Even if there are reviews stating something about poor quality, one needs to remember that car reviews are just the opinion of the tester in most cases. Knowledge is an encyclopdia and simply stating someone's opinion on a car isn't very encyclopdic unless you're editing the Tara Weingarten article

6849:

In general, this article could be a 100x better if a simple easy thing was done - references were provided. Simply, state the sources you used when compiling this article, or try to find some that would support what you wrote there. Do remember that every piece of information (except for absolutely

6064:

I don't think that we should take a vote. It's bad policy to keep long and aspiring-to-be-complete lists within articles in general. I don't know whether there are formal policies dealing with that, but you will often see this as a reason for failing articles for FA or GA status. It just looks bad.

4249:

Okay, somehow I think I have trouble understanding- sorry. But nonetheless, I think I know what you're asking. Okay, here's what we have now: templates with the different models of a brand (see below) and we have templates telling all the brands belong to a company (see below as well). I think this

3908:

Now you are probably right regarding the layout of the article etc. being uniformized and agreed upon. I believe we are on the right way towards it more by means of collaboratively editing subsequent articles than formalizing it even further. On the other hand, a layout fit for one article might be

3416:

I was thinking about what things the reader of an article about a particular car might be curious about. We have Infobox sections for "Predecessor" and "Successor" - which help you to understand what this design replaced - and what finally improved on it enough to obsolete it. But wouldn't it also

3158:

I also agree that a special template for concept vehicles is not needed. Usually it states right in the first paragrpah that the subject is a concept vehicle. Besides concept vehicles are not usually subject to speculation as are future vehicles. The template for future vehicles exsits as a warning

2958:

state what is published in widly respected sources, and please cite these sources so it is clear to the reader. I think we really have to be careful about going to far into the future and the speculation that could result from doing so; thus we have to be very precise and careful of our sources and

2907:

You have devoted more than a half of your edits to this case. I guess it really isn't worth it. There are plenty of articles waiting to be expanded and improved with factual information, some of them haven't even been started yet. There are many other ways to contribute to Knowledge without causing

2309:

Nevertheless, there seems not to be any firm conclusion or policy on that, so I wanted to ask you about this particular case before I go on with any changes. I believe that a good rule of a thumb in such cases is not whether a vehicle "merits" an article, but whether the amounts of text/information

1450:

Sign me up too! My understanding is that an encyclopedia should not only contain raw data, but should also try to convey facts in a most convenient and informative way. It's like Dorling Kindersley "Eyewitness" books - you could just write a lenghty essay on a topic, but thanks to thoughtful layout

1215:

Now another thing is that referring to the parent company as "manufacturer" can be misleading, and therefore I believe we might use a more suitably named field in the infobox. I don't have a very good idea for that name at the moment, perhaps simply "Parent company" or maybe "Corporation link"? The

1043:

Welcome to the project, Dahlis! Let me add that starting your activity within a project by being impudent (to say the least) to another project member, especially one that has been a longtime contributor and the spiritus movens behind the creation of two of our scarce Good Articles, is not the best

818:

So what name should be chosen for the "One True Name" of the article? I believe it is the one that is least likely to need to become a disambiguation page in the future. If a redirect has to become a disambig - then that's no biggie. But if the article itself becomes a redirect then you may have

726:

Yes any convention which resultet in the Opel Omega being called the General Motors Oemga needs to be re-evaluated. Holden, for example, never had the name Omega in its line-up, instead the vehicle was called the Statesman, for Cadillac it was called the Catera. The bottom line is that car articles

638:

the General Motors Tavera; the Chevy Niva the General Motors Niva; etc. It doesn't stop there - how about the Ford Motor Company Taurus to cover the Taurus and Sable; the Ford Motor Company Explorer to cover the Mazda Navajo, the Mercury Mountaineer, the Lincoln Aviator, and the Ford Explorer; the

7092:

article considerably and started wondering whether it might be a good candidate for GA or even FA. Before I put it through formal "general" peer review, I would like to ask for your opinions first. In particular, I would appreciate native speakers' opinions on (and corrections to) the language and

6609:

Great job putting the article together, Fluence, and also good job team, if I can say so, actually COLLABORATING on it! Seems like we have a rare example of the efforts of a few members focusing on one article here. I believe it's a great idea to try to improve this article to serve as a model for

6206:

There seem to have been a bazillion links to the classic-cars-online.co.uk website added to car articles across Knowledge. I checked out the IP address of the vandal and it belongs to the same ISP that hosts the classic-cars-online website - so it's pretty clear that this is linkspam of the worst

4222:

Now I got lost both in the part where I should and in the subsequent one, where I guess I wasn't supposed to. I understand your problem is that you believe there should a uniform template for linking brands/subsidiaries/divisions of one automaker with the other and the mother company. See my above

4170:

page for some time and I must say there aren't more articles that pass than that are failed, and both is usually well reasoned. Most of the articles promoted within the last weeks were really good and fulfilled the criteria, which are quite similar to GA. The important differences are the size and

4015:

Now, as concerns templates - I have commented on why the templates cannot and should not be uniformized in the following section. But they can for sure be improved. some members here believe that timelines are better than standard templates, as they are more informative, but on the other hand they

3800:

I believe that the intent of the admonition in WP:EL is to tell people not to link to the CONTENT in forums because it tends to be ephemeral. I don't think it would be inappropriate to have ONE link to some kind of single international owner's club or umberella organisation. I think it's highly

2475:

Well, I was thinking of the Daewoo times actually, when the Tacuma name was more widespread - it was quite popular as Daewoo Tacuma here (not that I think it is a good reason, I am just explaining my simple ways of so-called "thinking"). Still, Daewoo Tacuma returns the most hits in Google (rather

2114:

The Google hits are indeed completely consistent with the article. There are MANY videos out there of stupid people opening the driver-side door while the car is in motion - stepping out so one foot is on the window-sill of the door - the other is on the driver seat. More adventurous people then

1937:

There are some articles that would benefit from infoboxes having multiple photos. Particularly in the case of badge-engineered identical vehicles (Dodge Caravan / Plymouth Voyager, Toyota Corolla / Geo Prizm, etc.), it would be more parsimonious to have two photos and one set of specs. I have seen

1917:

conservative, I see forum links ocassionally. Though even if one takes the view that external links should be of a fair bit of benefit to the reader (and thus sometimes allowing forums), for-pay sites are much less useful to general readers, and I would think should be even more clearly removed.

1890:

recommendations on external links to 'Fan Sites' also applies here. It's hard to think of Lincoln owners as 'fans' - but that's what this is all about. WP:EL says that links to fan sites are "Occasionally acceptable" - and that only ONE such link should be made. WP:EL specifically bans links to

1661:

Well, depending on the size of each stub, one could merge the stubs for a certain company in a certain country. For example, one could merge all the stubs for Ford Manufacturing plants in the US into one large article. Since I am, however, for having seperate articles, I seriously question whether

1339:

Thank you Bravada. If you feel strongly about it, then you need to go to the Fair Use policy page and comment on the talk page. I have had the most unpleasant expirience with the person doing this. On my talk page he charged me with not having good faith because I reverted his edit; he went onto

1211:

Let me explain how the reader gets more info - the first sentence of the article should specify and provide a link to the brand. There is no need to reiterate this information in the infobox, besides for most people familiar with cars as such it is quite obvious that Volvo C70 is a car from Volvo.

1118:

Yes, it does. Go the car company article, here you'll find out whether or you're looking at a subsidary or a division. Otherwise the parent company in many cases such as Volvo and Ford is the manufacturer as it controls the factors of production. Also, I contacted you right away after changing the

1108:

My though was of course not to join this project to be impudent, as I had no idea that the practice was to list the mother company as manufactorer. The only thing i knew was that somewone edited the autoboxes i had added without giving a legitimate reason. Now back to the point, I strongly believe

624:

pages. However, I think that there is a problem. You see, although all the cars mentioned in these pages (for example, regarding the Corsa, the Opel Vita, the Opel Corsa Lite, the Chevrolet Corsa, etc.) might look different, visually and also with engine choice, they are all the same Opel Corsa,

6716:

could be very informative, given all the peculiarties of the market and industry there and how they influence Japanese (and other) automakers. I believe mentions of the American definitions and distinction between cars and trucks, CAFE, EPA, NHTSA and IIHS should go in there, perhaps also the UAW

6123:

Okay, I have fixed the model spans, so that each current models runs until 2009, the end of the template, as in other manufacturer sites. The reason why the years look "uneven" is because some models have to fit their entire description within one year. Let me know if you have any other concerns.

6036:

article is linked from the category page. I do however think that the "Some concept cars" list is somewhat unfit for an encyclopedia as there is a much more comprehensive list of concept vehicles in the category. Having a half-done list may just be worse than having no list and only a link to the

3336:

so what should i do about this? i'm thinking just to remove it, and maybe add a section titled "future generations" and state that "toyota has continued to state there will be no more additions to the toyota supra line". (i have references.) maybe add some other things in there about how lexus is

2948:

This issue is actually quite easy to solve. As Bravada said, this is an encyclopdia, there is no room for speculation. Yes, if something is in the near future and has been anounced by the newsmakers and published in several authoritive publications we can include it and in the case of car use the

2015:

article a picture of a GMC Yukon would be used as the article actually is about two different vehicles which are merged into one article due to their technological similarities. Here the idea makes somewhat sense. I am, however, still oposed to the idea of multiple pictures in the infobox as this

1500:

If (as I suspect) we get no clear direction from WP:FUP's talk page after (say) a week - then we post a consensus view here - on this page - that we believe the automotive timeline and product templates are a clear exception to WP:FUP - and we can vote on that. If we show clear consensus (policy

899:

It's not quite that complicated in all cases. The Rolls-Royce Phantom is made by BMW as that is the parent company and thus the manufacturer. VW owns Bentley, Toyota owns Lexus and Ford own Lincoln and Jag. All these brands are very clearly owned by another copertation. But then what about Nissan

861:

Welcome to the world of globalisation. I think that the manufacturer should be stated as the marque name. Jaguar should be made by Jaguar Cars and Bentley by Bentley Motors otherwise we get into a real mess. Take for example the Ford Galaxy, Seat Alhambra, VW Sharan, essentially the same vehicle

760:

Vauxhall Astra etc. is probably not the most frequently used name in English, except if we take UK only as the proving ground. If you'd look at the almost 100% English www.gminsidenews.com, the Opels are more frequently mentioned than Vauxhalls. A lot more people use English than just THE English

681:

Well, you make a point it is the Opel Omega, not the General Motors Omega, the Omega nameplate was only used by Opel, not Holden nor Vauxhaul nor Cadillac. The versions of the "Omega" from these companies such were, however, almost identical such as the Cadillac Catera, Holden Statesman, and Opel

6683:

Great idea, Bravada. That would actually be an intereting project to have articles that list the vehicles for a given market. Do we already have such an article for the US and Canada? Otherwise I'd like to create one and the names Cars in America or List of cars in America arn't used. I just got

6610:

future articles like that, serving as introductions to the automotive culture of given countries - the history, the peculiarities, motorsports and autoshows overview and such. For me, it would be very interesting to know how it differs between countries and what do some peculiarities result from.

6377:

continues to grow, and I hope soon we will hear of more good news like that. In the meantime, I encourage you to nominate some better articles you know, and also improve other with references so that we could nominate them too! Perhaps we might also consider concentrating our efforts by means of

6239:

I actually got a reply from classic-cars-online - they are unapologetic - claiming that a link to their site was relevent because they only added it to classic car pages. (Untrue - "Ford Motor Company" was also hit). I'm trying to reply without using the word 'moron' more than twice in the same

4217:

Moreso even than the model pages, currently I'm most interested in the topic of automaker companies/parent companies/groups of companies/etc. I was wondering if there has been any thought put into how to organize and interlink pages about these companies. I've seen some of the templates (most of

4074:

I think we really should have a "model article" to link to, at least regarding layout. Unfortunately, current selected articles are not quite good examples here - either they do not comply (like don't use infoboxes) or are quite peculiar and don't give a good overview. I think an example article

2637:

pretty clearly says unsourced material "may be removed by any editor" and "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So, if there's no date for the S4, then it can be discussed and ultimately removed.

2051:

Sadly, I think it's a real term. It's a neologism in that it's a relatively newly made up term for a new craze...but it wasn't made up by the person who wrote the article. It passes the 'google test'. You can find a dozen ghostriding (or ghostridin') references. Hopefully a few well deserved

1349:

Well, actually I feel strongly about it, but that's going against Knowledge as a whole and not only Ed Sanders. The whole policy is a bit retarded IMHO, as I infer from you said on Ed's talk page that the law allows for the use of corporate logos in templates, and it's only Knowledge policy that

1185:

I dont see how the reader gets more info, I would say its the opposit since one link in the chain is skipped. Say im reading an article on a car model, then i want to know more about the brand and its history so i click the manufactorer link and end up on a page that has nothing to do with that.

1059:

I believe the "manufacturer" field should perform a similar role as "corporation link" at Global Autoindex, but on a model level. Perhaps the name is a bit unfortunate and might be misleading, but I can't think of a better one anyway. The role of such field is to inform the reader who the PARENT

1028:

The manufactoring company is of course the juridical company that ownes the factory were the car is built. Quite simple really, some car brands are divisions meaning they get the mothercompany listed as manucatorer. Some companies are subsidiaries meaning they get their own name as manufactorer.

705:

agreed upon. I cannot recall the exact reason the pages were renamed "General Motors xxxxx", but I think it came about because of a conflict between the "naming convention" "adopted" by this project (which would name these vehicles Opel) and that of Knowledge itself, which is to name the article

245:

I have recently expanded the ] article considerably and started wondering whether it might be a good candidate for GA or even FA. Before I put it through formal "general" peer review, I would like to ask for your opinions first. In particular, I would appreciate native speakers' opinions on (and

237:

5805:

My question is this: Should Ford be listed as the manufacturer on Volvo pages (as it is on the Jaguar and Land Rover pages), or do you think these two people are right in listing Volvo as the manufacturer? And what can we do to stop all of the fierce arguments that are happening because of this

4045:

Once again Bravada thank you for the quick and lengthy reply! Good to hear about the infobox situation. It sounds like that is right where it needs to be in terms of adding to the excellence of the overall Automobiles project. The timelines I do agree could get cumbersome, and perhaps would fit

3951:

Also, your answer regarding the infoboxes is logical, but not specific. Obviously, if there is no information available to provide for a particular section of the infobox, that section would have to be left blank. But that was not in question. My question was regarding the existance of a single

3904:

Referring to what you said, the general impression you got regarding the lack of uniformity stems from the fact that the number of automotive-related articles, and those on specific models in particular, is huge, while the cumulative amount of time all the members of the project might devote to

3671:

I can't thank you enough for going through all this work! The reason some cars are there which shouldn't be and some are missing is because the owners knew it was probably gonna rain and took some liberties with what they brought. It was fairly annoying but we still had a fairly decent turnout.

