This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Automobiles This page is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile

I feel, one of the key article of this wikiproject, Automotive engineering needs a good revision and copy edit. I would love to help in the process as much as viable. Being a civil engineering student I am unknown of some key terms. In addition, i see the need of forming a new article Automobile engineering much famous in South asian countries including Nepal and India to flourish the information regarding the subject and make the area of study open to fellow readers.Franked2004 (talk)

There are a lot of merge proposal that might be of interest to, and discussions may benefit from members of this Wikiproject:

• Ford Puma Rally1
• Toyota GR Yaris Rally1
• Hyundai i20 N Rally1

And many Rally2 and Rally3 cars, unfortunately not all being discussed at the same page. Bit difficult to follow. Rally Wonk (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great fan of merging eg "Created for the short-lived Group B rally category, the 4WD mid engined MG Metro 6R4 of 1984 (standing for 6-cylinder, Rally, 4-wheel-drive) had almost no commonality with the regular production Metro with which it bears a superficial cosmetic resemblance. The competition car effectively only shared the name of the production Metro as it featured a mid-mounted engine with four-wheel drive transmission enclosed within a semi-monocoque seam-welded tubular chassis. The development of this vehicle had been entrusted to Williams Grand Prix Engineering.[20]" Greglocock (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...but the Rally1 GR Yaris has commonality with the road version that it existed for unlike that Metro, so why should the rally car be deserving of its own article consisting of filler stubs and results. BuffaloTaro (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Late, but it should. The GR Yaris is built differently from the road car, like all Rally cars. It's not a simple case of modifying a road-going GR Yaris for rallying. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ford I4 DOHC engine#Contested move request that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that BYD Yuan Up be moved to BYD Atto 2, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 03:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Chevrolet Sonic will now be manufactured as a Brazil SUV model in the future and I think a consensus needs to be reached to see what to do about it before a large edit can be initiated. I'm not sure what to title the new article or what to do so that the split or addition can be as smooth as possible so wikilinks and other dependencies aren't broken.

Thanks. Macbookair3140 (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the car? Let's wait how the model will be positioned then we'll discuss it. Andra Febrian (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Someone else supported the idea of splitting the article but I don't know much about the new Brazil model so I wanted to bring the breaking change discussion here for more attention. Talk:Chevrolet_Sonic#Should_this_continue_to_point_to_Chevrolet_Aveo? Macbookair3140 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now see there are many English announcements and articles for a 2027 Brazil Sonic crossover SUV that can be searched. How do we title the article then, and how do we template it and add it to the WikiProject properly to integrate it into Wikipedia?

These are my concerns, but the main concern is titling the new article. Should we just name the new article Chevrolet Sonic? Macbookair3140 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the English Wikipedia, the Sonic that was sold in English-speaking markets will likely continue to be the primary topic, so Chevrolet Sonic should become a disambiguation page. --Sable232 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that way too. I have:

• Created a new Chevrolet Sonic (Brazil) page on behalf of other editors who agreed that the articles should be separate, and added it to WikiProject Automobiles
• Changed Chevrolet Sonic into a disambiguation page

The wiki article might need editing to trim unsourced information but the other editor seemed to have accomplished a good start, so I used that. Macbookair3140 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me but I might have made a mistake due to me recently coming back to enwiki, after a bit more than a decade of hiatus.

A bot tagged the disambiguation page as linked from many sources. I forgot how to check for that. Because of that, I kind of feel the redirect should've been kept in place, possibly with a hatnote to the Brazilian Sonic. This is what I felt, I originally reverted the large change because of the potential for that. I simply wanted to reach a compromise with the other editor(s).

I just came back a while ago since I noticed the article was edited with that large change quite recently. I might need a refresher on how Wikipedia works.

My source of information was that GM Authority seemed to acknowledge the GM of Brazil announcement that there would be a new Chevrolet Sonic SUV. Maybe this is an unreliable source, but there were Portuguese sources in the page too; I am unable to check non-English sources.

I will watchlist this page, I should've done that previously. Macbookair3140 (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. It's unclear whether there is a primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems like the discussion has stalled. I'm not seeing any real opposition to a dabpage, so I've restored it over at Chevrolet Sonic. 162 etc. (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that @Mr.choppers has removed model years from infoboxes in several car articles, stating "we typically only use these for North American cars". But there really is no policy I'm aware of that we exclude model years from the infobox on any car not native to North America. If they are cars not sold in North America or any other region that uses model years, fine, it makes sense to omit them. But for cars such as the Porsche 911 and Lamborghini Diablo which were sold in North America, I think it's good to keep model years for the benefit of regions which use them. If it helps, you can add "(North America)" after the model years. In the case of Opel Antara, it may not have made sense to add "(Europe)" after them, unless the Opel, Vauxhall, and other variants there actually did use them. And I see the North American variant, the Saturn Vue, does have model years in its second generation infobox. So that page could be okay without model years unless someone wants to add "(North America)" or "(Saturn Vue)" after them.

I really don't want this to lead to a regional bias or edit crusade against any mention of model years, e.g. if they were taken out of one Porsche infobox, why not the rest? Also, bear in mind model years are not 100% exclusive to the US or Canada. I have also seen South American car web pages use them. I guess it depends mostly on how much reliable sources use them. --Vossanova ^o< 19:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just cluttering the infoboxes (and all of my recent deletions were reversals of a single user who recently scattered "model year" information across a few dozen articles). For an infobox to read "production: 2015-2022" and "model years: 2016-2022" is pretty pointless. Also, what about differing model years for different countries? Should we include them for every market or just for when it was sold in the US? The infobox should be a place where we can see concise information at a glance. Many importers and manufacturers will refer to model years at times, but it really only has significance in the US context where model changes tend to align with the model years.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:North American International Auto Show#Requested move 4 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 01:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't delete, just collapse!

My fellow Wikipedians,

Thank you so much for your commitment!

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

It's about creating transparency.

1

Necessary condition

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

2

Sufficient condition

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

3

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

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

4

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

5

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

- Table 1: Overview

- Table 2: Economic efficiency

- Table 3: Details with assessment

6

You have now reached the following status:

- ZF 4HP: table from perhaps 2 years ago

- Ford-GM 10-speed: current overview table

- ZF 3HP: table from perhaps 2 years ago

- ZF 5HP: table from perhaps 2 years ago

- GM 6L: current overview table

- ZF 6HP: no table at all

Is this consistent?

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

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

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Cheers

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

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

Don't delete, just collapse!

·

My fellow Wikipedians,

thank you for your interest and commitment.

·

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

·

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

·

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

·

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

·

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Cheers

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

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

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

However ...

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

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

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

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

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

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