Garage Talk/1

Streamlining the Infobox

There is a specific topic i'd like to discuss with everyone. it might seem a trifle insignificant but i noticed that there are several forms of infobox automobiles on this site. i was thinking what if we standardized it to streamline the pages and add professionalism. This infobox is what i've seen used most commonly:

ABANDONED - DO NOT USE
Manufacturer
Production
Class
Body style
Lengh
Weight
Transmission
Engine
Similar

Unfortunately this infobox is chockful of errors like spelling mistakes (see "Length") and missing several parts (width, height, wheelbase, etc.)

I have since created and have been using a more expanded and IMO complete infobox. Check out my Maserati A6 page to copy and paste. I have deliberately left it unfilled to act as a control. If anyone has any suggestions as to things they want to add or modify please notify me so we can maintain a uniform look to wikicars. Or if you don't feel like digging around here are the codes:

---

UPDATED-----

Red_marquis 10:08 am, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New infobox. streamlined and, now, stylised. what more could you want?

{{{Image}}}
{{{Name of Vehicle}}}
{{{Manufacturer}}}
aka	{{{aka (Type here, not up there)}}}
Production	{{{produced from when to when+total units made (optional)}}}
Class	{{{Class}}}
Body Style	{{{Body-Style}}}
Length	{{{length - type here}}}
Width	{{{Width - type here}}}
Height	{{{Height - type here}}}
Wheelbase	{{{wheelbase - type here}}}
Weight	{{{Weight - you get the point}}}
Transmission	{{{transmission + drive}}}
Engine	{{{engine}}}
Power	{{{Horsepower and Torque rating}}}
Similar	{{{similar (competition)}}}
Designer	{{{Designer (lead designer if it was a team effort)}}}

Red_marquis 3:45 pm, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone: The boxes look great on the site! LuvWikis 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Love the boxes RM - got one on the Porsche 930 page and it looks rather classy. delays

Alfa Romeo Template Image Voting

Your votes are required.

What if you put the lady in red on the left and the the grille in black on the right side of the box? Might be too busy?? LuvWikis 13:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Grille in black, definately. I'd rather have a quadrifoglio badge or something, but that'll do just fine. User:Argen 1:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Red marquis 02:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So It's resolved, "Grille in Black" wins. Red marquis 04:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Porsche Template Image Voting

Red marquis 03:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought - is the Porsche 64 included in the template? delays 13:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (This was me, this morning, on the other machine.)

Not sure what you mean - RM

The template doesn't seem to include a link to the Porsche 64 - or is it just my eyes?! delays

You're right. fixed it. - RM

Voting has ended. 997 Headlights win. Red marquis 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorical redundancy

I'm trying to sort out and fill up categories and I am noticing some redundancies and mixed terms. For example, there are both Car designers and Automobile designers categories. Instead of just going on my personal whim, I decided it would be best for everyone to decide on some regulations for these things. We need to decide what terms to use (auto or car?) and how the categories should be capitalized (difference in caps can create multiple categories).

Argen 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. Most of the categories are leftover from our initial Wikipedia transfer, as evidenced by the lack of wiki-pages for those categories. Once we started fleshing out our pages with a bit more original content, we began to incorporate our own categories, like Current Models and Discontinued Models. As for the regulations you mentioned, I'd go with "Automobile" over "Car" as a general rule; and I'd also capitalize the categories the same way book or song titles are capitalized. In other words, I'd use "Current Models" as opposed to "Current models" and I'd use "Fords of the 60's" as opposed to "Fords Of The 60's." Just my two cents...

- Pastrami on Ry 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I generally prefer automobile (self moving) over car, because it can mean any vehicle on here while cars are just cars. Maybe it should be called Wikiauto instead.=P

Argen 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I like Automobile designers in this case, although generally "cars" will get 20X he traffic from Google searches, so I'd use that in most cases. LuvWikis 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Cars, Automobiles, and Vehicles are frequently used interchangeably, and right now there are categories under each. I've been changing them, but I want to stop and get some rules straight so I don't have to re-do pages several times. Given that this is Wikicars, using "car" in categories would be more appropriate. Aside from that, many pages have been directly translated from Wikipedia to Wikicars and contain links and categories that are inappropriate. For instance, do we really need a category for the "Economy of Serbia" on an auto site? Argen 8:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Argen. We're trying to consolidate as many cataegories as we can, but with over 800 categories, it's a bit tougher to decide which ones to keep and which can be removed. =)