3099:

Very Good Points. The upcoming and concept vehicles templates were requested by other users, and thus created. If there is consensus among the majority of concerned and interested users that either (or both) of the templates are not required, and add no value to the Project, then they can and

3073:

I don't see the need to use a concept template. Most of the times, concept cars are made specifically as an exercise for stylists or to showcase a brand new piece of technology, but the car itself will not be the basis for a particular model. As long as we begin the text, as something like "The

1454:

Same applies to "proper" encyclopedias - I happen to have ;) a few encyclopedias at home, and there are many editorial touches there that clearly serve the enhancement of visual experience (sight is the sense you use when you use an encyclopedia, isn't it?). I also have a few automobile-related

1329:

I don't know much about WikiPedia policies concerning images and the rationale/legal stuff behind them, but it is annyoing for me - the template SHOULD include a corporate logo, and in general corporate logos are used all over the Internet, not only by the copyright holders, AFAIK. If some auto

629:

when GM NZ tried (and failed) to make "GM" the main brand. Do we want another GM NZ on our hands? Who knows - maybe those complainers were right. Maybe the Daewoo Matiz should be the General Motors Matiz; the Chevrolet Malibu the General Motors Malibu; the Holden Commodore the General Motors

6845:

Still, there might be some bit of info from Renault that would indicate that the styling cues or other details previewed in the concept will in fact be used in the development of the next Laguna. If it is so, and you can provide an appropriate reference, than it's OK. Otherwise, I believe such

3942:

Hey Bravada, thank you for the reply. However, I'm a bit upset that I was compulsed to watch that video one time. Anyone that could be compulsed to watch it four times is out of their mind... heh heh. Anyway, I was not trying to imply that our fellow contributors have nothing better to do with

2667:

essentially going behind my back on this. I am the so-called anonymous user. I have been working (or attempting to work) on the article for several months -- before Pc13 had even touched the section, in fact. I've made sincere attempts to frame our current dispute as unbiasedly and politely as

2541:

I absolutely agree. This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball/gossip column. Same applies to some timeline templates, which extend into the future and speculate what will a given automaker have in store for 2010. What source enables us to say that there will be a new MX-3 in 2008? Until Ford

2510:

An anonymous user keeps adding information about a supposed 2011 Audi S4. Audi has not released any official information on the next-generation Audi A4, although German magazine Auto Bild has published a speculative piece on the next-gen's engineering and styling. This user first added his own

842:

I just noticed an inconsistency in the infoboxes for vehicles produced by the same manufacturer but sold under differen brand names. In the infoboxes for Jaguars, for example, it states that the manufacturer is "Jaguar Cars" which is the marque but not technically the manufacturer, but for the

6502:

Hello! I'm Fluence from Mexico and I just joined the WikiProject last Friday. As my first contribution I made a list including all cars sold at the moment in Mexico. I think that if I live in Mexico I can contribute to the Project by adding info of cars in my country. Previously I created the

4053:

As for the model templates: I think we're in agreement that improvements can be made. At the very least I'd like to see a certain level of quality reached across the board, if layouts could not be somewhat standardized. And in regards to the Lancia template, I did not plan to copy it exactly.

3479:

doesn't agree with the body of the article either! Terms like 'Veteran', 'Antique' and 'Classic' have different meanings depending on who you talk to. Here in Texas, there are specific legal definitions for those terms because your tax, license, insurance and smog exemptions depend on which

1976:

stated that multiple pictures in infoboxes could extend the infobox to an undesirbable extend and thus not only cause the infobox to become unsightly and somewhat uncomprhensible, such a long infobox can also cause very unsightly line-wraps as well; thus I am generally against having multiple

1840:

article a recent probelm has arisen. There seems to be a small conflict of whether or not to include a link to the Lincoln LS Owner's Club (LSOC) web-site should be included. The problem is that most of the LSOC site is off-limits to non-members and thus requires payment. Should such links be

1414:

use logo's so long as we don't violate the other fair use criteria (and I'm pretty sure we're OK there) - and so long as there is a broad consensus view that this is necessary - which (from comments here) I think there is. So - how about we all sign up to a consensus view that low resolution

7032:

The articles on many brands and models are full of worthless stuff trying to argue a point rather than inform (as Knowledge should), but this section is especially terrible. Assumptions totally not grounded in anything, generalizations, weasel words. Car magazine reviews are far from being a

6613:

The article still could use some more copyediting, especially concerning quite POV phrases in some sections (especially descriptions of individual models). The article could also be expanded to gain a more historical perspective, describing the development of the market and industry from the

2828:

Also, I feel an extreme lack of reciprocity. When Pc13 and I had an initial conflict over this section several months ago, I took what he had to say seriously and I made a major revision to the article, removing speculation and the like. Pc13 hasn't afforded me any similar degree of respect:

1561:

fair-use images may wind up being used in places that don't benefit the encyclopedia, versus the risk that fair-use images give us. The template-parameter solution would give individual consideration for articles. But I don't know, this stuff takes a bit of time to understand sometimes. --

1007:

there... I'm not sure what the answer is really - maybe we linkify the marque and list the actual manufacturer or maybe we eliminate the manufacturer line and put a marque line there instead. Note too that Ford doesn't consider Mazda a subsidiary, though they DO consider Jaguar one. I put

792:

Okay, but the we already have an article for the Vauxhall and the Holden versions as well as the Cadillac version of the Opel Omega, we already have an article for the Holden Statesman; thus the General Motors Omega article only deals with the Omega, which was only sold as the Omega by Opel.

246:

corrections to) the language and style, as well as all other general remakrs regarding the suitability of this article. If you find errors concerning factual accuracy, please do provide a better reference if you can! Feel free to edit the article accordingly. ], ] - 14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

238:

3325:

blah, lexus. and try to say lexus will have the new sportscar (which is most likely true). lexus is a different marque of cars and shouldn't have info in the toyota supra article (obviously). then aside from that, i think toyota is smart enough that they WILL NOT release a new supra with a

2070:

Are the google hits consistent with the definition given in the article? (or with each other?) The google hits that I could find seemed to use ghostriding to mean a wide variety of things, often unrelated to the current article. So I was wondering if someone more hip than I had heard it

706:

according to whichever name is most prevalent in the English language (Vauxhall). I for one feel we need to scrap the "national origin" convention and come up with something better. "General Motors Astra" et al. and the Chevrolet Aveo et al. move to the respective Daewoo pages were idiotic.

163: 3645:

Whew! I have almost all of them identified now and will begin uploading soon. Funny thing - some of them are NOT what they seem to be. The supposed "Aston Martin DB4 Series 4 Vantage" is almost certainly a series 1 or 2, for instance. Altogether some very nice cars there this year!

6989:

I commend this user for backing up his arguments with statistics and links, but I still feel this section is very biased. Any of the reviews and ratings systems the user provided can be countered with reviews and ratings that argue the exact opposite. Reviews are not very objective.

3840:

I just wanted to alert people to the fact that I'm trying to follow WP protocol as far as preventing linkspamming. However, I'm fairly new here (2-3 months), so would prefer it if a more experienced editor could keep an eye on me. Anything I should be doing which I'm not? Cheers. --

2354:

OK, I have started with leftover GM cars. Opel, Vauxhall, Holden, Saab, Saturn, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Buick, Chevrolet, GMC, Hummer and Daewoo should be clear now. The articles I have modified follow (users more knowledgeable on the subjects please check whether everything's alright

7033:"reliable sources" to substantiate opinions and turn them into facts. I won't even list everything what's totally wrong there. I would say this section qualifies for immediate deletion and later perhaps recreation within an appropriate place of brand history in appropriate form. 2088:

Shouldn't this be under movie stunts, the only place I have ever seen a person exit a moving vehicle is in action movies. Otherwise I think that this article which essentially is a defenition of a slang term should be moved to the wikitionary or for that matter deleted. Regards,

3952:

common infobox to be used on all model pages (standardized) which the author would fill in with as much information as possible. Or instead does each author create his own? I would prefer the first method. If that is currently the case, then we're already on the right track. :)

2343:

I've been editing a lot of articles about European cars lately (mainly French models), and I've noticed a lot of these articles still use old tables that are either incomplete or too short. Can somebody help me out with the task of converting these tables to infoboxes? Thanks.

1277:

article will be on the Knowledge front page as 'Todays Featured Article' on April 17th. I'm told that vandalism is a HUGE problem for TFA's - so it would be nice if we could get more people to help patrol the article for vandalism on and around that day. Thanks in advance!

326::#In 'Why it failed', the opening sentence suffers too much ] ''("compared to contemporary competitors"''), and the word 'contemporary' is used twice in that fairly short paragraph, which is jumping out at me as I read it. I took the liberty of correcting a minor typo too. 1648: 7189:, but I need some additional people to look at it before I make it official. Some people have already commented on it, but I need some others to look at it. Please bear with me, as this is my first attempt at a template, so I need all the opinions I can get! - 561:

Well, I knew this was bound to come up. Whoever decided to call Opels such as the Opel Astra the "General Motors Astra" must've ignored the home-market precedent that was supposed to follow. Before I begin, let me share with you someone's complaint from the

6850:

trivial, like the fact that the Fluence is a coupe) need to be mentioned in one of the references (this is nothing really problematic, I am saying that just to make sure the references will be comprehensive and not a single one or two referring to some info).

3247:

A concept car stub is astually a good idea, but we have to see whether or not there are enough articles to justify such a move, which I think there are. Also, yes when a manufacturer states that a concept car will enter production such as in the case of the

1313:

is removing all of the logos from the automobile templates because they are not allowed to be there under the fair use rules. When removing them, he uses FU for fair use, which I have told him is rude. In any event, I have placed a discussion point in the

4162:

I don't think that any of our present FA's would make a good model article - they are mostly about quite peculiar models, most of which only ran for one generation, and even being FA, they are not structured the way that would make them good model articles

6621:

This is not to say that it is not a good article in itself, because it is, but to show the directions in can be further developed. Oh, and I would also try to add references while editing now, as I sense a potential future Featured Article candidate here!

2531:, I actually added a better sourced piece of speculation, which actually refers to the S4. However, I am not happy with it, and would like consensus on the exclusion of any information about future models that does not come from any official sources. -- 73: 2953:

This way the reference has the neccesary authority to appear here on Knowledge. Also 2010 is too far in the future, anything beyond 2008, maybe 2009, is just pure speculation. So, if you add a section concerning a future product use the banner and

6440:. However, I don't want to start renaming/redirecting manually without some discussion. Also, if anyone can automate the renaming process to cover the problem of creating numerous dead links all of a sudden, I'd be grateful for their assistance. 6112:

Could someone with chart skills overhaul the Volvo timeline? The date intervals are not to scale, and the current cars do not extend past 2006, as other manufacturer's cars do. None of these vehicles have been announced to cease production.

6962:

I think auto shows is a topic poor in information. There is information about some auto shows but the pages are full of red links. I think we need to put more attention to these, don't you think? For the moment, I created the article for the

2465:

Erm, Bravada, you should have merged the Tacuma into the Rezzo and not the other way around. The car is called Rezzo in Korea and most of Europe, including France and Germany. The Tacuma name is only used in the UK, Portugal, Spain and Italy.

1539:. It would be a bit of work to use this solution everywhere. But it allows the template to be used on pages where the logo isn't allowed under fair use. So maybe the solution would be somewhat acceptable to the various parties involved. -- 6484:

Cheers for the feedback - I've now created the articles, with appropriate redirects to hopefully avoid red linkage. All I have left to do now is to build or repair the pages covering the last 34 years' worth of WRC results and I'll be done.

3826:

article. I checked Alexa to guage how big a club it is, but it's not significant enough to cause a blip on the radar. In fact, it's existed for barely a month as far as I can see, and has less than 70 members. I've left messages on both the

556: 5724:

which links related companies "in an easily understandable, uniform method." Maybe that helps explain my point. Glad to see you're already on that, G.Brendel. I'll have to take a look and see if there's any left to make or edit. Thanks! --

1350:

specifically said it's improper to do so for some elusive reason somebody please explain to me. Is there any reasonable solution to get the logos back, or are should we grab the cameras and head to parking lots (or would it be "FE" too)? --

2231:

I have noticed that the articles on the eurovans (Sevel Nord Fiat/PSA minivans) contain minuscule amounts of individual content and consist mostly of the same information, which can be attributed to all eurovans. So, I have put together a

1047:

Now, concerning the issue you brought about - the biggest problem here is that the automotive articles on WP are in various stages of development, and there can almost always be an article found which will prove on or another thesis (like

3790:

Actually, WP:EL says "forums should generally not be linked to". I don't know, maybe that's a bit harsh since clubs are an important part of car culture, but maybe if in doubt, it's best to discuss it in Talk, and/or remove forum links?

3047:

that template already exists as "future automobiles" (aka "upcoming automobiles") - (see a few paragraphs up). The distinction is - "future" or "upcoming" vehicles are strongly indicated for production in the near term (1-2 years) while

3905:

editing them is seriously restrained. There is a general consensus on including the infobox and the information included in the box is each time determined by common sense and simply availability to the editor at the moment of writing.

2980:

I was wondering what we should do about concept vehicles? i think they should have some sort of template similar to the future products one. a lot of the information is heresay or read in magazines and just put up here with a photo.

337::#On a personal level, whenever I have sub-headings I like to give a title to ''all'' the paragraphs, whereas in sections 1 & 5, your opening paragrpah is sort of untitled. I don't know what the Wiki consensus is on this, though. 7113:

Seems mostly OK - I've seen a lot worse in terms of the quality of the writing and it's a good basis to start with. However, there's a few issues which I think would stop it getting GA status, in descending order of importance:

4149:

is easy) - but the FA guys do put the article through the wringer. The whole process (GA, Peer Review, FA and then FA-of-the-Day) takes several months. We could just take one of the half dozen existing automotive FA's though.

3295:

Defenitely, there should always be a press release by the manufacturer, as many publications speculate on the nature of future automobiles. Only if GM states that there will be a future Saab should there be an article. Take the

2016:

would cause the infobox to be of undesirable length, besides the idea of an infobox which is supposed to provide a quick overview of the car would be lost if users would have to scroll down in order to read the infobox entries.

814:

This OBVIOUSLY means that we must have redirects from as many possible names for the car as we can come up with. We have to guess all of the likely names they might type - and redirect ALL of them to the "One True Name" of the

499:

Okay I moved it to the talk page. As I said feel free to change anything about the template you see as inappropriate- if you think there's a mistake feel free to correct it. As of now, it is just a prototype I created. Regards,

282::Seems mostly OK - I've seen a lot worse in terms of the quality of the writing and it's a good basis to start with. However, there's a few issues which I think would stop it getting GA status, in descending order of importance: 7093:

style, as well as all other general remakrs regarding the suitability of this article. If you find errors concerning factual accuracy, please do provide a better reference if you can! Feel free to edit the article accordingly.

6053:

Maybe we should take a vote as to whether to expand the list on the article, or to eliminate it and link to the category. I'm more than happy to take the cars from the list and put them on the Concept car page. Let me know.

2433:

I guess Cadillac articles need some attention, there seems to be a mess concerning the division of Cadillac models between articles and naming. At least I got lost, I am just trying to fit the table contents into infoboxes :D

218: 146: 1318:

talk page to ask that the policy be amended to allow for logos in cases where the company is defunct, and used only in reference to those articles about the affiliates. I don't think it will fly, but its worth a chance.

1216:

manufacturer field could then serve as optional to mention cases such as NedCar, AutoAlliance or coachbuilders like Pininfarina (with appropriate indications, if this refers to specific body styles only). How about that?

6717:

issue. Oh, btw, is this Cars in America or Cars in the USA? I'd say it would be more convenient to have it as the former, as Canada is different enough that discussing all the differences would merit a separate article.

2268:

Would you think it would be appropriate to replace the current eurovans articles with this one, perhaps info on commercial vans should be added (Sevel Nord or the "Surs" too?) and then it should go in lieu of the entire

3973:

Why were you upset by Kikki? This is an absolutely great video, when you would go and watch it multiple times, you would suddenly feel relaxed and unbent! You can also simply listen to this great song in the background

663:

are the ones I can think of off the top of my head) be changed to reflect their Opel heritage (i.e. the General Motors Calibra becomes the Opel Calibra; however the derivaties will also be given some mention - see the

3425:

article's template could add "Competitors: VW Bug, Fiat 500, Citroen 2CV, Ford Anglia". That gives users a powerful navigational tool to find other, similar cars from the same era/price-range/performance-bracket.

1957:

I dislike placing multiple photos in the infobox personally. It expands the infobox massively, often causing them to take up more height than the entire article. I suggest instead using a gallery in the article.

625:

designed by Opel, engineered by Opel, and built/sold by Opel (and by GM subsidiaries all over the world as either a Opel, Chevrolet, or other brand) with Opel quality. Yet why is it a "GM" Corsa? This sounds like

6985:

page. I'm just not sure what to make of it. The user alleged that Mercedes models from the first half of this decade are of poor quality, but he backed up his allegations with numerous links to automotive reviews.

