Autopedia, the free auto encyclopedia

Garage Talk

11,082pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Talk0 Share

Template:Garage Talk

Welcome to a place where Autopedia contributors gather to discuss the site. Feel free to join in.
Article Counter: 11,082


I've been thinking, maybe we should add a section in our pages (along with a box) cataloguing a vehicle's emmisions output. Kind of like Carbon footprinting, we could provide fields that show how many grams of CO2 a car produces per kilometer. However, I am not an expert on the subject and would like to ask for your help as to what chemicals and fields we should add, etc. I think it would really help solidify our website's committment towards green transportation.

Red marquis 09:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That'd be cool, but where would we get that sort of information? I have difficulty finding some data already. I agree that it's a good idea, so long as we can follow through on it.

Argen 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I already have a list of the major chemicals most often policed. I'm planning to create a single template box that would cover both EURO and CARB standards/which ones the car complies with and would feature how much of those five major pollutants a vehicle emits. I have a question though. Which agency regulates emissions standard is the US and what system do they use? I'm familiar with CARB and the ULEV-SULEV-PZEV-ZEV system but I know it's only used by California. What do the other states use? Red marquis 08:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


What if we create Autopedia awards, like:

We'd use auto imagery, of course. Thoughts?

LuvWikis 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I like that idea. 0-172 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. LuvWikis 20:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea as well. Would our award designations be similar to those of Wikipedia? - Pastrami on Ry 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought we might create our own. The Barnstar is a bit dull for the exciting topic of cars. We could have more fun. One image I thought of is:

What think?


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'm noticing a potentially disturbing trendEdit

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 Autopedia 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 Autopedia. 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 Autopedia, 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 Autopedia, 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 Autopedia 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)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.