1. I suggest that for now, we keep one category for each make, to be denoted as [[Category:Make Vehicles]].
2. Also, several vehicles, especially the classics and vintages, spanned over several decades so we should have another category for the decade associated to it.
3. Other categories we should consider are: [[Category:Current Models]], [[Category:Discontinued Models]], and [[Category:Model Reviews]].
4. We should also have categories for the types of cars and body styles out there: [[Category:Sedans]], [[Category:Coupes]], [[Category:Trucks]], [[Category:SUVs]].
5. As we keep expanding in the exotic cars and classic cars portals (as well as the predominent automotive personalities, we should think about distinguishing these types with their own category: [[Category:Classic cars]], [[Category:Exotic cars]], [[Category:Sports cars]], [[Category:Automotive engineers]] and [[Category:Automotive designers]].

What does everyone think? -Nidhi 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So, for the major cats we caps both words and for the smaller cats we just caps the first. That's fine with me. That aside, do we have a consensus on the car/auto/vehicle thing? I think vehicles should only be used for the [[Category:Make Vehicles]] categories. Broad categories, like "Classic cars", should retain the car part, and "automobile" should be used for more technical things such as in the "Automotive _____" categories. Argen 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Our 2000th Article

It's getting close. Coming on pretty fast now. Don't kid yourselves everyone, that's a milestone for us. I'll post a link here as soon as it comes into existence. =) Red_marquis 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Awwww, our little baby's all grownz up! Oh, and GREAT job everyone! There's no way we could have gotten this far without our superb contributors. You guys rock my WikiWorld.- Pastrami on Ry 19:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is:

Isotta-Fraschini

Red_marquis 10:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, this is fantastic! Red_marquis, congrat's on grabbing the honors! Here's to a fast 3,000! LuvWikis 03:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if we reached the 2,500 page mark by mid-February! Congrats and thanks to all! -Nidhi 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, quality counts...and I think our quality has been great too! LuvWikis 12:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, were at 2,508 articles now. Not exactly "mid-February" (that was 4/5 days ago) but pretty close.

Red_marquis 11:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Automotive Navigational Boxes