5817:

major divisions of a mega-corporation - yet others are wholly-owned-subsidiaries - or even just majority holdings of the parent company. There are more answers than there are car companies! In my article on the

675: 6159:

is somewhat strict in its formatting rules, and while I agree with them for general disambig articles, the style guidelines can be a little too strict for subject-specific articles. WikiProject Ships has created

1898:

So - looking at the article, it seems that you already have more than one 'fan site' link - so dumping all but one of them makes sense. If the LSOC site is primarily a forum system - then it's ruled out - and as

1134:

I don't think we have a solid policy. My view is that the complex detail of which car company owns which car company and what's a marque name and what's a factory name is largely irrelevent to an article about a

767:

The Australian Commodores were not identical to Opel Omegas. They were related, more by their styling than technically. The Statesman is the stretched version of the Commodore, it has even less in common with the

7124:

I think the opening paragraph above the contents box is too wordy. A shorter summarisation should do, since most of the info currently there could better be contained in the main body of the article, especially

716: 7003:

I think that the section is kind of long. It's almost as long as the history section, and it's not as if what Mercedes has done over the last few years, no matter how bad, is more important than 100 years of

5965:

I'm new to Knowledge. I have noticed that many automotive articles don't link to the official site of the Auto/Automaker. Should I add the link when I see it isn't there? Does that violate any copyrights?

1967:

While I think that in some cases multiple photos would be helpful as similar vehicles sold under different marques usually are differentiated by certain, often subtle, design elements (i.e. in the case of the

7132:

Your table of sales figures is very messy, and I think should possibly be scrapped. The problem looks to be that there's 2-3 sources which are in conflict with each other. In that case, I'd say its possible

6539: 3945:

I would like to see an example page agreed upon very soon, so that people new to Knowledge and/or the project, have a page that everyone views as a standard of excellence from which to base a new model page

4171:

notability criteria, which will probably hardly be fulfilled by most automotive articles here. I would say GA is a better goal for an automotive article than FA, as the latter might simply be unattainable.

3369:

Just sign you name on the project page in the "project members" section and you'll be all set. The "Pages in need of attention" section is merely a list of articles that need to be improved. Regards,

158: 103: 2313:

My question is also whether the Sevel Nord in general shouldn't be merged into the article too, by the same token, or perhaps the Sevel in general too. Thanks in advance for your comments on that!

1340:

tstate that he didn't explain himself on the talk pages of the templates because it would have taken too much time. It must be a heavy burden that one carries that replaces efficiency for manners.

764:

The DEW98-based (Lincoln LS counterpart) Jaguar is S-Type, not X-Type. X-Type is related to Ford Mondeo. IMHO, either are too distantly related to be considered fit for their articles to be merged.

7019:, I don't think the section should be removed entirely. It might be better to find similarly reliable sources that respond to the criticisms or otherwise try to put Mercedes in a better light. -- 41: 38: 262:<br /><small>NOTE: Please DO NOT change the "Powertrains and versions" section into a table, unless you have a really really really good idea for it, and not the usual grayish table! 255:<br /><small>NOTE: Please DO NOT change the "Powertrains and versions" section into a table, unless you have a really really really good idea for it, and not the usual grayish table! 2542:

confirms this officially, I believe nothing can be said, and even so, I believe it should be stated that "Automaker X declares that..." rather than "Model Y will...", as everything may change.

2476:

than Daewoo Rezzo, Chevrolet Rezzo and Chevrolet Tacuma, in order of hits). Feel free to do it the other way around if you feel that's appropriate - I do not feel strongly about it either way.

6614:

beginning to where it is today (this also concerns subsection on individual automakers). I would also mention manufacturing more prominentaly, and especially the indigenous manufacturers like

862:

made in a joint Ford/VW/Seat assembly plant in Portugal further complicated by Seat being part of VW. Who is the manufacturer there? Then there is Mazda, a third owned by Ford, it gets worse.

25: 1245:

We could also just list both. I myself once had the idea to have a "Parent Company" field in the infobox and a different one for marque. Maybe for now listing both is the best idea. Thanks.

1792:

Is this new stub compatible with the existing stub organization? So far, we haven't broken things out by car types, we've broken then out by manufacture date. If we further separated out

1644: 6288:

I've noticed a few de facto conventions, such as displaying the US unit for torque as ft·lbf rather than as ft-lb or lb-ft or common but horribly incorrect variants like "ft/lb" or "tq".

4234: 4020:

actually found inspiration for the Lancia template in the Italian Knowledge) and experiment with them in your sandbox. It took me a good amount of time to devise the said Lancia template.

4008:

You can also see some articles still featuring the old makeshift table format, these are leftovers from earlier times, and we are currently updating those (where "we" is an euphemism for

3927: 3283: 2925: 2553: 2487: 2445: 2324: 2310:

that would have to be repeated in separate articles is significant. In case of the eurovans in their present state, there is actually more "common" than "individual" text in the articles.

1093:

article, I already know I'm looking at a Volvo. So, why mention the brand name twice? That's why we mention the parent company as the manufacturer. So the reader gets more info. Regards,

1078: 6737:

as we defenitely would have to include SUV and trucks as roughly 50% of vehicles sold in the US are light trucks. I'll start the list but it'll take a while. Please contribute! Regards,

6429:

As far as possible, I've checked the official website of each event to see what they call themselves, and I've double-checked that against the list of events on the Rallybase.nl website

1408:"Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a 💕 (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." 3723:

I've edited one or two Mitsubishi-based articles, and one of the things I've noticed is the vast number of links to Owners' Clubs. I'm not opposed to them per se, but articles like the

2265:

I would like to ask about your views and comments on the article. It is a working version, I believe you will indicate many "areas for improvement", for which I thank you in advance :D

6993:

Unless someone can actually cite figures that illustrate an increase in recalls and repairs for these model years, I feel the "quality issues" section should be removed. Any thoughts?

6412: 6022:

There actually is a page called Concept Car. For whatever reason it is not linking from this page properly. Maybe instead of that subsection, it should just link to that category.

3855:, STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS! You have accused me time and time again of owning a car club I DO NOT OWN NOR OPERATE. If you have proof then give it to us, otherwise, stop harrassing me. 4226: 3919: 3275: 2917: 2545: 2479: 2437: 2316: 1725:

is probably the best solution for now. You're right, some are being expanded, but most are probably going to be permastubs. In either case I think the proposed category makes sense.

1518:

take yourself over to WP:FUP and make a nice, clear, polite statement of how you feel on the subject. If enough people post - it'll wake up the policy cabal and get us some action.

1070: 154: 99: 6466:

I agree as well. Please go ahead and move the articles, unfortunately I don't have a bot or anything to help you get the job done faster ;-). Thanks for taking initiative. Regards,

3516:

to featured article status. This article is good so far, but needs a bit more work to get it on the main page. If anyone can help me, let me know here or on my talk page. Thanks! --

1816: 6292:

What is preferred for metric units for torque? N·m (common in Europe) or kgf·m (common in Japan)? I suppose the source unit is best, but what about if the source is in a US unit?

5976:

No it doesn't violate any copyrights. Please go ahead and add the official manufacturer site to all articles that do not have it yet. Thanks for contributing and welcome! Regards,

5790:

has been the manufacturer of all Volvos since Ford's acquisition of Volvo in 1998. Therefore, "Ford Motor Company" is listed as the manufacturer on each current-model Volvo page (

1861:'s mention that "Sites that require payment to view the relevant content" are to be avoided, and generally the subjective criteria that sites be useful to be linked (mentioned in 1806: 1696: 3272:

article would have to be deleted or what? Until GM provides us with a definitive press release, I think there are so many other uncovered REAL vehicles that we could focus on...

6592:- I don't think the 'fair use' provisions for the photo of the last ever VW bug are met. You aren't discussing the TV show on which the image appeared - so it's not fair use. 2290: 6207:

kind. I emailed the 'contact' address at that website and told them in pretty strong terms that this isn't acceptable. Does someone have a 'bot that can clear them all out?

5802:, etc). Recently, however, at least two Swedish Wikipedians have been removing FMC as the manufacturer and replacing it with "Volvo Cars," blindly denying Ford's involvement. 3750:

of DodgeTuners.org, and it seems incongrous to delete one Owners' Club link while leaving six or seven others behind. Any consensus on how draconian we can be in this matter?

3359:

I'm new to wikipedia. How do I join this wikiproject (it is my area of expertise)? Also, could someone please explain how the "Pages needed attention works" section works.

6095:

isn't so good... it's not like either solution is particularly bad. But yes, if the article improves over time, it will likely eventually have to do away with the list. --

1938:

this attempted a couple of different ways, and have tried it myself, but none of the results has been entirely satisfactory. What's the concensus on how best to handle this?

979:

Gerd - I found your post somewhat hard to read, especially the last word. Anyways, I feel that the intent of the "manufacturer" line was to list the manufacturing company -

357::Hope this helps. I haven't edited anything except the typo, though; I'm in work just now, so don't have time to do much more than read it. ''-- ] 10:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)'' 6839: 6648:

Thanks.I would like to find more info about the indigenous manufacturer Unidiseño, as very few in my own country know something about it (I found it in an old magazine from

3012: 1052:"). I agree this MIGHT be confusing, but I believe what would be most appropriate is following the example of articles that reached the GA or FA status (a list can be found 2590: 2026: 1369:

difficult to copy and it should be noted that this is only a temporary solution by any means. This rule, not allowing logos in the templates needs to be amended. Regards,

7107:

NOTE: Please DO NOT change the "Powertrains and versions" section into a table, unless you have a really really really good idea for it, and not the usual grayish table!

6712:

I am afraid we don't, and I believe this could be both very informative and a convenient place to gather all important facts that don't fit anywhere else. I also believe

1942: 6768: 6706: 6009: 2011:

I see your point, we wouldn't put pictures of each body style of a car model in the infobox, so why put each brand variation of the vehicle in the infobox. Well, on the

7147:), and the word 'contemporary' is used twice in that fairly short paragraph, which is jumping out at me as I read it. I took the liberty of correcting a minor typo too. 3862: 1952: 671:

I apologize if I sound a little bit harsh - must be my debating skills going a little bit out of hand. But this is one thing that can't be ignored for much longer. -

6936: 6747: 3805: 1765: 1129: 910: 608:

Why is this article entitled "General Motors Omega" instead of "Opel Omega" when for example the "Pontiac Grand Am" article is not entitled "General Motors Grand Am"?

510: 6596: 6476: 3872: 3074:

Volkswagen GX3 is a concept car created by Volkswagen", with a link for concept car, I don't see how potential readers can mistake these for real road-going cars. --

3024: 2612:

in the references mentions the A4 Avant will debut in 2008, and does give an engine lineup, but doesn' mention a date about the performance vehicles (S4 and RS4). --

2214: 2150: 1298: 1147: 970: 922: 491: 4107:

I think the idea here should be to take an article that currently holds a lot of information and make it fit for the example rather than try to start a new article.

3795: 5767: 3832: 3761: 3169: 2099: 1987: 1881: 1735: 1702: 1672: 1389: 1020: 866: 692: 550: 533: 518: 482: 7070: 6945:

I decided to delete the line. Maybe doesn't makes sense, at least to me. I only left the Renault Laguna on the related section. Soon I'll look for the reference:)

6726: 6579: 6531: 6308: 5728: 5710: 3435:

Don't we already have such a section called "similar?" I think this sections is intended for featruing a vehicle's competitors for the reasons you listed. In the

3310: 3204: 2911:

Besides, signing in to Knowledge and singing your edits on talk pages is really is not that much fuss and allows you to be better recognized by other Wikipedians.

2608:

Audi S4: Redesign", and based on this, he is speculating there should be in an S4 in 2011. This is ridiculous. Even Auto Bild doesn't give a date for the S4, the

2190: 2119: 2075: 2061: 2000: 1922: 1908: 1774: 1445: 1406:

is wrong . In WP:FUC's talk page, I argue that this is bad policy. However, the policy DOES have a "get out clause" attached to that particular ruling: It says

1379: 1103: 853: 781: 6685: 6631: 6457: 6269: 6244: 6230: 6134: 6047: 5986: 4195: 4153: 3845: 3611: 3405: 3379: 2233: 2199: 1522: 1419: 1255: 1190: 1180: 1113: 953: 777:

to continue reading at the appropriate point of the Opel Astra article). The same applies to some extent to the cases of Chevrolet Vectra and Chevrolet Omega. --

6325: 5936: 5829: 3943:

themselves than to carefully base each model page on a standardized example. I'm well aware most people here have lives offline! Let me simplify my main point.

3650: 2451: 1962: 1156: 578:

Despite the fact that Opel's cars are badged as Opel, Vauxhall, Holden and Chevrolet, they are designed and engineered by the Opel subsidiary of General Motors.

82: 7042: 6914: 6550: 6099: 5849: 4240: 4212: 3712: 3676: 3628: 2969: 2931: 1565: 1555: 888: 803: 737: 463: 454: 7023: 6949: 6901: 6822: 6809: 6664: 6491: 6446: 6016: 5948: 5810: 4141: 4061: 4032: 3960: 3449: 1869:) means that most likely it shouldn't be linked to. Since there is a small amount of free content available, those specific sections could be linked to (the 1647:. Is there any chance some of them could be merged together? If not, there's probably enough of them that we should create another stub category for them. 1474: 1459: 1430: 1363: 1354: 1344: 1334: 831: 6078: 3430: 3421:

at the time? That would allow readers to contrast other contemporary solutions to the same set of design problems. Hence, (to take my usual example), the

3137: 3056: 1783: 1234: 1225: 1084: 1056:. As you might see, the parent company is invariably listed as mnaufacturer there, though perhaps those are simpler examples than your main interest (Volvo). 1033: 6426:. I don't think it's encyclopedic to include the sponsors names in the title, but I think about 10 of the race articles are currently affected in this way. 5918: 2642: 2576: 6917: 6347: 3784: 3521: 3499: 2855: 2559: 2493: 2460: 2348: 2330: 2297: 6754:

Now that the article is up and running (Still under construction though), I would like to invite everyone to make suggestion and help build this article;

2587: 2178: 1282: 7169: 7102: 6997: 3859: 3466:. I cannot locate a reference to 1900 in any of the articles but I won't guarantee not to have missed something. Is there any reason for the 1900 date? 3104: 3078: 3006: 2734: 2616: 5867:"manufacturers" listed for the Mini. Maybe the best bet is to remove that tag completely from the infobox if it's going to cause so much friction (e.g. 2896:

too early to begin speculation, because Knowledge is not about speculation. It's not a car magazine. We care about facts here, not speculation. Somehow

2470: 1851: 1633: 1587: 6656:

but I'm 20 years too young to know something about the maker but I'll do my best.Oh yeah, I took the image of the VW from the article of the same car (

6618:. Perhaps some tables with sales figures could be created to show the development of the market and the position of various automakers/models/segments. 6211: 1651:

lists 72 that are <750 chars. If there's no consensus on what to do in a couple days, I'll temporarily sort them into a separate stub category. --

1580: 1543: 6507:

article as I'm fan of Renault. Hope this help to the Renault main article. As you can see my nickname is in fact a Renault car (I'll do its article,

1615: 1323: 588:

You don't write the "Ford Motor Company" DB9 for Aston Martin or the "Ford Motor Company" XJ? Or maybe the Volkswagen AG Flying Spur for the Bentley?

3567: 2984:

a lot of the articles are also lacking information. so i think there should maybe be a stub template for concept vehicles. please share your ideas.

1415:

corporate images are safe to use in the SPECIFIC CASE of automotive company logos in timeline and product lists for that company? Is that enough?

7154:

the paragraphs, whereas in sections 1 & 5, your opening paragrpah is sort of untitled. I don't know what the Wiki consensus is on this, though.

6790: 6588:

Welcome to the team! There are a lot of cars out there - and the more people we have writing about them the better off we are. One comment about

4098: 407: 402: 6964: 6196: 3718: 3698: 3484: 3262: 3133:

for that. For vehicles that aren't currently in active development though, I agree that we probably don't need a template for those articles. --

6713: 6676: 6012:

should be the one that strives for complete coverage. And, well, just about every automobile category is probably missing an article or two. --

3558: 3517: 3495: 4264: 3470: 7094: 7034: 6928: 6893: 6801: 6718: 6623: 6391: 6383: 6317: 6070: 5940: 4229: 4187: 4090: 4024: 3922: 3349: 3278: 3034: 2920: 2548: 2482: 2440: 2319: 2281: 1456: 1351: 1331: 1217: 1073: 885: 778: 7193: 3289: 444: 6314: 6058: 6026: 6002: 5657: 4104:

Like I was saying: AGREED! Good criteria. Now the question is, how long does it take for an article (once complete) to reach GA or FA status?

