Garage Talk

The Racer X Award.

The work of this contributor is truly extraordinary.

What think?

• LuvWikis 12:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Home Page

How about if we shrink the hybrid cars spotlight on the home page by removing the driving tips section; this would move the contributor section above the fold. Thoughts? Someone want to mock it up to see what it looks like? (Maybe keep the prius photo which is interesting?) LuvWikis 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, because, at least on the resolution I'm running on my monitor right now (as well as the computer I have at home), when I first load the page, all I see is the Hybrid cars spotlight, which has remained static for as long as I can remember. If we can move some of the rotating content further up the page, I think it would help retain more interest in people who might casually check back to see if anything has changed. - Pastrami on Ry 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The hybrid cars spotlight does take up a lot of space and isn't as dynamic as some of the sections below it. Removing the driving tips section is a good idea to decrease the size of the section and I'd even consider putting it below the featured user/model/review sections. This will allow the initial homepage screen you see when visiting the site to be more eye catching as it changes often. However, I do like how upon initially loading the page there is a constant blue theme. Therefore, if the other sections are moved up and the hybrid section moved down, the banner color should be changed to match the blue theme for whatever section we choose to replace the hybrid one. --MQuan 01:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Matt. I'm going to change the homepage so that the featured articles show up on top and the portal underneath of that. I'm also cutting out the hybrid driving tips section. I think we can even higlight other portals in this section. We've made tremendous progress with our exotics and I'd love to highlight some of those cars and articles in that portal section. I think the portals can be one of those dymanic sections, too. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! -Nidhi 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We should trim down the text for "Garage Talk" on the Home Page. At least in my computer it deforms the section for "Search By Make"

Red_marquis 11:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The new main page changes are looking good. Bringing the more commonly used features of wikicars to catch the user's eyes when they check the page is great. - MQuan 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks great!! LuvWikis 03:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagline

Has anyone ever considered a tagline for the site? Here's a link to the would be page MediaWiki:Tagline. A tagline is a line of text located in the upper left hand corner of the box. One example: Wikicars, a place to share your automotive knowledge. To warn you, I will be testing this idea, so don't be alarmed to find text where you wouldn't normally find text. Enzo Worshipper 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying something new

I think Garage Talk would be more functional if it was broken down by segments, e.g. Bulletin boards, To-do lists, collaborations, etc. I started to create more of a bulletin board-type template here. Feel free to add/delete to it as it is still a work in progress. Thanks! -Nidhi 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I like this new idea. it might take some getting used to but i like it.

Red_marquis 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it too....but strongly feel there should be a single portal page...we can break segments off, but keep links to subsegments on the portal page for easy navigation. LuvWikis 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Archival

Hey, I was thinking, this page is getting aweful lengthy. How about we archive some of the past or finished conversations. Once in archival, though, we should make a rule of not editing archived content. What do you guys think? Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice!

fine with me. Red marquis 22:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

me too. We could keep the featured _____ links at the top. LuvWikis 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How would it be if we decided to archive things on a regular basis? Perhaps monthly? Quarterly? Every six months? Any thoughts? - Pastrami on Ry 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My bet, because topics don't come up on a regular basis, to archive about every two months. Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

When welcoming new users, we should start using this: Template:Welcome. To post this onto talk pages, use {{subst:Welcome}}. Thoughts? Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Like it a lot! Should we also include Red's infobox templates? I've been doing so, but if we can refer them to the template or incorporate it into this one, that might be easier. -Nidhi 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Organization

I would like to bring up the issue of organization. At the moment I wouldn't really consider the site "Organized". Are we ever oing to categorize images? There are many more category ideas I have for better organization, but I would like to bring the topic up here first to see if I have any support. Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 15:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Organized = good. Happy to discuss here. What are your thoughts? LuvWikis 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Categorize images (An easy way to find the image you are looking for)
2. Categorize articles whose infoboxes are not filled out into Needs infobox
3. Start filling out stubs before you start creating more
4. Categorize pages better (And don't forget to categorize!)

That about sums up my ideas, how about it? Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 13:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. All of these ideas are valid and good. I wouldn't want to discourage new pages (a la #3), but we could really benefit from standardization/consistency/etc. LuvWikis 16:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think standardization and consistency would be beneficial to the site. The more uniformly we have our information organized, the easier it will be for users to find what they are looking for. I'll start adding the "needs infobox" category where appropriate. What kinds of categories did you have in mind for images, 0-172? - Pastrami on Ry 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should consider sub-categories for our stubs. I agree with LuvWikis about not discouraging new pages, especially at the rate we're growing - and sometimes, there just isn't enough reliable and readily available information on a given topic or model. Perhaps we could categorized the stubs at a sub-level, determined on their status...25% done, 50% done, 75% done....? -Nidhi 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All great ideas! Iove the stub sub-categorization idea. That would be a bit easier, sorting the stubs by completion, it would make organizing and finding and completing stubs a bit cleaner process (There is a system exactly like that for guides on Strategy Wiki). As for the image categories, I was thinking around the lines of company, class and probably year. Now, I ould not like to discourage continual growth, but I would to see more pages being completed, than new ones being created (That falls into the oprganization category, so many stubs!). Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, how are going to go about this whle organization thing, where should we start? Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 14:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea...