0-172 brought up a good point about the images we should use for these boxes. He commented that on the alfa romeo nav box, the picture doesn't contain a logo of the marque. However, I've been thinking we could try a different approach. What if maybe, instead of the obvious, we used iconic images like paintings, posters, B&W photos, design details of a car, manufacturer-sanctioned PR images, etc. Why not try appealing to their artistic senses instead and use visuals that make them think of a marque ~ I'm talking about the use of images iconically associated with a brand. The alfa romeo nav box is a good example of this experiment. What I have in mind is, like for example, with the Ford box, we could use a cropped image, Camillo Pardo painting or racing poster of a GT or GT40 in Gulf Oil livery or a B&W photo of a Model T or a shot of Steve McQueen's Mustang jumping through the streets of San Francisco or a Model A hot rod, etc., etc. The idea is to create a more visually tactile environment. I get the sense that most people who'll be visiting here are car enthusiasts rather than car shoppers looking strictly for information to guide them on their next purchase. While I'm not suggesting we should completely abandon wikicar's original philosophy, I thought it'd be nice to give people more than just cold hard informative facts by lending our pages a warm and inviting atmosphere through the use of a bit of "artistic flair". I don't know, am I making myself understandable? Red_marquis 10:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Red_marquis, this is a very interesting policy question. I think you argue for your case very eloquently and intelligently. I think you've framed the issue broader than 0-172 was intending with his comment; so, I suspect he may concur with your comments above. I, for one, am very supportive of the creative direction you outline. It's different, passionate, and fun. As always, we're open to hearing all points of view. I appreciate the creativity and energy and would be excited where a direction like this might take us. LuvWikis 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well...it doesn't really matter to me either way. I understand what your saying and go ahead with it, but personally I prefer the grill images. Enzo Worshipper (Talk) 4:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the concept of diversifying the images, especially since our “Wikicar’s Philosophy” is still under development. I agree with you Red marquis, that we need to spice up the content with some artistry rather than just bookish knowledge. There’s the risk of diverging too far from the automotive front and delving into some risqué content, but thankfully we haven’t encountered any images thus far that require such scrutiny. While I think the Alfa Romeo nav box is “borderline sexually suggestive,” I don’t think it’s at all offensive and I think as long as we can steer clear of the latter, we’ll be okay.-Nidhi 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nidhi about the image for the Alfa Romeo template. Seeing that type of thing here kind of makes me uncomfortable, and I believe that images like that don't really have a place at his site. Enzo Worshipper (Talk) 4:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also all for a bit more creative license with the nav boxes, and I also agree with Nidhi's sentiments about making sure we don't veer into the potentially offensive. I think it would be beneficial to the site as a whole and I think it would generate a bit more interest for people just browsing through here. One concern I have is this: While I'm sure those who are in the know will appreciate a touch like the picture in the Alfa Romeo box, I myself an not that familiar with the marque, and so I'm personally not aware of the relevance of the picture. As such, it would seem rather random, and I would imagine that those who are not enthusiasts may find the picture slightly odd or out of place. Black and white photos of the Model T or racing posters of the GT for Ford, on the other hand, are much less esoteric and would be better received, I think. That's not to say that the picture in the Alfa Romeo box isn't nice; I actually think it's quite beautiful. I just think that if we cater TOO much to the enthusiasts, we may lose the more casual browsers who might otherwise be inclined to register and contribute. There is a happy medium to be found here, in my opinion. - Pastrami on Ry 19:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A brief caption under the red dress (like: "The Alpha Grill As Fashion" would address this point: "While I'm sure those who are in the know will appreciate a touch like the picture in the Alfa Romeo box, I myself an not that familiar with the marque, and so I'm personally not aware of the relevance of the picture." LuvWikis 19:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Testimonials?

I've been noticing here and there that some users have been putting statements of their personal experience into the model articles. In lieu of the recent discussion on nav boxes, I do understand that perhaps we might consider changing Wikicars to be more than just a simple informational site, but for the time being, I'm of the opinion that personal testimonies do not belong in the model articles themselves. Therefore, I wanted to know how you all felt about possibly including a "Testimonial" section in the model reviews instead, since that would be a more appropriate place for subjective content. I do recognize the potential for people to post ridiculous statements there, so I think we would have to exercise some common sense in deciding which ones to keep and which ones to delete. If you want to see an example of this, I recently removed a subjective statement from the Hyundai Sonata page and placed into a new Testimonial section in the Hyundai Sonata Review. I'm not suggesting we keep the particular comment in question, but I left it up there for you to examine. Thoughts? - Pastrami on Ry 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If we let personal comments in generally, the weeds will destroy the garden. As for a contained "testimonials" section, I'm mixed. As you maybe suggesting, the example you gave is lame-- could well be written by an OEM plant; but I could imagine more thoughtful ones. My proposal would be to strike lame ones, but consider alternatives if we see better ones show up. In the long run and overall, I'm pretty cyncial about "spammers" hijacking those sections. Other thoughts? LuvWikis 19:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the example I left on the Hyundai Sonata page is not a very good one. And I too am cynical about spammers hijacking the testimonial sections. I'm fairly confident in the ability of our administrators to weed out the less thoughtful testominials. - Pastrami on Ry 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Another question I thought we might consider is a set of guidelines for external links. On WikiTravel, for example, they have implemented a policy that only allows links from primary sources to be used. They apparently had a problem with people posting far too many links that led to all kinds of sites, all with their own biases. I know this isn't really a problem for us just yet, but I wondered if this would be something we'd like to consider in the long term, once our community has grown. Since we eventually may not be able to monitor every link that is posted, this would help us to avoid random people posting links to their own sites to drive up traffic and whatnot. Here is a link to WikiTravel's External Links policy: http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:External_links Again, thoughts? - Pastrami on Ry 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While I don't tihnk a policy will stop people, it will give admins an agreed upon approach to police the site. In that context, I like the idea of a link policy. LuvWikis 19:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)