2535: 1826: 1745: 6563: 6515: 6453:

I agree. I think you should fix this. We shouldn't have to repeatedly rename articles every time someone changes sponsorship. Be Bold!

1493:

If the policy makers on WP:FUP disagree - and after a suitable period of debate, it appears that we are indeed in the wrong - then we leave

7163:

Hope this helps. I haven't edited anything except the typo, though; I'm in work just now, so don't have time to do much more than read it.

7127:"developed by Chrysler Europe, but produced by PSA and marketed under the Talbot marque after PSA took over Chrysler's European operations" 6117: 5970: 4865: 3997:, used in articles dealing with vehicles that had more than one distinctive generation. You can find an example of usage of such infoboxes 3389: 3363: 3242: 3130: 2996: 2045: 1605:

articles. If anyone has the time and would like to make suggestions on the two articles, I would really appriciate it. Thank you. Regards,

3858:

Here is another recommendation, DO NOT DICTATE. You do NOT own the page and I don't either, it belongs to everyone, leave it that way. --

3524: 1655: 3300:

for example, while Ford has not yet anounced a production date, they have anounced the future production of the MKS. Thank you. Regards,

2457: 2294: 1932: 713: 6971: 6652:

and never appeared again but I've seen just one out there) but I think it was sold in the States and in Germany. My father once owned a

3933: 3887: 6693: 6279: 4286: 3502: 2886:

Despite the recent release of the B7 platform S4 in 2005, it is not too early to begin speculation on the future direction of the S4...

2284: 5777: 4203: 3978: 1402:

Well, I have to agree that the WP:FUC page DOES say that fair use images should not be used in templates - so it's hard to say that

6569:

Looks good, I didn't know that the entire Lincoln line-up is sold in Mexico, I knew the Navigator was... and I'm a Lincoln fan ;-)

6419:

years, it makes historical records erroneous. For example, Airikkala competed in the New Zealand Rally in 1979. The "live" page is

6399: 3743: 2568:

There is a "warning template" banner for future products that can be used. It appears on some speculative auto pages, such as the

1681:

If they're going to remain permastubs, then merging may be the best choice. However, some are being expanded, so maybe they don't

837: 6069:

article could surely use some enhancement, like sources and exapnsion in general. Why don't you devote some of your time to this?

3191:- that was around in the 1950's - you can say lots of things about the actual concept car (which in this case was turned into the 2829:

arbitrarily deleting the article, using a single new found source (on his part) to replace the entire content of the article, etc.

450:

Good idea, I followed my favorite Knowledge rule: "Be Bold" and took the liberty of creating a prototype template. This template,

6755: 6734: 6677: 3815: 1536:, and then modified ] to include the 100px-wide logo, stating that it's believed the logo is allowed on that page under fair use 1479:

I'm certainly new to the politics of Knowledge - I'm not really sure what to do next - but I suppose we should do the following:

3994: 3215:

of you made good, valid points. but then again obviously if a concept car is speculated to turn into a production model (think

2609: 460:, links to the project page and the discussion page. You can change the mark-up as you see fit. Here is the template as of now: 429: 17: 6171: 4050:

that accomplished? Does anyone know what it would take to get this accomplished so that everyone can pitch in and get it done?

2882:

Now I might have not read everything associated with the issue, but I started reading your paragraph and it begins like that:

6175: 5540: 5123: 1359:

We could that, but we can also do some other things that are completly within Wikipolicy...Let me try a couple things out...

6976: 6615: 6411:

All the individual events in the WRC calendar have their own articles (accessed by selecting on of the years listed on the

5594: 4002: 3462:

The cut off date for this stub is given on the project page as 1900. The standard date in Britain is pre 1905 as given at

3411: 192: 128: 6226:

Classic Car Club - 13 forum members. Florida Eclipse Club - 68 forum members. Sigh, everyone has something to pitch... --

7080: 5685: 4167: 2338: 1451:

and use of picture, the reader assimilates knowledge more easily and his experience with the book is much more rewarding.

4497: 4069: 3753:

And just to make an open declaration, I am a member of clubvr4.com and I included a link to it in the article about the

3129:

For vehicles that are actually in development and expected to be released at some not-completely-specific date, there's

4502: 4295: 3897:

Welcome to Knowledge and to the Wikiproject! Please be informed that it is compulsory for all new members to listen to

2778: 1620: 4566: 4507: 4023:

Oh, BTW, the notion that people who regularly contribute to Knowledge have lives apart from that is entirely false :D

1012:

on the Jag articles since they're manufactured at a factory controlled by Jaguar, but it gets weird quick. How about

757:

There are a few issues I'd like to address that were mentioned during the discussion and need straightening out here:

3747: 1265: 3268:

a 9-1 article. But that's as speculative as can be, tomorrows paper might say it's 9-1.5x or something and then the

1866: 1831: 5841:

is the "parent" company over Volvo, Jaguar, Aston Martin, and Land Rover, which are wholly owned brands within the

5347: 4858: 3981:- this is a bit outdated now, but can give you a good overview. I also believe that articles that were promoted to 2162: 6065:

The category serves the same purpose and is a much more suitable and easy-to-operate way to do it. Meanwhile, the

4174:

I think if we could make an article on a popular mainstream car a well-structured and referenced GA (the good old

6800:

instead of those dreadful tables. Do also mention that the Fluence is a concept car - otherwise it is confusing!

6543: 5576: 4585: 4575: 4294: 1304: 4732: 4695: 4590: 4580: 2041:

a well-defined phrase? My gut feeling is to AfD it as a neologism, but I wanted to run it by you guys first. --

6201: 5747: 5113: 5036: 4804: 4279: 121: 6295:

Do commas belong in engine displacements over 999 cc? I never see commas used in English-language literature.

4797: 7186: 6773: 6420: 5890: 5637: 1662:

such a merger is really that desirable. Otherwise a recategorization of stubs might just be enough. Regards,

181: 5403: 5231: 1534: 5061: 4997: 4611: 3601: 3316: 1053: 526: 1948:

Can you link to some attempts? If the problems are more technical, maybe a solution could be found... --

487:

I don't think it's supposed to go on the article itself - the Talk: page would be the right place surely?

6797: 6258: 6140: 5675: 5169: 4851: 4606: 3990: 3986: 3724: 3529: 1761:. You guys are well placed to comment on it - so I encourage you to check out the entry. Many thanks! 1592: 6408:

a while back, and in the course of creating Wikilinks I came across what I think is a bit of a problem.

5903:

on the 'brand' page.I've always thought it was peculiar to, say, refer to VW as the manufacturer of the

7008: 5607: 5483: 5211: 4519: 2505: 1719: 1689: 1013: 4514: 4082:

contain infoboxes containing rather exhaustive information and have a very good layout (sections etc.)

3989:

can serve as good examples - click the links to find out what GA and FA are. There is also an uniform

110: 6818:

I've changed the infobox and added the template for the Wikiproject and also mention it as a concept

6353: 5159: 4272: 3457: 1796: 1537: 601: 566: 437: 6913:

I found that info in a magazine so sadly I cannot cite references:( I will look up for some later:)

6437: 5877:

Use the "parent company", which in this age of globalisation is going to get a bit complicated. The

3948:

I'd like to know what it's going to take to get this done. Can you briefly explain GA and FA status?

170: 6880: 6088: 5992: 5842: 5556: 5532: 5439: 5270: 5206: 4838:

This is what we have for each company, these are posted on the articles regarding different brands:

3735: 2975: 1870: 1858: 1455:

semi-encyclopedical publications, and they do use logos in places similar to our templates here. --

988: 6692:

article. The article I am proposing would however be in a table format like the main table on the

5874:

Use the "brand name", even though it'll have appeared in the line above (for the vehicle name), or

2959:

information when writing in regards to future events or products. Thanks for contributing though,

2528: 2524: 2512: 7178: 6363: 5600: 5506: 5428: 5201: 5086: 3982: 3828: 2634: 413: 188: 6779: 6424: 6261:, I've followed your lead and sent an e-mail to the owner of the Eclipse site. A copy is now on 6192:. Anyway, it would take a bit of work to undo, so I wanted to run it by other people first. -- 2516: 880:

Just a sidenote - Ford's stake in Mazda is considered controlling by the Japanese law, so Mazda

6778:

As I see on the project page that Renault articles were needed I just made the article for the

6538:

If there are any indigenous auto manufacturers or indigenous cars, feel free to add them under

6497: 6107: 5960: 5473: 5456: 4046:

better in an article of their own (which could be easily linked via the model or company page).

3754: 3534:

I have 300 pictures of exotic cars (Enzo, Carrera GT, 1930s Rolls, Murcierlago, DB4, Ford GT +

3354: 2424: 1779: 1579:- so I've started a formal request for a policy change. Please chime in on the discussion at: 660: 6924: 6874: 6504: 6188:, and the Mercedes articles stand out as ones that definitely would be a stretch to fit into 6174:

and others at WP:MOSDAB, and I think the same sort of thing applies to many auto disambigs.

5571: 5524: 5488: 5278: 5174: 4909: 4897: 4301: 2262:

for great pages on PSA engines), e.g. concerning Lancias, who don't have articles currently.

1939: 1891:

forums. ("Links to normally avoid...10) Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and

665: 652: 76: 6145:

I wanted to get some input on creating something like {{automobileindex}} to use instead of

5907:. Technically it's correct, but is that where a Wikireader would go to find out? Surely the 5782:

It has come to my attention that there is a heated debate happening right now on all of the

4767: 4757: 4085:

describe a model with at least two generations to showcase the use of generational infoboxes

3734:

It's easy where a user has done nothing but spam their club and they're in violation of the

3624:

OK, I've downloaded them all and have begun identifying them. The fun begins again! :) --

3395:

We can discuss it right here, or you can just add articles to the list. Thanks for joining.

5904: 5498: 5478: 5451: 5216: 5051: 4965: 4772: 4762: 4752: 3554:

list (which is a picture in a Word file) so leave a message on my talk page with requests.

3333:

and i'm willing to bet toyota will keep them that way (if they ever do release a new one).

2032: 656: 648: 644: 640: 621: 617: 598: 563: 540:

The new image is fine, I actually do like the perspective from which it was taken. Thanks.

3579: 1152:

I agree, the Car Company article is the best place to present the ownership structures. --

8: 6885: 6303: 5868: 5642: 5444: 4981: 4933: 4601: 3507: 3220: 2374: 1638: 436:

need to do that, I think that if there's a person who ocassionally visits something like

3489: 7137:

of them could be wrong. Better to just have a paragraph with approximate sales figures?

6957: 6923:

A magazine is as good a reference as any other, or even better than some actually - use

6870: 6415:), but they include the names of the sponsors in the title. While this is accurate for 6164: 5838: 5787: 5355: 4957: 4874: 4490: 4309: 4131: 4111: 3878: 3823: 3728: 3597: 3589: 3547: 3539: 2428: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 984: 701:

The problem here is a need to re-evaluate our so-called "naming convention", which was

117: 7118: 4186:

would also be nice targets), they could serve as a model article for most car models.

3901:

at least four times before editing the talk page. Thanks for complying with the rules.

3604:

for an example as to how the citation should appear). Again, a list of the cars is at

2239: 1466:

Without Steve's advice, I think the thing that you both need to do is chime in on the

293::#You have links in your paragraph headings, something specifically frowned upon in ]. 7098: 7038: 6932: 6897: 6866: 6805: 6722: 6657: 6627: 6387: 6321: 6262: 6182: 6149: 6074: 5944: 5652: 5433: 5291: 5144: 4790: 4680: 4675: 4616: 4259:

This is what we have for each brand (well almost all of them- we're gettin' there ;-)

4237: 4191: 4119: 4094: 4028: 3930: 3286: 3224: 2951:

For Example: "According to Auto Bild there may be a redesign of the Audi S4 in 2010."

2928: 2556: 2490: 2448: 2420: 2327: 1221: 1081: 1004: 929:

I wonder whether some kind of little diagram would help here. Maybe have BMW--: -->

823:" just to be sure that the user doesn't think they arrived at the wrong page somehow. 177: 7063: 7012: 6761: 6740: 6699: 6572: 6524: 6469: 6430: 6405: 6332: 6189: 6156: 6127: 6040: 5979: 5703: 5561: 5511: 5312: 5108: 4989: 3868:

Yes, and that means that everyone has the right to change it, including DeLarge. --

3708:

much for doing that. I see you even started adding some to articles. Thanks again!

3607:. It rained that day so a few didn't show up but it was a good showing. Good luck! 3442: 3398: 3372: 3303: 3255: 3216: 3162: 2962: 2378: 2226: 2207: 2171: 2143: 2092: 2019: 1980: 1877:), but those individual links may or may not be useful to link to individually. -- 1844: 1728: 1665: 1626: 1608: 1602: 1438: 1372: 1291: 1248: 1173: 1122: 1096: 963: 903: 846: 796: 730: 685: 635: 543: 503: 475: 422: 26: 7117:

You have links in your paragraph headings, something specifically frowned upon in

6857:(Pardon me for referring to my work again, but that's the only one I can think of) 5763:, though the latter includes the company grouping as well as the list of cars. -- 3691: 3605: 3551: 2914:

Excuse me if I got a bit too emotional here. Have fun with further contributions!

6853: 6783: 6593: 6521:

Welcome to the project, Fluence! Looking forward to your contributions. Regards,

6508: 6454: 6359: 6241: 6208: 6155:

on pages that are solely devoted to choosing between separate automobile pages.

5886: 5826: 5184: 5101: 4650: 4150: 3802: 3564: 3481: 3427: 3201: 2416: 2390: 2196: 2116: 2058: 2012: 1997: 1969: 1905: 1762: 1584: 1519: 1416: 1279: 1144: 950: 919: 828: 488: 6092: 396: 6689: 6589: 6557: 6379: 6343: 6300: 5631: 5221: 5154: 5071: 5046: 4305: 4250:

should further help to clarify). If you have anymore question just let us know.

4183: 4009: 3869: 3780: 3345: 3238: 3188: 2992: 2394: 2345: 1089:

I agree with Bravada, its the parent company. The thing is, if I visit the the

980: 931:

Phantom in that example...or (warning ASCII ART!) in a more complicated case...

593:

It serves no useful purpose as far as I can see. Can somebody please change it?

4822:

The Lincoln Mark LT was exclusively sold in Mexico after the 2008 model year.

3898: 2802:

Lastly, I just have to add this, somewhat off the record comment: I feel that

2456:

I've converted a good portion of the Peugeots to infoboxes (up to the 505). --

1514:

Does this seem like a reasonable way forward? Well, if you believe so - then

1505:- preferably 80%) then we should simply adopt our own consensus rule - revert 7190: 7089: 7081: 7020: 6982: 6547: 6367: 6193: 6096: 6013: 5878: 5764: 5624: 4925: 4632: 4550: 3792: 3695: 3647: 3625: 3476: 3467: 3463: 3134: 3031: 2639: 2386: 2382: 2358: 2259: 2072: 2042: 1973: 1972:

which currently features a Tahoe but not a Yukon picture). The problem is as

1959: 1949: 1919: 1900: 1878: 1874: 1862: 1823: 1758: 1699: 1652: 1576: 1562: 1540: 1467: 1386: 1315: 1017: 996: 863: 672: 530: 522: 441: 7150:

On a personal level, whenever I have sub-headings I like to give a title to

6423:, but Propecia only came on board in 2001; in 1979 the sponsor was Motogard 5863:

Well, I haven't looked up the history of the article, but there's currently

5613: 4233: 3926: 3282: 2924: 2552: 2486: 2444: 2323: 1822:, rather than making a stub that's orthogonal to the existing structure? -- 1077: 583:

I don't see this approch being used for all the other General Motors models.