How about we have an "engines" section, with info pages for various engines, such as the Chrysler 426 Hemi, Chevy 454, Ford 390 and such? I'd be happy to head up such a section, and I could compose one as an example and get everyone's opinion. What say you all? - Yankee 21:17 27 March 2007

I love this idea!! LuvWikis 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, sounds like a good idea. -Mugen Power 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I'll add it to the expert's section, as well. -Nidhi 12:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no expertise in this area, so I can't be of any help with it, but I think it's a great idea. Go for it, Yankee. - Pastrami on Ry 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but many auto communities are organized around engines rather than the brand names that oems slap on the "wrappers". This is a really good idea.  :-) LuvWikis 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in for it. Most of the car pages on wikipedia have links to pages for specific engines, and it would really help to add some of those here.

Argen 14:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no expertise, but great idea! Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. --193.144.127.250 03:10 29 Mar 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll give one a try and see how you all like it - probably start next week, got too much on my plate at the moment to start anything big, but I'm glad you all approve. Yankee 23:37 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a sample, on the Chevy 454. Whaddya think? Too much? Too little? Just right? Yankee 09:25 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a very comprehensive review. I only have a few suggestions: maybe change the title to something like "454 engine" or "454 V-8" that allows users at a glance to understand what the page is about. Also, perhaps breaking the history of the engine into yearly divisions, hp changes, etc. in some way similar to the car model pages. A modified infobox would also be really helpful including things at a glance like HP, weight, torque, cars that use it, years of production, etc. Finally, just some slick pictures! Great job Yankee, it'll be exciting to see this develop! -MQuan 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

454 is too vague, a title change is in order. Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both statements above; the name could be a little more specific, and I think Matt's suggestions are great. People are, by nature, fickle and demanding, so it would help to spice up the page a bit either with some graphics or an infobox - something to break up all the text. - Pastrami on Ry 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not an expert on engines, so this was definitely a very informative page for me! But I agree with the suggestions made above. We definitely need to break up the data somehow, whether is be by a chronological breakdown, a feature breakdown (HP, Torque, etc.) or just a plethora of "slick pix." Thanks! -Nidhi 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions all - this was something I threw together rather quickly to get a feel of how it would be received. This will be a work in progress - I'm still trying to do at least 2-3 car writeups a week, so this will be a bit of a "side project" for now. Perhaps if Red Marquis could make a modified infobox that could be used, or some kind of table that could be used for data - I'm open to suggestions. Thanks again all  :-) Yankee 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have an idea...

First of all, I'd like to say hi, I love the concept and potential of this site and was looking into starting something similar until I found this. I know this kind of goes beyond the bounds of what a wiki is, but what about a "how-to" section for common maintenance tasks required on all vehicles. For example, an article on oil changes that includes information on why its important to change/check your oil, regular vs. synthetic, and general how-to on changing oil. Other articles that quickly come to mind are sections for tire maintenance (wear, checking pressure), checking/topping-off/changing radiator fluid, etc. I don't know if that's something you guys would be interested in doing on a wiki site but I think it would be nice to have this information available to those who might find it useful. GearHead 18:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I don't know whether I am for or against it. It would be good to supply everyday information and instructions ike that, What do the rest of you guys think? Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm for it, GearHead, as long as we could relate it back to the end user in an applicable manner. We started a Car Buying Tips section, with articles like:

• Negotiate for a lower car price
• Buy a car on the internet
• Car Loan Guide

I'd love to see more "how-to"/maintenance type articles, someday. There's so much more we could do with a section like that. We could even have tips by make and model at some point! -Nidhi 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, as there are always people looking for that kind of information on the internet. - Pastrami on Ry 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it too! LuvWikis 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a great idea, but I think that a lot of thought and discussion should go into it before it actually gets put into practice. "How to's" for automobiles tend to be very specific to each model for one, so it will be important to start with the most basic maintenance pages and then go from there. In addition, a concern I'd have is that I've seen far too many times, on lots of websites and mainly forums, flame wars start because people's ideas of "how to" differ so greatly. How often to change your oil; what kind of oil to use; personal experience vs. dealership recommendation; how to break in new brake pads; etc. all tend to be really "debatable" topics. Therefore, I just think we need to decide how we are going to go about this and regulate different opinions so the pages are able to offer consistent information. -MQuan 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are all great points. Is there anything in the realm of general "How-To"s that is pretty safe to tackle and free of debate? Changing a tire, perhaps, or how to jump-start a car? I think if we start small with something along those lines, we can start to expand from there. - Pastrami on Ry 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm noticing a potentially disturbing trend