57: 7166: 7141: 6968: 6946: 6819: 6787: 6661: 6560: 6512: 6488: 6443: 6374: 6266: 6227: 6218: 5915: 5725: 5566: 5363: 5304: 5283: 5226: 5139: 5096: 5081: 5041: 4779: 4671: 4666: 4485: 4209: 4138: 4123: 4115: 4058: 3957: 3884: 3852: 3842: 3768: 3758: 3709: 3673: 3608: 3593: 3555: 3543: 3317: 2689: 2520: 2306: 2187: 2053: 1887: 1630: 1552: 1471: 1427: 1360: 1341: 1320: 992: 626: 6796:

That's great and I am looking forward to more of them, but please use the

6688:,and am thinking about creating a Cars in America article, similar to the 6265:, which is where further comments on this issue will be restricted to. -- 3814:

OK, just to let folks know - I came across a third "owners club spammer",

3230:

i do, however, think there should be a concept car stub. votes? thoughts?

1288:

No problem, I have temporarly added the article to my watchlist. Regards,

6994: 6114: 6066: 6055: 6033: 6023: 5999: 5967: 5908: 5807: 5757: 5296: 5179: 5091: 5066: 5056: 4902: 4711: 4645: 4561: 4179: 4175: 4127: 3513: 3386: 3360: 3297: 3249: 3049: 2569: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2038: 1771: 1506: 1494: 1487: 1486:

If that effort results in a change in official policy then we can revert

1403: 1310: 1231: 1187: 1153: 1110: 1030: 1009: 6370:

generous contributions to improve the article and procure a free photo!

5882: 5846: 5783: 5618: 5516: 5461: 5371: 5339: 5241: 5196: 5164: 5118: 4537: 4225: 3998: 3918: 3330: 3274: 3101: 3053: 3052:

are more speculative, further out, or they never entered production. --

3003: 2916: 2584: 2573: 2544: 2478: 2436: 2315: 2270: 2243: 1837: 1754: 1746: 1597:

Hi, I would like to bring attention to the peer review requests on the

1139:. Those messy details need to be punted out into an article about the 1069: 6927:(see talk page for usage examples). And make sure you're logged in :p 1625:

Could someone with a keen eye take a look at the bio that I wrote for

6337: 5799: 5795: 5791: 4843: 4526: 3774: 3339: 3232: 3192: 3075: 2986: 2803: 2664: 2613: 2532: 2467: 2370: 2274: 2137: 1090: 428:

for this wikiproject? The CVG project is sticking their template on

5914:

I await further discussion with bated breath. Or perhaps not... --

2668:

possible. If you are actually interested in helping, please refer to

573:

I question the point of calling this article "General Motors Corsa".

6981:

Yesterday, a user added the section "Recent Quality Issues" to the

5647: 5191: 5149: 5076: 3494:

I've joined this one, it's great to have a WikiProject on this!! --

3436: 3269: 2901: 2366: 1598: 557:

Request to change pages like "General Motors Corsa" to "Opel Corsa"

469: 2735:

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Question_on_speculation_issue

1551:

But iusn't that what the template does, with greater consistency?

5387: 5331: 5236: 5014: 4949: 2897: 2362: 1044:

idea. It is also not quite what is being encouraged by WP rules.

5894: 5885:- originally a Swiss company and now a subsiduary of Germany's 5466: 5395: 5379: 4973: 3227:, etc..) you would place the future vehicle on there, correct? 3195:!) - without saying anything speculative at all. So whilst it 1000: 771:

The same applies to W210 (former E-Klasse) and the LX platform.

3818:, whose five contributions to Knowledge consist of linking to 3385:

Great, but how do I/We decide what goes on the list or where?

3337:

where toyota is putting any new sportscars. ideas? agreement?

4941: 631: 6835:

Great! As a grumpy person, I still have a few minor gripes:

4079:

be FA, GA or at least close to this stage for the time being

3200:

existed and about which certain verifiable facts are known.

1643:

So, there seem to be a large number of short articles under

6649: 5822: 5818: 3757:. I thought it was OK in this particluar instance. ;) -- 3422: 1993: 1274: 1266: 7140:

In 'Why it failed', the opening sentence suffers too much

3550:

in 2006". I have a picture of (almost) any of the cars on

1841:

included in an article? Any suggestions? Thanks. Regards,

440:, it would be good to point them towards this project. -- 6852:

For an example of a short automotive-related article see

6653: 4721: 3439:

article I have used it to list all competitors. Regards,

4089:

What do you think about it? What are your propositions?

3592:

with the byline of "By Brett Weinstein (Knowledge User:

3542:

with the byline of "By Brett Weinstein (Knowledge User:

6686:

List of largest passenger vehicles in the United States

3326: 1575:

This debate seems to have 'fizzled' - both here and on

468:

I have already added the template to the bottom of the

7185:

Hello. As some people already know, I have created a

3563:

Cool - how should we find/link to them from articles?

64: 3694:. Thanks again for providing these great photos! -- 2583:(Updated with actual "Future automobiles" banner) -- 1770:

It is a great article. I hope it will get featured.--

991:, etc. This is wacky when it comes to cars like the 7129:, which deserves to be in the 'Development' section. 6782:, one of my favourite cars. I'm working also on the 6758:. As always, thanks for contributing. Best Regards, 2258:), as well as adding some more info (btw, thank you 1583:- let's get company logos back on those templates! 1426:Steve, this works for me. How do we move forward? 6313:I guess this answers most of your questions -: --> 2527:, this user reduced the size of his speculations. 1581:Knowledge:Fair_use_images_in_templates:_exceptions 943:Mini | | | | | +-: --> 3252:, it becomes a future vehicles article. Regards, 2757:I have also made a formal request for comment at: 944:Traveller | v | Innocenti (Italy) --: --> 7060:a certain critic may have had. Thanks. Regards, 6217:It looks like most of them have been removed by 5935:Let me suggest continuing the discussion in the 5871:)? Otherwise, we have one of two possibilities: 3731:have quite a few, many of them very "regional". 1435:I agree that's a good idea. Sign me up. Thanks. 1119:manufacturer from Volvo Cars to FoMoCo. Thanks, 942:Morris Mini Minor v BritishLeyland --: --> 612:I have to say that I agree with these comments. 529:that we have, but feel free to pick another. -- 408:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 2 403:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 1 208: 7011:for the subjective opinions. And, personally, 6660:) so I don't know if it appeared in a TV show. 3582:. Uploading them all here seems unnecessary so 2713:I have made an informal request for comment at: 2071:consistently used in real life or something. -- 4134:, or some other widely-known, interesting car. 2692:-- this essentially chronicles the whole thing 2204:Alrighty I went ahead. Thanks for your input. 1050:see how something was done in the XXX article' 6892:Thanks in advance and keep on the good work! 6556:I forgot to give the article's page. That is 6373:Thus, our still small collection of Good and 6315:Knowledge:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions 5658:United States Council for Automotive Research 4859: 4280: 3538:more) which I'll authorize for use under the 2904:do fine without speculation on future models. 2238:, combining info from all previous articles ( 1992:Why does it have to go into the infobox? In 999:, etc, but in a way it's illuminating to see 6540:Category:Automobile manufacturers by country 6432:. I came up with what I reckon the articles 3417:be interesting to know what other cars were 2291:We talked about this sort of thing before... 7062: 6760: 6739: 6698: 6571: 6546:(which seem to overlap strangely IMHO). -- 6523: 6468: 6126: 6039: 5978: 5702: 3742:. But I've been reverting some linkspam by 3590:Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5 3540:Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5 3441: 3397: 3371: 3302: 3254: 3161: 2961: 2781:-- under the technology/engineering section 2515:, which, by his own reference, is based on 2206: 2170: 2142: 2091: 2018: 1979: 1843: 1727: 1664: 1607: 1470:. The more voices, the better the chance. 1437: 1371: 1290: 1247: 1172: 1121: 1095: 962: 902: 845: 795: 729: 684: 542: 502: 474: 7007:I think the sections hinges around citing 4866: 4852: 4287: 4273: 2136:Maybe this stub should be merged with the 525:. I picked a random replacement from the 5911:parent page is more appropriate for that? 3979:Knowledge:WikiProject_Automobiles/Layouts 2168:always be reversed). Thank you. Regards, 5897:facility in the Netherlands. Aaaaaagh... 4178:might do, the forgotten and delapidated 3977:As concerns example article layout, see 3588:. They are authorized for use under the 3578:216 of the images have been uploaded to 2908:frustration to yourself and other users. 7145:("compared to contemporary competitors" 6877:- see the talk pages for usage examples 6756:Passenger vehicles in the United States 6735:Passenger vehicles in the United States 6678:Passenger vehicles in the United States 4012:, who does most of the dirty work here. 3991:infobox for individual vehicle articles 3020:How about making it more general? eg. 1483:company...or: The company product line. 14: 6404:I created an article on ex-WRC driver 4873: 4336: 4333: 4330: 4327: 1497:'s changes and live without our logos. 945:Mini v Authi (Spain) ----: --> 432:that they might edit. While we don't 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Automobiles 6178:of automobiles currently marked with 4847: 4339: 4268: 3719:External links to owners' club forums 2850:We are clearly in need of assistance. 6366:! This is in no small way thanks to 5681: 4322: 2523:to have inside information on Audi. 1895:should generally not be linked to.") 1757:have dried up - I've moved it on to 940:Austin Seven | | | +-: --> 627:GM New Zealand way back in the 1980s 90: 56: 2235:provisional article on all eurovans 1933:Multiple photo protocol in infobox? 1685:to be merged ASAP. *shrug* Okay, 1645:Category:Automotive assembly plants 217: 204: 169: 152: 145: 140: 109: 97: 23: 6280:Engine displacement and specs MoS? 3851:Yes, here is something you can do 2779:Knowledge:Requests for comment/All 1977:pictures in one infobox. Regards, 1067:I hope this does clear the issue. 394: 392:Revision as of 10:02, 12 June 2006 155:Revision as of 10:02, 12 June 2006 100:Revision as of 01:10, 12 June 2006 45: 7205: 5778:Volvo Cars vs. Ford Motor Comapny 4312:– road car timeline, 1980–present 4204:Automobile Manufacturer Hierarchy 1695:is proposed over at stub-sorting 1490:'s changes with official backing. 521:is fair-use, and fair use images 6400:World Rally Championship problem 6331:actually ft.lbf is correct. see 5680: 5671: 5670: 5348:Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation 5013: 4232: 4224: 3925: 3917: 3281: 3273: 2923: 2915: 2551: 2543: 2485: 2477: 2443: 2435: 2322: 2314: 1802:, wouldn't we do something like 1509:'s changes and get on with life. 1076: 1068: 838:Manufacturer name in the infobox 7015:is really pretty reliable, and 6544:Category:Automobiles by country 6344: 6338: 4001:. There is also an infobox for 3781: 3775: 3585:upload them here as you see fit 3346: 3340: 3239: 3233: 2993: 2987: 1867:m:When should I link externally 472:article as an example. Thanks, 7067: 6765: 6744: 6703: 6576: 6528: 6473: 6436:be called, and listed them on 6358:I am happy to inform you that 6304: 6131: 6044: 5983: 5707: 5037:Automotive Components Holdings 3995:infobox for vehicle generation 3480:catagory your car falls into. 3475:The template at the bottom of 3446: 3402: 3376: 3307: 3259: 3166: 2966: 2211: 2175: 2147: 2096: 2023: 1984: 1848: 1753:Since peer review comments on 1732: 1669: 1612: 1442: 1376: 1295: 1252: 1177: 1126: 1100: 967: 907: 850: 800: 734: 689: 547: 519:Lincoln picture that was there 507: 479: 13: 1: 7088:I have recently expanded the 6696:I recently created. Regards, 6421:Propecia Rally of New Zealand 5939:to avoid confusion. Thanks - 3916:Thanks for reading all that, 3602:Image:1957 Maserati 200SI.JPG 1913:I dunno... maybe WP:EL is a 390: 353: 344: 333: 322: 311: 300: 289: 278: 269: 6977:Mercedes-Benz quality issues 6846:statement should be removed. 6093:the state of the article now 5998:with the rest of the list. 5869:User:Dahlis blowing a gasket 3412:Another idea for the Infobox 28:Browse history interactively 7: 7017:if the bit about CR is true 6840:Template:Concept automobile 6798:Template:Infobox Automobile 6091:, and forcing a mandate on 3725:Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 3030:or something like that. -- 3013:Template:Concept automobile 2339:European cars and infoboxes 2056:will fix this.<sigh: --> 10: 7210: 6362:has just been promoted to 6240:sentence...but it's hard! 5608:Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. 5271:AutoAlliance International 5212:Special Vehicle Operations 4820:Sold exclusively in China. 4817: 4785: 4783: 4761: 4747: 4738: 4727: 4725: 4710: 4708: 4706: 4704: 4692: 4690: 4688: 4686: 4661: 4659: 4640: 4638: 4636: 4624: 4622: 4589: 4556: 4554: 4543: 4534: 4532: 3672:Thanks afain, Sfoskett!!! 3350:00:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 3311:02:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 3290:02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 3263:02:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 3243:00:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 3205:21:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 3170:19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 3138:17:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 3105:17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 3079:15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 3057:14:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 3035:14:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 3007:14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 2997:05:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 2970:01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 2932:00:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 2854:(This comment was left by 2643:22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 2617:22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 2591:Template:Future automobile 2588:10:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 2577:10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 2560:10:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 2536:08:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 2494:23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 2471:23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 2461:20:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2452:15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 2399:UPDATE: Cadillac is done! 2349:07:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 2331:17:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 2298:15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 2285:23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2215:05:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2200:03:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2191:01:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2179:00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2151:19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2120:04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2100:00:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2076:23:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 2062:23:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 2046:12:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 2027:00:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 2001:23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 1988:23:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1963:17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1953:17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1943:03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1923:01:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1909:01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1882:16:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 1852:05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 1827:12:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 1766:15:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1749:is up for Featured Article 1736:17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1703:11:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1673:20:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 1656:10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 1634:15:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 1621:Another peer review needed 1616:05:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 1566:14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 1556:13:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 1544:12:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 1523:01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 1475:00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 1460:23:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1446:23:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1431:23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1420:23:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1390:13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 1380:22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1364:22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1355:22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1345:21:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1335:21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1324:21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1299:06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) 1283:03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 1230:Sounds like a good idea.-- 1021:17:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1014:AutoAlliance International 523:can't be used in templates 206: 7194:01:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 7170:10:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 7103:14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 7071:06:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 7043:01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 7024:00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 6998:19:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 6950:00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 6694:List of car manufacturers 6010:Category:Concept vehicles 6008:Personally, I think that 5666: 5587: 5549: 5497: 5419: 5380:Getrag Ford Transmissions 5324: 5263: 5254: 5132: 5029: 5022: 5011: 4918: 4890: 4881: 4810: 4808: 4803: 4801: 4796: 4794: 4789: 4787: 4771: 4766: 4756: 4751: 4749: 4740: 4736: 4731: 4729: 4715: 4694: 4679: 4670: 4665: 4663: 4656: 4649: 4644: 4642: 4626: 4620: 4615: 4610: 4605: 4600: 4596: 4594: 4584: 4579: 4574: 4570: 4565: 4560: 4558: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4536: 4525: 4523: 4518: 4513: 4511: 4506: 4501: 4496: 4494: 4489: 4484: 4317: 3873:18:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1970:Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon 971:18:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 954:14:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 923:14:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 911:23:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 889:20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 867:19:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 854:18:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 832:14:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 804:23:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 782:20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 738:18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 717:18:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 693:17:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 676:16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 597:Another comment from the 551:22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 534:20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 511:19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 492:19:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 483:19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 445:17:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 438:Category:Automobile stubs 418:Do we have anything like 351: 342: 331: 320: 309: 298: 287: 276: 267: 228: 225: 151: 96: 6972:00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 6937:01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 6918:01:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 6902:00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 6881:Knowledge:Citing sources 6823:00:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 6810:00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 6791:00:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 6769:03:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 6748:22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 6727:21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 6707:21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 6665:22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 6632:20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 6597:17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 6580:07:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 6564:01:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 6551:01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 6532:00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 6516:23:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 6492:21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 6477:17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 6458:17:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 6447:18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 6392:16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 6348:19:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 6326:16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 6309:16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 6270:10:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 6245:17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 6231:16:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 6212:15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 6197:20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 6135:14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 6118:23:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 6100:16:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) 6079:15:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC) 6059:15:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC) 6048:03:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC) 6037:category. Best Regards, 6027:02:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC) 6017:20:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC) 6003:20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC) 5987:07:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 5971:01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 5949:17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 5919:15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 5850:14:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 5843:Premier Automotive Group 5830:14:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 5811:14:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 5768:21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 5729:20:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 5711:03:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 5557:M-Sport World Rally Team 5440:Michigan Central Station 5207:Premier Automotive Group 4479: 4476: 4473: 4470: 4467: 4464: 4461: 4458: 4455: 4452: 4449: 4446: 4443: 4440: 4437: 4434: 4431: 4428: 4425: 4422: 4419: 4416: 4413: 4410: 4407: 4404: 4401: 4398: 4395: 4392: 4389: 4386: 4383: 4380: 4377: 4374: 4371: 4368: 4365: 4362: 4359: 4356: 4353: 4350: 4347: 4344: 4241:02:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 4213:21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 4196:19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 4154:17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 4142:00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4099:01:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC) 4062:01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC) 4033:23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 3961:21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 3934:02:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 3888:21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 3863:20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 3846:23:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 3806:02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 3796:15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 3785:14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 3762:13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 3736:Knowledge:External_links 3713:00:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3699:18:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 3677:18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC) 3651:14:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC) 3629:15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 3612:04:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 3568:02:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 3559:23:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 3525:10:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 3503:10:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 3329:. they have always been 2163:Archiving of discussions 1904:minor part of the site. 1859:Knowledge:External links 1775:04:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 1588:14:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1256:20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1235:17:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1226:17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1191:16:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1181:16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1157:16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1148:15:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1130:16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1114:15:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1104:03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1085:02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 1034:01:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 989:Toyota Motor Corporation 193:Extended confirmed users 129:Extended confirmed users 6838:The template you used, 6259:persistent linkspamming 5601:Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. 