I've noticed that some of our automotive entries (especially some recent ones) are basically copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia, word for word. What are your opinions on this? I've used wikipedia and other sources for reference, but my entries are at the very least 95% all me - that's MY heart and soul that I've put into my entries. I must say I'm not a fan of this trend. I want us to be different from wikipedia - I want us to be BETTER, not just a carbon copy - at least that's my vision for this site. I know there's probably not much we can do about this, but I at least wanted to get your views on this if you care to share. Yankee 08:30 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yankee, you're absolutely right. We should be better than Wikipedia, not just a carbon copy. This being a wiki though, we can only hope that our community members feel as strongly as you do. All we can do is just build upon the foundation and principles that Wikipedia has set in motion, and help Wikicars become the ultimate wiki on all things automotive. -Nidhi 12:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. I believe that the whole point of this site is to become what Wikipedia is not on the subject of the automotive world, and, although some Wikipedia pages are fantastic, I feel we could, and should, be producing better. I strive, on all my pages, to write originally. Original writing, which is factual and easy-to-read, will potentially attract more people to look at this site - if the pages are just carbon copies, why would any visitor want to stay? But alas, I fear that there is little that can be done to prevent this other than editing these copied pages. I'd like to hear other comments on the matter. delays 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If our pages are just carbon copies, not only will no one want to stay on our site, but it'll discount the validity of the original content that we already have in play. I suggest creating yet another category for "Wikipedia-pulled content" and those community members that feel like contributing/editing those articles can do so. Thoughts? -Nidhi 15:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds the best compromise. We'll need users with beady eyes to categorise the articles as they are created, but this is no hardship. I'm in favour of the new category. delays