5434:Detroit Corktown campus 5202:New Holland Agriculture 4166:I've been watching the 3993:, as well as a similar 3829:article discussion page 3485:22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 3471:08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 3450:00:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 3431:21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 3406:22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 3390:21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 3380:02:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 3364:01:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 2635:Knowledge:Verifiability 2389:("merged" with Rezzo), 1715:I actually think using 1305:Template images removed 884:is a part of FoMoCo. -- 655:, and the discontinued 95: 6202:Recent linkspam attack 4612:(Continental) Mark VII 3820:floridaeclipseclub.com 2425:Cadillac Sixty Special 1832:Owner's club web-sites 1817:modern-wagon-auto-stub 661:General Motors Calibra 213:peer review by DeLarge 209:→‎[] - peer review 6925:Template:Cite journal 6875:Template:Cite journal 6774:New Renault articles! 6733:Well I was thinking, 6684:through creating the 6505:Clio V6 Renault Sport 5825:to see what I mean. 5748:General Motors brands 5525:William Clay Ford Jr. 5279:AutoAlliance Thailand 4070:NOW THIS IS IMPORTANT 3002:How about this one -- 1807:modern-ford-auto-stub 1649:Duesentrieb's CatScan 666:General Motors Zafira 653:General Motors Zafira 430:almost all talk pages 385:== Holden template == 378:== Holden template == 6780:Mégane Renault Sport 6032:Well, currently the 5905:Lamborghini Gallardo 5528:(Executive Chairman) 5217:Special Vehicle Team 5042:Changan Ford (China) 4003:automotive platforms 2610:webpage I pointed to 1269:to be on front page! 1016:for the Mustang? -- 657:General Motors Omega 649:General Motors Astra 645:General Motors Corsa 641:General Motors Agila 622:General Motors Astra 618:General Motors Corsa 599:General Motors Omega 564:General Motors Corsa 496:Er "commulative" ? 464:Template:AutoProject 6886:Knowledge:Footnotes 6364:Good Article status 6141:{{automobileindex}} 5937:appropriate section 5445:Roosevelt Warehouse 4607:Continental Mark VI 4602:Personal luxury car 3704:Awesome. Thank you 3530:Exotic Car Pictures 3221:Chrysler PT Cruiser 2663:I don't appreciate 2375:Chevrolet El Camino 1593:Peer reviews needed 1309:Just as a heads up 397:Archived discussion 6871:Template:Cite book 5893:(Japan)... in the 5839:Ford Motor Company 5788:Ford Motor Company 5429:World Headquarters 5356:Changan Ford Mazda 5343:(Argentina/Brazil) 5255:Joint ventures and 4875:Ford Motor Company 4310:Ford Motor Company 4132:Chevrolet Corvette 4112:Plymouth Barracuda 3824:Mitsubishi Eclipse 3746:of 4g63hp.com and 3744:User:24.129.36.149 3729:Mitsubishi Eclipse 3598:Scarsdale Concours 3548:Scarsdale Concours 3512:I'm trying to get 2519:, although he has 2506:Future automobiles 2429:Cadillac Fleetwood 2413:Cadillac Series 62 2409:Cadillac Series 60 2405:Cadillac Series 70 2401:Cadillac Series 61 1531:Alternate solution 1501:says at least 60% 1410:- OK - so then we 1273:It looks like the 985:Ford Motor Company 167: 107: 7197: 7191:Daniel Blanchette 7182: 7175: 7159: 7108: 6867:Template:Cite web 6858: 6658:Volkswagen Beetle 6378:something like a 6375:Featured articles 6354:New Good Article! 6087:Well put. Also, 5694: 5693: 5653:Pay on production 5415: 5414: 5250: 5249: 5175:Hertz Corporation 5009: 5008: 4832: 4831: 4827: 4826: 4299: 4120:Mitsubishi Lancer 3860:User:68.101.64.76 3816:User:68.101.64.76 3458:Veteran-auto-stub 3225:Toyota FJ Cruiser 3131:lots of precedent 2421:Cadillac Brougham 1720:auto-factory-stub 1690:auto-factory-stub 1005:Mitsubishi Motors 930:RollsRoyce--: --> 673:Daniel Blanchette 389: 153: 98: 78: 7201: 7183: 7176: 7160: 7110: 7106: 7068: 7066: 7013:Consumer Reports 7009:reliable sources 6856: 6766: 6764: 6745: 6743: 6704: 6702: 6577: 6575: 6529: 6527: 6474: 6472: 6413:WRC results page 6406:Pentti Airikkala 6345: 6340: 6333:Foot-pound force 6306: 6187: 6181: 6169: 6163: 6154: 6148: 6132: 6130: 6045: 6043: 5993:Concept Car Page 5984: 5982: 5762: 5756: 5752: 5746: 5708: 5706: 5684: 5683: 5674: 5673: 5572:World Rally Team 5537: 5529: 5521: 5408: 5400: 5392: 5384: 5376: 5368: 5360: 5352: 5344: 5336: 5317: 5313:Jiangling Motors 5309: 5301: 5288: 5275: 5261: 5260: 5027: 5026: 5017: 5002: 4994: 4986: 4978: 4970: 4962: 4954: 4946: 4938: 4930: 4888: 4887: 4868: 4861: 4854: 4845: 4844: 4821: 4320: 4319: 4297: 4289: 4282: 4275: 4266: 4265: 4236: 4228: 3987:Featured article 3929: 3921: 3899:Kikki Danielsson 3833:User's talk page 3782: 3777: 3447: 3445: 3403: 3401: 3377: 3375: 3347: 3342: 3308: 3306: 3285: 3277: 3260: 3258: 3240: 3235: 3217:Plymouth Prowler 3167: 3165: 3029: 3023: 2994: 2989: 2976:Concept Vehicles 2967: 2965: 2927: 2919: 2892:There we go. It 2555: 2547: 2489: 2481: 2447: 2439: 2379:Holden Kingswood 2326: 2318: 2212: 2210: 2176: 2174: 2148: 2146: 2097: 2095: 2024: 2022: 1985: 1983: 1940:Scheinwerfermann 1875:one-lap coverage 1849: 1847: 1821: 1815: 1811: 1805: 1801: 1797:modern-auto-stub 1795: 1788: 1782: 1733: 1731: 1724: 1718: 1694: 1688: 1670: 1668: 1627:Edward S. Jordan 1613: 1611: 1603:Lincoln Town Car 1443: 1441: 1377: 1375: 1296: 1294: 1253: 1251: 1178: 1176: 1127: 1125: 1101: 1099: 1080: 1072: 968: 966: 908: 906: 851: 849: 801: 799: 735: 733: 690: 688: 636:Chevrolet Tavera 548: 546: 527:free auto images 508: 506: 480: 478: 459: 453: 427: 421: 215: 214: 212: 199: 185: 166: 161: 143: 135: 125: 106: 79: 70: 69: 67: 62: 60: 52: 49: 31: 29: 7209: 7208: 7204: 7203: 7202: 7200: 7199: 7198: 7187:Holden template 7181: 7179:Holden template 7119:Wp:mos#Headings 7086: 6979: 6965:Mexico Autoshow 6960: 6915:148.221.178.138 6854:Lancia Flaminia 6784:Renault Fluence 6776: 6681: 6509:Renault Fluence 6500: 6402: 6360:Lancia Flaminia 6356: 6282: 6204: 6185: 6179: 6172:this discussion 6167: 6161: 6152: 6146: 6143: 6110: 5995: 5963: 5887:DaimlerChrysler 5780: 5760: 5754: 5750: 5744: 5695: 5690: 5662: 5583: 5545: 5541:List of leaders 5535: 5527: 5519: 5493: 5479:Proving grounds 5411: 5406: 5398: 5390: 5382: 5374: 5366: 5358: 5350: 5342: 5334: 5320: 5315: 5307: 5299: 5286: 5273: 5246: 5185:Daimler Company 5128: 5124:Southern Africa 5018: 5005: 5000: 4992: 4984: 4976: 4968: 4960: 4952: 4944: 4936: 4928: 4914: 4877: 4872: 4833: 4828: 4819: 4313: 4293: 4206: 4072: 3881: 3721: 3690:All done. See 3596:) taken at the 3546:) taken at the 3532: 3510: 3492: 3460: 3414: 3357: 3322: 3027: 3021: 2978: 2508: 2417:Cadillac Calais 2391:Renault Safrane 2341: 2240:Citroën Evasion 2229: 2165: 2035: 2013:Chevrolet Tahoe 1935: 1834: 1819: 1813: 1809: 1803: 1799: 1793: 1790: 1786: 1780: 1751: 1722: 1716: 1692: 1686: 1641: 1629:(Ned Jordan)? 1623: 1595: 1307: 1271: 947: 840: 634:/Indian-market 630:Commodore; the 559: 457: 451: 425: 419: 416: 414:Project notice? 399: 386: 379: 370: 365: 358: 347: 338: 327: 316: 305: 294: 283: 272: 263: 256: 247: 239: 221: 216: 207: 205: 203: 202: 201: 197: 195: 175: 173: 168: 162: 157: 149: 147:← Previous edit 144: 142:Holden template 141: 139: 138: 137: 133: 131: 115: 113: 108: 102: 94: 93: 92: 91: 89: 88: 87: 86: 85: 84: 75: 71: 65: 63: 58: 55: 53: 50: 48:Content deleted 47: 44: 39:← Previous edit 36: 35: 34: 27: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 7207: 7180: 7177: 7174: 7173: 7158: 7157: 7156: 7155: 7148: 7138: 7130: 7122: 7105: 7085: 7079: 7078: 7077: 7076: 7075: 7074: 7073: 7048: 7047: 7046: 7045: 7027: 7026: 7005: 6978: 6975: 6959: 6956: 6955: 6954: 6953: 6952: 6940: 6939: 6911: 6910: 6909: 6908: 6907: 6906: 6905: 6904: 6890: 6889: 6888: 6883: 6878: 6861: 6860: 6851: 6847: 6843: 6828: 6827: 6826: 6825: 6813: 6812: 6775: 6772: 6752: 6751: 6750: 6730: 6729: 6690:Cars in Mexico 6680: 6675: 6674: 6673: 6672: 6671: 6670: 6669: 6668: 6667: 6639: 6638: 6637: 6636: 6635: 6634: 6619: 6611: 6602: 6601: 6600: 6599: 6590:Cars in Mexico 6583: 6582: 6558:Cars in Mexico 6554: 6553: 6535: 6534: 6499: 6498:Cars in Mexico 6496: 6482: 6481: 6480: 6479: 6461: 6460: 6401: 6398: 6396: 6355: 6352: 6351: 6350: 6297: 6296: 6293: 6281: 6278: 6277: 6276: 6275: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6250: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6234: 6233: 6223: 6222: 6203: 6200: 6176:This is a list 6142: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6109: 6108:Volvo Timeline 6106: 6105: 6104: 6103: 6102: 6082: 6081: 6051: 6050: 6020: 6019: 5994: 5991: 5990: 5989: 5962: 5961:External Links 5959: 5958: 5957: 5956: 5955: 5954: 5953: 5952: 5951: 5926: 5925: 5924: 5923: 5922: 5921: 5912: 5900: 5899: 5898: 5875: 5856: 5855: 5854: 5853: 5833: 5832: 5779: 5776: 5775: 5774: 5773: 5772: 5771: 5770: 5736: 5735: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5731: 5716: 5715: 5714: 5713: 5692: 5691: 5689: 5688: 5678: 5667: 5664: 5663: 5661: 5660: 5655: 5650: 5645: 5643:Kinetic Design 5640: 5635: 5632:Ford v Ferrari 5628: 5621: 5616: 5611: 5604: 5597: 5591: 5589: 5588:Related topics 5585: 5584: 5582: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5569: 5564: 5559: 5553: 5551: 5547: 5546: 5544: 5543: 5538: 5530: 5522: 5514: 5509: 5503: 5501: 5495: 5494: 5492: 5491: 5486: 5481: 5476: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5459: 5454: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5442: 5431: 5425: 5423: 5421: 5420:Facilities and 5417: 5416: 5413: 5412: 5410: 5409: 5401: 5399:(South Africa) 5393: 5385: 5377: 5369: 5361: 5353: 5345: 5337: 5328: 5326: 5322: 5321: 5319: 5318: 5310: 5302: 5294: 5289: 5281: 5276: 5267: 5265: 5258: 5256: 5252: 5251: 5248: 5247: 5245: 5244: 5239: 5234: 5229: 5224: 5219: 5214: 5209: 5204: 5199: 5194: 5189: 5188: 5187: 5177: 5172: 5167: 5162: 5157: 5155:Ford Aerospace 5152: 5147: 5142: 5136: 5134: 5130: 5129: 5127: 5126: 5121: 5116: 5111: 5106: 5105: 5104: 5102:United Kingdom 5099: 5094: 5089: 5084: 5079: 5069: 5064: 5059: 5054: 5049: 5044: 5039: 5033: 5031: 5024: 5020: 5019: 5012: 5010: 5007: 5006: 5004: 5003: 4995: 4987: 4979: 4971: 4963: 4955: 4947: 4939: 4931: 4922: 4920: 4916: 4915: 4913: 4912: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4894: 4892: 4885: 4883: 4879: 4878: 4871: 4870: 4863: 4856: 4848: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4830: 4829: 4825: 4824: 4816: 4812: 4811: 4809: 4807: 4802: 4800: 4795: 4793: 4788: 4786: 4784: 4782: 4776: 4775: 4770: 4765: 4760: 4755: 4750: 4748: 4746: 4745:Full-size SUV 4742: 4741: 4739: 4737: 4735: 4730: 4728: 4726: 4724: 4717: 4716: 4714: 4709: 4707: 4705: 4703: 4702:Full-size CUV 4699: 4698: 4693: 4691: 4689: 4687: 4684: 4683: 4678: 4669: 4664: 4662: 4660: 4658: 4654: 4653: 4648: 4643: 4641: 4639: 4637: 4635: 4628: 4627: 4625: 4623: 4621: 4619: 4614: 4609: 4604: 4598: 4597: 4595: 4593: 4588: 4583: 4578: 4572: 4571: 4569: 4564: 4559: 4557: 4555: 4553: 4547: 4546: 4544: 4542: 4540: 4535: 4533: 4530: 4529: 4524: 4522: 4517: 4512: 4510: 4505: 4500: 4495: 4493: 4488: 4482: 4481: 4478: 4475: 4472: 4469: 4466: 4463: 4460: 4457: 4454: 4451: 4448: 4445: 4442: 4439: 4436: 4433: 4430: 4427: 4424: 4421: 4418: 4415: 4412: 4409: 4406: 4403: 4400: 4397: 4394: 4391: 4388: 4385: 4382: 4379: 4376: 4373: 4370: 4367: 4364: 4361: 4358: 4355: 4352: 4349: 4346: 4342: 4341: 4338: 4335: 4332: 4329: 4326: 4318: 4315: 4314: 4292: 4291: 4284: 4277: 4269: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4244: 4243: 4205: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4184:Toyota Corolla 4172: 4168:GA Nominations 4164: 4157: 4156: 4145: 4144: 4135: 4108: 4105: 4087: 4086: 4083: 4080: 4071: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4006: 3975: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3953: 3949: 3937: 3936: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3880: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3849: 3848: 3837: 3836: 3835:without reply. 3810: 3788: 3787: 3720: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3600:in 2006" (see 3531: 3528: 3509: 3506: 3491: 3488: 3459: 3456: 3454: 3413: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3383: 3382: 3356: 3355:How do I join? 3353: 3331:straight-sixes 3321: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3189:Lincoln Futura 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3025:future vehicle 3010: 3009: 2977: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2912: 2909: 2905: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2851: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2563: 2562: 2507: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2431: 2397: 2395:Renault Laguna 2356: 2340: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2311: 2301: 2300: 2228: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2195:Yeah - do it. 2164: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2065: 2064: 2034: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1990: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1896: 1833: 1830: 1789: 1778: 1750: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1676: 1675: 1640: 1637: 1622: 1619: 1594: 1591: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1498: 1491: 1484: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1452: 1448: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1306: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1270: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1213: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1116: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1045: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 981:General Motors 974: 973: 941:Morris --: --> 939:Austin --: --> 937: 935: 933: 932: 926: 925: 914: 913: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 872: 871: 870: 869: 839: 836: 835: 834: 824: 816: 812: 807: 806: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 774: 773: 772: 769: 765: 762: 756: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 710: 709: 708: 707: 696: 695: 610: 609: 595: 594: 590: 589: 585: 584: 580: 579: 575: 574: 558: 555: 554: 553: 538: 537: 536: 515: 514: 513: 494: 466: 461: 415: 412: 411: 410: 405: 398: 395: 393: 388: 387: 384: 382: 380: 377: 375: 372: 371: 368: 366: 363: 360: 359: 356: 354: 352: 349: 348: 345: 343: 340: 339: 336: 334: 332: 329: 328: 325: 323: 321: 318: 317: 314: 312: 310: 307: 306: 303: 301: 299: 296: 295: 292: 290: 288: 285: 284: 281: 279: 277: 274: 273: 270: 268: 265: 264: 261: 259: 257: 254: 252: 249: 248: 244: 242: 240: 236: 234: 231: 230: 227: 223: 222: 196: 187: 186: 171: 150: 132: 127: 126: 111: 80: 74: 72: 54: 46: 37: 33: 32: 24: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 7206: 7196: 7195: 7192: 7188: 7172: 7171: 7168: 7162: 7161: 7153: 7149: 7146: 7143: 7139: 7136: 7131: 7128: 7123: 7120: 7116: 7115: 7112: 7111: 7109: 7104: 7100: 7096: 7091: 7090:Talbot Tagora 7084:- peer review 7083: 7082:Talbot Tagora 7072: 7069: 7065: 7059: 7054: 7053: 7052: 7051: 7050: 7049: 7044: 7040: 7036: 7031: 7030: 7029: 7028: 7025: 7022: 7018: 7014: 7010: 7006: 7002: 7001: 7000: 6999: 6996: 6991: 6987: 6984: 6983:Mercedes-Benz 6974: 6973: 6970: 6966: 6951: 6948: 6944: 6943: 6942: 6941: 6938: 6934: 6930: 6926: 6922: 6921: 6920: 6919: 6916: 6903: 6899: 6895: 6891: 6887: 6884: 6882: 6879: 6876: 6872: 6868: 6865: 6864: 6863: 6862: 6855: 6848: 6844: 6841: 6837: 6836: 6834: 6833: 6832: 6831: 6830: 6829: 6824: 6821: 6817: 6816: 6815: 6814: 6811: 6807: 6803: 6799: 6795: 6794: 6793: 6792: 6789: 6785: 6781: 6771: 6770: 6767: 6763: 6757: 6749: 6746: 6742: 6736: 6732: 6731: 6728: 6724: 6720: 6715: 6714:Cars in Japan 6711: 6710: 6709: 6708: 6705: 6701: 6695: 6691: 6687: 6679: 6666: 6663: 6659: 6655: 6651: 6647: 6646: 6645: 6644: 6643: 6642: 6641: 6640: 6633: 6629: 6625: 6620: 6617: 6612: 6608: 6607: 6606: 6605: 6604: 6603: 6598: 6595: 6591: 6587: 6586: 6585: 6584: 6581: 6578: 6574: 6568: 6567: 6566: 6565: 6562: 6559: 6552: 6549: 6545: 6541: 6537: 6536: 6533: 6530: 6526: 6520: 6519: 6518: 6517: 6514: 6510: 6506: 6495: 6494: 6493: 6490: 6478: 6475: 6471: 6465: 6464: 6463: 6462: 6459: 6456: 6452: 6451: 6450: 6449: 6448: 6445: 6439: 6435: 6431: 6427: 6425: 6422: 6418: 6414: 6409: 6407: 6397: 6394: 6393: 6389: 6385: 6381: 6376: 6371: 6369: 6365: 6361: 6349: 6346: 6342: 6341: 6334: 6330: 6329: 6328: 6327: 6323: 6319: 6316: 6311: 6310: 6307: 6302: 6294: 6291: 6290: 6289: 6286: 6271: 6268: 6264: 6260: 6256: 6255: 6254: 6253: 6252: 6251: 6246: 6243: 6238: 6237: 6236: 6235: 6232: 6229: 6225: 6224: 6220: 6216: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6210: 6199: 6198: 6195: 6191: 6184: 6177: 6173: 6166: 6158: 6151: 6136: 6133: 6129: 6122: 6121: 6120: 6119: 6116: 6101: 6098: 6094: 6090: 6086: 6085: 6084: 6083: 6080: 6076: 6072: 6068: 6063: 6062: 6061: 6060: 6057: 6049: 6046: 6042: 6035: 6031: 6030: 6029: 6028: 6025: 6018: 6015: 6011: 6007: 6006: 6005: 6004: 6001: 5988: 5985: 5981: 5975: 5974: 5973: 5972: 5969: 5950: 5946: 5942: 5938: 5934: 5933: 5932: 5931: 5930: 5929: 5928: 5927: 5920: 5917: 5913: 5910: 5906: 5901: 5896: 5892: 5888: 5884: 5881:is built for 5880: 5879:Smart Forfour 5876: 5873: 5872: 5870: 5866: 5862: 5861: 5860: 5859: 5858: 5857: 5851: 5848: 5844: 5840: 5837: 5836: 5835: 5834: 5831: 5828: 5824: 5820: 5815: 5814: 5813: 5812: 5809: 5803: 5801: 5797: 5793: 5789: 5785: 5769: 5766: 5759: 5749: 5742: 5741: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5730: 5727: 5722: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5712: 5709: 5705: 5699: 5698: 5697: 5696: 5687: 5679: 5677: 5669: 5668: 5665: 5659: 5656: 5654: 5651: 5649: 5646: 5644: 5641: 5639: 5636: 5634: 5633: 5629: 5627: 5626: 5625:The Ford Show 5622: 5620: 5617: 5615: 5612: 5610: 5609: 5605: 5603: 5602: 5598: 5596: 5593: 5592: 5590: 5586: 5578: 5575: 5574: 5573: 5570: 5568: 5565: 5563: 5560: 5558: 5555: 5554: 5552: 5548: 5542: 5539: 5534: 5531: 5526: 5523: 5518: 5515: 5513: 5510: 5508: 5505: 5504: 5502: 5500: 5496: 5490: 5487: 5485: 5484:Transmissions 5482: 5480: 5477: 5475: 5472: 5468: 5465: 5464: 5463: 5460: 5458: 5455: 5453: 5450: 5446: 5443: 5441: 5438: 5437: 5435: 5432: 5430: 5427: 5426: 5424: 5418: 5405: 5402: 5397: 5394: 5389: 5386: 5381: 5378: 5373: 5370: 5365: 5362: 5357: 5354: 5349: 5346: 5341: 5338: 5333: 5330: 5329: 5327: 5323: 5314: 5311: 5306: 5303: 5298: 5295: 5293: 5290: 5285: 5282: 5280: 5277: 5272: 5269: 5268: 5266: 5262: 5259: 5257:shareholdings 5253: 5243: 5240: 5238: 5235: 5233: 5230: 5228: 5225: 5223: 5220: 5218: 5215: 5213: 5210: 5208: 5205: 5203: 5200: 5198: 5195: 5193: 5190: 5186: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5178: 5176: 5173: 5171: 5168: 5166: 5163: 5161: 5158: 5156: 5153: 5151: 5148: 5146: 5143: 5141: 5138: 5137: 5135: 5131: 5125: 5122: 5120: 5117: 5115: 5112: 5110: 5107: 5103: 5100: 5098: 5095: 5093: 5090: 5088: 5085: 5083: 5080: 5078: 5075: 5074: 5073: 5070: 5068: 5065: 5063: 5060: 5058: 5055: 5053: 5050: 5048: 5045: 5043: 5040: 5038: 5035: 5034: 5032: 5028: 5025: 5021: 5016: 4999: 4996: 4991: 4988: 4983: 4980: 4975: 4972: 4967: 4964: 4959: 4956: 4951: 4948: 4943: 4940: 4935: 4932: 4927: 4924: 4923: 4921: 4917: 4911: 4908: 4904: 4901: 4900: 4899: 4896: 4895: 4893: 4889: 4886: 4880: 4876: 4869: 4864: 4862: 4857: 4855: 4850: 4849: 4846: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4823: 4814: 4813: 4806: 4799: 4792: 4781: 4778: 4777: 4774: 4769: 4764: 4759: 4754: 4744: 4743: 4734: 4723: 4719: 4718: 4713: 4701: 4700: 4697: 4685: 4682: 4677: 4673: 4668: 4657:Mid-size CUV 4655: 4652: 4647: 4634: 4630: 4629: 4618: 4613: 4608: 4603: 4599: 4592: 4587: 4582: 4577: 4573: 4568: 4563: 4552: 4548: 4539: 4531: 4528: 4521: 4516: 4509: 4504: 4499: 4492: 4487: 4483: 4343: 4325: 4321: 4316: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4300: 4290: 4285: 4283: 4278: 4276: 4271: 4270: 4267: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4242: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4215: 4214: 4211: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4155: 4152: 4147: 4146: 4143: 4140: 4136: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4110:Suggestions: 4109: 4106: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4084: 4081: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4063: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4011: 4007: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3962: 3959: 3954: 3950: 3947: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3935: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3900: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3890: 3889: 3886: 3874: 3871: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3861: 3856: 3854: 3847: 3844: 3839: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3808: 3807: 3804: 3798: 3797: 3794: 3786: 3783: 3779: 3778: 3770: 3767:well, on the 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3760: 3756: 3751: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3732: 3730: 3726: 3714: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3697: 3693: 3678: 3675: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3652: 3649: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3630: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3613: 3610: 3606: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3586: 3581: 3577: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3566: 3561: 3560: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3527: 3526: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3505: 3504: 3501: 3497: 3487: 3486: 3483: 3478: 3477:Brass Era car 3473: 3472: 3469: 3465: 3464:Brass Era car 3455: 3452: 3451: 3448: 3444: 3438: 3433: 3432: 3429: 3424: 3420: 3407: 3404: 3400: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3388: 3381: 3378: 3374: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3362: 3352: 3351: 3348: 3344: 3343: 3334: 3332: 3328: 3319: 3312: 3309: 3305: 3299: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3271: 3265: 3264: 3261: 3257: 3251: 3245: 3244: 3241: 3237: 3236: 3228: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3206: 3203: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3171: 3168: 3164: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3139: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3106: 3103: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3080: 3077: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3058: 3055: 3051: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3036: 3033: 3026: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3008: 3005: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2982: 2971: 2968: 2964: 2957: 2952: 2947: 2946: 2933: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2913: 2910: 2906: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2884: 2883: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2859: 2857: 2856:141.161.69.68 2852: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2807:it is useful. 2805: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2780: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2736: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2691: 2690:Talk: Audi S4 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2666: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2644: 2641: 2636: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2618: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2592: 2589: 2586: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2561: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2511:speculations 2495: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2469: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2432: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2387:Daewoo Tacuma 2384: 2383:Holden Torana 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2359:Pontiac Fiero 2357: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2347: 2332: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2312: 2308: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2299: 2296: 2292: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2283: 2278: 2276: 2272: 2266: 2263: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2236: 2216: 2213: 2209: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2189: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2177: 2173: 2152: 2149: 2145: 2140:article. ;-) 2139: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2121: 2118: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2101: 2098: 2094: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2077: 2074: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2063: 2060: 2055: 2054:Darwin awards 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2044: 2040: 2028: 2025: 2021: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2002: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1989: 1986: 1982: 1975: 1971: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1941: 1924: 1921: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1907: 1902: 1897: 1894: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1857:I think that 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1839: 1829: 1828: 1825: 1818: 1808: 1798: 1785: 1777: 1776: 1773: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1748: 1737: 1734: 1730: 1721: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1704: 1701: 1697: 1691: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1674: 1671: 1667: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1636: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1618: 1617: 1614: 1610: 1604: 1600: 1590: 1589: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1567: 1564: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1554: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1542: 1538: 1535: 1532: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1508: 1504: 1499: 1496: 1492: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1480: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1458: 1453: 1449: 1447: 1444: 1440: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1418: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1391: 1388: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1378: 1374: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1353: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1343: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1333: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1322: 1317: 1312: 1300: 1297: 1293: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1281: 1276: 1268: 1257: 1254: 1250: 1244: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1192: 1189: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1179: 1175: 1168: 1158: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1117: 1115: 1112: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1092: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1055: 1051: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1032: 1022: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1006: 1002: 998: 997:Smart ForFour 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 977: 976: 975: 972: 969: 965: 958: 957: 956: 955: 952: 936: 928: 927: 924: 921: 916: 915: 912: 909: 905: 898: 897: 890: 887: 883: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 868: 865: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 852: 848: 833: 830: 825: 822: 817: 813: 809: 808: 805: 802: 798: 791: 783: 780: 775: 770: 766: 763: 759: 758: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 739: 736: 732: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 715: 704: 700: 699: 698: 697: 694: 691: 687: 680: 679: 678: 677: 674: 669: 667: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 637: 633: 628: 623: 619: 613: 607: 606: 605: 603: 600: 592: 591: 587: 586: 582: 581: 577: 576: 572: 571: 570: 568: 565: 552: 549: 545: 539: 535: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 509: 505: 498: 497: 495: 493: 490: 486: 485: 484: 481: 477: 471: 467: 465: 462: 456: 449: 448: 447: 446: 443: 439: 435: 431: 424: 409: 406: 404: 401: 400: 391: 383: 381: 376: 374: 373: 369: 367: 364: 362: 361: 355: 350: 346: 341: 335: 330: 324: 319: 313: 308: 302: 297: 291: 286: 280: 275: 271: 266: 260: 258: 253: 251: 250: 243: 241: 235: 233: 232: 224: 220: 210: 194: 190: 189:Autopatrolled 183: 179: 174: 165: 160: 156: 148: 130: 123: 119: 114: 105: 101: 83: 68: 61: 51:Content added 43: 40: 30: 19: 7184: 7164: 7151: 7144: 7142:alliteration 7134: 7126: 7087: 7061: 7057: 7016: 6992: 6988: 6980: 6961: 6912: 6859:Do also see: 6777: 6759: 6753: 6738: 6697: 6682: 6570: 6555: 6522: 6501: 6486: 6483: 6467: 6441: 6433: 6428: 6416: 6410: 6403: 6395: 6372: 6357: 6336: 6312: 6298: 6287: 6283: 6263:my talk page 6205: 6144: 6125: 6111: 6089:VotingIsEvil 6052: 6038: 6021: 5996: 5977: 5964: 5864: 5852:(a Ford guy) 5804: 5781: 5701: 5630: 5623: 5606: 5599: 5550:Racing teams 5364:Ford Sollers 5305:Ford Vietnam 5284:Changan Ford 5140:Aston Martin 5023:Subsidiaries 4919:Discontinued 4818: 4780:Pickup truck 4515:Zephyr → MKZ 4323: 4308:division of 4216: 4207: 4124:Ford Mustang 4116:Toyota Supra 4088: 4073: 3983:Good article 3944: 3891: 3882: 3857: 3850: 3819: 3809: 3799: 3789: 3773: 3769:Toyota Supra 3752: 3739: 3733: 3722: 3705: 3689: 3584: 3583: 3575: 3562: 3535: 3533: 3511: 3493: 3474: 3461: 3453: 3440: 3434: 3418: 3415: 3396: 3384: 3370: 3358: 3338: 3335: 3323: 3318:Toyota Supra 3301: 3266: 3253: 3246: 3231: 3229: 3213: 3196: 3184: 3160: 3050:concept cars 3011: 2985: 2983: 2979: 2960: 2955: 2950: 2893: 2885: 2853: 2509: 2342: 2307:Yeah I know! 2279: 2267: 2264: 2234: 2230: 2205: 2186:Have at it. 2169: 2166: 2141: 2090: 2036: 2033:sanity check 2017: 1978: 1936: 1914: 1892: 1886:I think the 1842: 1835: 1791: 1769: 1752: 1726: 1682: 1663: 1642: 1624: 1606: 1596: 1574: 1530: 1529: 1515: 1502: 1436: 1411: 1407: 1370: 1308: 1289: 1272: 1246: 1171: 1140: 1136: 1120: 1094: 1049: 1027: 993:Pontiac Vibe 961: 948: 934: 901: 881: 844: 841: 820: 794: 728: 711: 702: 683: 670: 614: 611: 596: 560: 541: 501: 473: 433: 417: 6438:my userpage 6067:Concept car 6034:Concept car 5909:Lamborghini 5562:Performance 5512:Ford Family 5436:properties 5297:Ford Otosan 5292:Ford Lio Ho 5114:Philippines 5109:New Zealand 4969:(1938–2011) 4934:Continental 4576:Continental 4567:Continental 4508:Continental 4503:Continental 4498:Continental 4238:Talk to me! 4180:Honda Civic 4176:Ford Mondeo 4128:Dodge Viper 3931:Talk to me! 3755:Galant VR-4 3748:User:Jhrody 3692:the Commons 3580:this galley 3514:Honda Civic 3508:Help needed 3419:competitors 3298:Lincoln MKS 3287:Talk to me! 3250:Lincoln MKS 2929:Talk to me! 2570:Lincoln MKS 2557:Talk to me! 2491:Talk to me! 2449:Talk to me! 2328:Talk to me! 2256:Peugeot 807 2252:Peugeot 806 2248:Fiat Ulysse 2039:ghostriding 1639:Auto plants 1507:User:Ed g2s 1495:User:Ed g2s 1488:User:Ed g2s 1404:User:Ed g2s 1311:User:Ed g2s 1141:car company 1082:Talk to me! 1010:Jaguar Cars 938:BMC --: --> 455:AutoProject 434:necessarily 219:Next edit → 42:Next edit → 6958:Auto shows 6594:SteveBaker 6455:SteveBaker 6257:Following 6242:SteveBaker 6209:SteveBaker 5891:Mitsubishi 5883:Smart GmbH 5827:SteveBaker 5619:Ford Field 5614:Fordlândia 5533:Jim Farley 5517:Henry Ford 5462:Motorcraft 5372:Ford Union 5340:AutoLatina 5197:Land Rover 5170:Ford Japan 5165:Ford India 5119:Quick Lane 4882:Divisions/ 4527:Z (Zephyr) 4491:Versailles 4151:SteveBaker 3879:Uniformity 3803:SteveBaker 3565:SteveBaker 3482:SteveBaker 3428:SteveBaker 3202:SteveBaker 2277:articles? 2271:Sevel Nord 2244:Citroen C8 2197:SteveBaker 2117:SteveBaker 2059:SteveBaker 1998:SteveBaker 1906:SteveBaker 1873:, and the 1838:Lincoln LS 1784:wagon-stub 1763:SteveBaker 1755:MINI (BMW) 1747:MINI (BMW) 1585:SteveBaker 1520:SteveBaker 1417:SteveBaker 1280:SteveBaker 1145:SteveBaker 951:SteveBaker 920:SteveBaker 829:SteveBaker 821:Opel Corsa 668:article). 489:SteveBaker 7064:Signature 6786:artcle:D 6762:Signature 6741:Signature 6700:Signature 6573:Signature 6525:Signature 6470:Signature 6301:AKADriver 6190:WP:MOSDAB 6170:based on 6165:shipindex 6157:WP:MOSDAB 6128:Signature 6041:Signature 5980:Signature 5800:Volvo S80 5796:Volvo S60 5792:Volvo C70 5743:See also 5704:Signature 5595:Big Three 5520:(Founder) 5507:Designers 5474:Platforms 5457:Factories 5375:(Belarus) 5052:Argentina 5047:Australia 5001:(1939–65) 4993:(1946–61) 4985:(1949–76) 4977:(1985–89) 4958:Frontenac 4953:(1917–64) 4945:(1956–59) 4937:(1956–59) 4929:(1960–61) 4791:Blackwood 4773:Navigator 4768:Navigator 4763:Navigator 4758:Navigator 4753:Navigator 4720:Mid-size 4617:Mark VIII 4551:Full-size 4010:ApolloBoy 3870:ApolloBoy 3443:Signature 3399:Signature 3373:Signature 3304:Signature 3256:Signature 3193:Batmobile 3163:Signature 2963:Signature 2371:Saab 9-2X 2346:ApolloBoy 2275:Sevel Van 2208:Signature 2172:Signature 2144:Signature 2138:Stupidity 2093:Signature 2020:Signature 1981:Signature 1845:Signature 1729:Signature 1666:Signature 1609:Signature 1439:Signature 1373:Signature 1292:Signature 1249:Signature 1174:Signature 1123:Signature 1097:Signature 1091:Volvo S80 964:Signature 904:Signature 847:Signature 797:Signature 731:Signature 686:Signature 602:talk page 567:talk page 544:Signature 504:Signature 476:Signature 229:Line 619: 226:Line 619: 7021:Interiot 7004:history. 6548:Interiot 6194:Interiot 6183:disambig 6150:disambig 6124:Thanks. 6097:Interiot 6014:Interiot 5765:Interiot 5700:Thanks. 5676:Category 5648:New Edge 5577:Munchi's 5489:Vehicles 5422:products 5407:(Brazil) 5391:(France) 5367:(Russia) 5192:Kwik-Fit 5150:Cosworth 4681:Nautilus 4676:Nautilus 4631:Compact 4591:Town Car 4586:Town Car 4581:Town Car 4486:Mid-size 4298:previous 4075:should: 3831:and the 3793:Interiot 3696:SFoskett 3648:SFoskett 3626:SFoskett 3518:Sunfazer 3496:Sunfazer 3490:I'm new! 3468:Malcolma 3437:Lexus LS 3270:Saab 9-1 3135:Interiot 3032:Interiot 2640:Interiot 2367:Saab 900 2280:Thanks, 2273:or even 2260:Sfoskett 2227:Eurovans 2073:Interiot 2043:Interiot 1974:SFoskett 1960:SFoskett 1950:Interiot 1920:Interiot 1901:Interiot 1879:Interiot 1824:Interiot 1700:Interiot 1653:Interiot 1599:Lexus LS 1563:Interiot 1541:Interiot 1387:Interiot 1018:SFoskett 882:de facto 864:Malcolma 815:article. 531:Interiot 470:Lexus LS 442:Interiot 182:contribs 122:contribs 112:DanCBJMS 66:Wikitext 7167:DeLarge 7095:Bravada 7058:opinion 7035:Bravada 6969:Fluence 6947:Fluence 6929:Bravada 6894:Bravada 6820:Fluence 6802:Bravada 6788:Fluence 6719:Bravada 6662:Fluence 6624:Bravada 6561:Fluence 6513:Fluence 6489:DeLarge 6444:DeLarge 6384:Bravada 6368:Steve's 6318:Bravada 6267:DeLarge 6228:DeLarge 6219:JeremyA 6071:Bravada 5941:Bravada 5916:DeLarge 5806:issue? 5786:pages. 5726:CBecker 5686:Commons 5638:History 5567:Team RS 5452:Engines 5404:Troller 5388:Matford 5359:(China) 5351:(49.9%) 5332:Argo AI 5264:Current 5237:Visteon 5232:Troller 5145:Chariot 5097:Romania 5087:Ireland 5082:Germany 5030:Current 4990:Monarch 4966:Mercury 4950:Fordson 4910:Lincoln 4891:Current 4884:marques 4805:Mark LT 4798:Mark LT 4733:Aviator 4696:Aviator 4651:Corsair 4302:Lincoln 4230:Bravada 4210:CBecker 4188:Bravada 4139:CBecker 4091:Bravada 4059:CBecker 4025:Bravada 3958:CBecker 3923:Bravada 3885:CBecker 3853:DeLarge 3843:DeLarge 3822:in the 3759:DeLarge 3738:policy 3710:Nrbelex 3674:Nrbelex 3609:Nrbelex 3594:Nrbelex 3576:Update: 3556:Nrbelex 3544:Nrbelex 3320:article 3279:Bravada 2921:Bravada 2898:Audi A4 2549:Bravada 2521:claimed 2483:Bravada 2441:Bravada 2363:Saab 92 2320:Bravada 2282:Bravada 2188:Stude62 1631:Stude62 1553:Stude62 1503:support 1472:Stude62 1457:Bravada 1428:Stude62 1361:Stude62 1352:Bravada 1342:Stude62 1332:Bravada 1321:Stude62 1218:Bravada 1074:Bravada 886:Bravada 779:Bravada 423:Cvgproj 172:DeLarge 6995:Jagvar 6511:soon) 6434:should 6417:recent 6115:Bok269 6056:Bok269 6024:Bok269 6000:Bok269 5968:Bok269 5895:NedCar 5808:Jagvar 5499:People 5467:Mercon 5396:Samcor 5325:Former 5180:Jaguar 5133:Former 5092:Italia 5077:France 5072:Europe 5067:Credit 5062:Canada 5057:Brazil 4998:Thames 4982:Meteor 4974:Merkur 4961:(1960) 4903:Raptor 4815:Notes 4340:2020s 4337:2010s 4334:2000s 4331:1990s 4328:1980s 4306:luxury 3387:bok269 3361:Bok269 3185:Oppose 2633:Well, 1915:little 1893:forums 1863:WP:NOT 1759:WP:FAC 1577:WP:FUP 1516:PLEASE 1468:WP:FUP 1316:WP:FUP 1232:Dahlis 1188:Dahlis 1154:Dahlis 1111:Dahlis 1031:Dahlis 1001:Toyota 768:Omega. 651:, the 647:, the 643:, the 198:12,931 77:Inline 59:Visual 5889:- by 5847:T-dot 5784:Volvo 5536:(CEO) 5383:(50%) 5335:(42%) 5316:(32%) 5308:(60%) 5300:(41%) 5287:(50%) 5274:(50%) 5242:Volvo 5227:Th!nk 4942:Edsel 4926:Comet 4163:IMHO. 3197:might 3102:T-dot 3054:T-dot 3004:T-dot 2585:T-dot 2574:T-dot 2355:now): 1888:WP:EL 1698:. -- 946:Mini 703:never 632:ASEAN 200:edits 136:edits 16:< 7099:talk 7039:talk 6933:talk 6898:talk 6806:talk 6723:talk 6650:1998 6628:talk 6388:talk 6380:COTW 6339:ren0 6322:talk 6075:talk 5945:talk 5823:Mini 5819:Mini 5753:and 5222:Spin 4898:Ford 4324:Type 4304:, a 4192:talk 4095:talk 4029:talk 3999:here 3985:and 3776:ren0 3552:this 3536:many 3522:Talk 3500:Talk 3423:Mini 3341:ren0 3234:ren0 3076:Pc13 2988:ren0 2956:only 2900:and 2804:Pc13 2665:Pc13 2614:Pc13 2533:Pc13 2529:Here 2525:Here 2517:this 2513:here 2468:Pc13 2458:93JC 2295:93JC 1994:Mini 1865:and 1683:have 1601:and 1275:Mini 1267:Mini 1222:talk 1054:here 1003:and 714:93JC 659:and 620:and 517:The 178:talk 164:undo 159:edit 118:talk 104:edit 7165:-- 7152:all 7135:all 6654:VAM 6616:VAM 6542:or 6487:-- 5865:six 5160:FPV 4722:SUV 4712:MKT 4672:MKX 4667:MKX 4646:MKC 4633:CUV 4562:MKS 4520:MKZ 4182:or 3946:on. 3727:or 2902:RS4 2037:Is 1871:FAQ 1836:On 1812:or 1772:Bud 1412:can 1137:car 134:802 7101:- 7097:, 7041:- 7037:, 6967::) 6935:- 6931:, 6900:- 6896:, 6873:, 6869:, 6808:- 6804:, 6725:- 6721:, 6630:- 6626:, 6442:-- 6390:- 6386:, 6382:. 6335:. 6324:- 6320:, 6299:— 6186:}} 6180:{{ 6168:}} 6162:{{ 6153:}} 6147:{{ 6077:- 6073:, 5947:- 5943:, 5798:, 5794:, 5761:}} 5758:VW 5755:{{ 5751:}} 5745:{{ 4674:→ 4538:LS 4480:5 4462:9 4432:9 4402:9 4372:9 4296:« 4208:-- 4194:- 4190:, 4137:-- 4130:, 4126:, 4122:, 4118:, 4114:, 4097:- 4093:, 4057:-- 4031:- 4027:, 3974::D 3883:-- 3791:-- 3706:so 3646:-- 3520:| 3498:| 3327:V8 3223:, 3219:, 3028:}} 3022:{{ 2894:IS 2638:-- 2466:-- 2427:, 2423:, 2419:, 2415:, 2411:, 2407:, 2403:, 2393:, 2385:, 2381:, 2377:, 2373:, 2369:, 2365:, 2361:, 2344:-- 2293:-- 2254:, 2250:, 2246:, 2242:, 2057:. 1958:-- 1918:-- 1820:}} 1814:{{ 1810:}} 1804:{{ 1800:}} 1794:{{ 1787:}} 1781:{{ 1723:}} 1717:{{ 1693:}} 1687:{{ 1385:-- 1224:- 1220:, 1186:-- 1029:-- 995:, 987:, 983:, 761::D 712:-- 604:: 569:: 458:}} 452:{{ 426:}} 420:{{ 211:: 191:, 180:| 120:| 7121:. 6305:☎ 4867:e 4860:t 4853:v 4477:4 4474:3 4471:2 4468:1 4465:0 4459:8 4456:7 4453:6 4450:5 4447:4 4444:3 4441:2 4438:1 4435:0 4429:8 4426:7 4423:6 4420:5 4417:4 4414:3 4411:2 4408:1 4405:0 4399:8 4396:7 4393:6 4390:5 4387:4 4384:3 4381:2 4378:1 4375:0 4369:8 4366:7 4363:6 4360:5 4357:4 4354:3 4351:2 4348:1 4345:0 4288:e 4281:t 4274:v 4005:. 2858:) 1048:" 184:) 176:( 124:) 116:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.