Just a thought when looking for these Wikipedia pulled articles, most of the time they have lots of red (broken) links within the article. Something to look for when we're categorizing them. -MQuan 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why contributors such as yourself, Yankee, and others like 0-172 and Red Marquis (among others) have been so valuable to Wikicars. When the site first began, a lot of the content we featured was, in fact, from Wikipedia, so that we would have something to work with. We began by playing around with the organization of the content, and our hope was that as more and more users came to Wikicars, they would make the same distinction you just made and be compelled to offer some original insights. I believe what you are coming across are the remnants of the infant stages of Wikicars, and I think (and hope) that this copying of content is not an ongoing trend. I feel fairly confident that most of the content that has been added to Wikicars over the past several months has been original content straight from our members. - Pastrami on Ry 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Pastrami, but the latest example I can find is the Chevrolet S10 Blazer entry, created April 10, copied and pasted word for word from Wikipedia, and I've found a few others (the Buick Riviera entry is another example). Not that they're bad articles, that isn't the point - it just strikes me as a bit of an insult to those of us here who have put genuine heart and soul into their entries and typed their fingers to the bone to see this. Again, I know there's not much we can do other than totally scrapping them and starting over with our own original content (which is something I have no problem doing). I didn't know if anyone else here might have noticed this and I'm sure it's not one of us who's doing it, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. Yankee 19:06 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That conflict has come to my mind many times before. What are we if we are just a copy of Wikipedia? I completely agree with your concerns. I myself have not had much experience writing articles, but from inspiration from this trend, I will try my best to develope future articles as new content, not just a copy of Wikipedia. I don't necessarily agree with scrapping each and every article and starting over from scratch. We could subtly alter things and make the content our own. Not that scrapping articles is bad a idea, I just don't feel that that is the right thing to do. Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 21:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yankee, I see. I wasn't aware that it was still taking place with newly created pages. It was not our intent to foster the direct copying of content, so whoever is still doing it, I'm wondering why they felt the need to do so. At the very least, it appears that these incidents are relatively isolated, so I hope it won't become a serious problem. Thanks again to all of you for keeping an eye out for this kind of thing. You all continue to keep this a quality community. - Pastrami on Ry 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, just got here myself.... a lot of the wikipedia articles, especially car related, are works of love, meticulously detailed and policed. At very least, they would seem to be a good starting point. If people come here looking for something and find nothing, they'll go look at wikipedia and won't come back. On the other hand, there's something a bit cheesy about stealing an article from wikipedia unless you've at least done a lot of work on it yourself. Gzuckier 12:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that this is sometimes a neccesity to copy form wikipedia, right? Most people here are doing articles on (at least relatively) new cars and can find information easily an readily just about anywhere on the internet. Only a few here are doing articles on older cars in any detail, such as Red and MercuryLover. I sometimes (i)have to(/i) copy stuff off of wikipedia, simply because it would have the total sum of info on a particluar vehicle. Even then, wikipedia can be particularly thin on info about some vehicles. I did the Riv page back in Jan, so that can't be considered 'new' really, and you'll notice that I didn't use the same pictures, becuase I'm very picky about that. Occassionally, I'll get lucky an stumble on a treasure-trove of brochures (which are free-use), but that's usually the exception, rather than the rule. Argen 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why re-invent the wheel? I just joined the site today as I think it's a great idea; however, my impression was that it would build upon Wikipedia (rather than try to rival it), with "car people" doing the writing and editing and thus using their passion to create a more specialized site. An excellent example is the Toyota Camry page - you can tell the page was originally lifted from Wikipedia, but it's been greatly built-upon and is much more comprehensive. I can understand the need for differentiation, but to throw away the efforts of Wikipedia users seems foolish to me - that site gives us an excellent platform to refine and build upon. Also, maybe it's just me, but starting a brand new article seems extremely daunting - so much so, in fact, that I'm altogether put off doing it. Editing, though? That's a breeze, and I love to fill in any gaps with information that I have. Finally, it's a bit disheartening to see so many pages missing. For a good example, see the "Rover Models" section of Rover - only 2 out of 36 linked models actually have pages created. In any case, I hope to see this site grow and look forward to contributing where I can.--Heep 14:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Maybe this has been determined before.... what is included as a "car"? Trucks? Pickups? SUVs? "Crossovers"? Station wagon/shooting brake/estates? Three wheeler cars? "Cyclo cars" (with motors)? "Cycle cars" (pedal powered)? Motorcycles? ATVs? Military vehicles? Tractors? Competition pulling tractors? Swamp buggy racers? Robot cars? Go karts? Gzuckier 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to the main page Wikicars is "A collaborative guide about cars and all things automotive." When you click on "automotive" you find a definition of what that defines. However, beyond that I'd say that most of the things that you mentioned are fine except motorcycles and perhaps ATVs. There hasn't been any hard set rule of thumb, just common sense and accepting articles on any automobiles that people are passionate about. -MQuan 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We are an automotive site, therefore we should have articles only on cars (Really anything that has four-wheels, that can be driven on a road). Not ATVs or Motorcycles. A Motorcycle is completely opposite a car, and an ATV, well, I don't know what to say about those, but they are definitely not anything automotive. Now, Military Vehicles, that would be a difficult category to fit into Wikicars. If we did start including Military vehicles, that would be a very tight category, I don't think we should start building articles about tanks on a sit about Cars. As for my opinion on Tractors, I don't hold them very high when thinking of anything automotive. They should be fine, but to me, they just wouldn't fit into an Automotive website. Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the lines are pretty gray, though. Like Nastruck. Aside from the sheet metal, that's got the same relationship to "car" as nascar, obviously. But does that then allow like I said, swamp buggy racers? They're as much "car" as an F1 racer. And competition pulling trucks.. which leads to pulling tractors... And again, three wheelers, from Spirit of America to Morgans. (PS I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, or be argumentative, I just really believe this is going to be an issue at some point, and we should get a heads up in thinking it over.) Gzuckier 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

New Quick-links

If you haven't noticed them already, I wanted to introduce you to the new quick-links on the left hand side of the page underneath the toolbox. They are a great new tool for us to use to publicize wikicars and to get the word out about the work we're all doing here. By clicking on one of the quick-links you will be re-directed to the individual social bookmarking site. There you will be able to bookmark the wikicars page you just came from and add it to the bookmark database. This will allow people to find that particular page when they search for pages regarding the topics they desire. This will be a great tool that will allow all our hard work to get more exposure and to be more accessible. So check out the quick-links and sign up for the sites to begin bookmarking. -MQuan 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The quick-links provide access to:

• Earthlink myFavorites
• Google bookmarks
• Del.icio.us
• Yahoo bookmarks
• Yahoo My Web
• Digg
• Reddit
• Furl

Image Categorisation

I am about to undertake the massive task of image categorisation. Any helpers? Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What does this entail? I'd be willing to lend a hand. delays 06:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This entails taking a large amount of time to tag images under yet-to-be-determined categories. Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 20:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Put me down for this - I'll help. Let me know what to do when the time comes. delays 06:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to help out where/when I can. Thanks, Enzo. -Nidhi 02:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Site-wide Collaboration

Some progress has to be made in the area of image categorisation. Thus far, the only people to make any headway is this daunting task are Delays and myself. I find this lack of participation, frankly, horrifying. We really need to get the site organized, and it seems to me, nobody cares enough to do anything. Therefore, I am pleading for a site-wide collaboration in an attempt to finally get some progress in this task. Enzo Worshipper ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have several other tasks here at wikicars but I will try to contribute as best I can. Red marquis 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)