Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions

Change Wording Car Units.

The WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions states: "We use the local standard(?) first when making judgments on localized units and terms”. This is open to interpretation and cherry picking. Local standard is too ambiguous. Wikipedia Dispute resolution Primary Unit Archive 247 (Peugeot) discussed this ambiguity. Due to the complexity of where a vehicle is made or marketed and what units to use, SI or non SI, I’d like to recommend we change the WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. WP:CAR UNITS

Tesla vehicles are made in the USA, Germany and China, Headquartered in the USA. Mercedes are made in a number of countries but headquartered in Germany. I suggest that the primary unit reflect the location where the headquarters of the manufacturer are located. It was pointed out by the moderator on Archive 247 that choosing units from your source can be classified as cherry picking. So I'm going to suggest that the first paragraph be amended to:

Line one (remove) The unit order follows a vehicle's headquarter location. For example, vehicles with American headquarters use "horsepower" (hp) with "kilowatts" (kW) in parentheses. British cars will use brake horsepower (bhp) and kilowatts (kW). Rest-of-world cars will use kilowatts (kW) and metric horsepower, with the general Wikipedia standard suggesting using PS as the abbreviation (from the German pferdestärke, as per German, Japanese, and South Korean practice) for metric horsepower. The wheelbase of an American-market car would be written as "116 in (2,946 mm)", while the wheelbase of a car from a metric country would be written as "2,946 mm (116.0 in)". Avi8tor (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Standardizing captions

I'm wondering if there's a standard for how to label cars in image captions, particularly in regards to whether or not to include the manufacturer name. While I was editing the Lamborghini Gallardo article, I noticed caption styles ranging from "Lamborghini Gallardo LP 550" to "Gallardo LP 550" to "LP 550" with no apparent rhyme or reason. This seems to be a common issue across automotive articles. I can see a argument for including the manufacturer name every time, but I can also see an argument for dropping it to save space, particularly in already crowded articles. TKOIII (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no standard, but I've seemed to notice a preference towards omitting the manufacturer name in general cases. (Granted, that could be my own bias, as I favor that.)

I think that, generally, the manufacturer name should be omitted but never the model name, so it's both concise and clear. For example, "1980 Buick Regal Limited" is more than necessary, as the "Buick" part is obvious, but "1980 Limited" would be awkwardly terse and not entirely clear.

However, in articles that cover a model sold under more than one name, the marque should be included for anything that isn't the article title, and in cases where the same model name was used by different marques (e.g. the Austin/MG/Rover Maestro) it always should be included. --Sable232 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

No official standard but I'm roughly aligned with Sable232. The article title and the intro section have already listed the manufacturer prominently. Listing them again on every single image is tedious to read and adds absolutely nothing to the article except volume. Only when it is rebadeged and sold by another manufacturer is it necessary.

Whether to put the model name each time is more of a grey area. Must times it is better to mention the model name but if the sub-model or grade is clear enough then it might be okay. To be decided on an article-by-article basis.

But as long as it is clear and not tedious to read then whatever works is fine. But try to be consistent within the article.  Stepho  talk  00:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

That has roughly been my standard up until now for captions, so that's good to hear. TKOIII (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

If you want this to be labeled as a guideline

If you want this page to be labeled as a guideline, a discussion amongst yourselves such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions/Archive 4#Guideline or essay is not adequate. There are two firm requirements:

• Make a proper WP:PROPOSAL to the whole community.
• WP:MOVE the guideline (if it's adopted by the whole community) to a new page name that does not mention WikiProject Automobiles.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I want to be clear: you have to have definite, positive, unambiguous community support for declaring this page to be a guideline. A discussion with a 'no consensus' result is not sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't quite know what is being asked of us. The WP Automobile Conventions were developed over many years in response to actual issues that arose on automobile articles, where fans of particular models often edit in a less than constructive manner. What does it mean that the Automobile Article Conventions cannot mention WP Automobiles? I mean, I do not care one way or another, but why and what does it imply? Why do the conventions have to become a Guideline? These have functioned for over a decade and have saved us from countless, pointless arguments about what to title a page, etcetera.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You (all) basically have to choose between three options:

• The page title includes "WikiProject Automobiles", and the tag on the page is {{WikiProject advice}}.
• The page title does not include "WikiProject Automobiles", and the tag on the page is {{Wikipedia essay}}.
• The page title does not include "WikiProject Automobiles", a proper WP:PROPOSAL produces a clear consensus from the wider community (NB: not the people who developed this page) to adopt it as a guideline, and the tag on the page is {{guideline}}.

In answer to your question Why do the conventions have to become a Guideline?: They don't. It's perfectly fine for this to remain a Wikipedia:WikiProject advice page. What we can't have is a few WikiProject members write a page and self-declare it to be an official community-wide guideline on par with other official guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources or Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If the maintainers of this page want the {{guideline}} tag, they have to make a proposal. For a similar situation, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is a guideline, and it was written by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, but it went through a proper PROPOSAL process, and the page title doesn't mention "WikiProject Medicine". That page is now the community's official guideline, rather than the WikiProject's advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it ought to be a guideline but the topic may prove to specialized for the wider community to judge. Not sure it is worth the pain and the risk of jeopardizing these, as they have proved quite useful.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

If the wider community doesn't see value in it, the WP:PROPOSAL would fail.

Long term, if it were adopted as an official guideline, I think there is at least a small risk that the wider community would change the page to say something that this group disagrees with. Once it's adopted by the community, the community can change it however it likes, just like any other guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Unannounced vehicles - too restrictive?

Is the unannounced vehicles guidance too restrictive? What change would make it more consistent with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:CRYSTAL? Dw31415 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

As written, the advice elevates primary sources over secondary ones in direct contradiction to our preference for secondary sources. This article BMW 3 Series (G50) exists despite the advice but seems to be well sourced (there’s pictures of a prototype). Dw31415 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

No. It already follows WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL, plus WP:V. If a car company is not yet ready to disclose information about a future product, then any information must be considered speculation no matter how believable or feasible it could be. While the image guidelines here don't include spy/prototype photos, there has been discussion on them and the consensus has generally been to exclude them. Wikipedia is a place for verifiable facts, not enthusiast news. --Vossanova ^o< 19:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what the supposed problem is here and what the proposed solution is.

The point of this is to prevent alleged insider information, unverifiable leaks, and theories spun from spy photos from being given undue credence in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia is not news.

The accusation of elevating primary sources over secondary ones has been levied against this at least twice now, with no evidence. I've read and re-read the section and it does not so much as imply that, let alone state it. --Sable232 (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

This flows on from discussions at Talk:Chevrolet Camaro.

Our convention for unannounced vehicles is based heavily on WP:CRYSTAL - a fully sanctioned WP policy. But, as always, there are grey areas of interpretation. For me, the main points are "take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims", avoiding speculation (point 3) and avoiding rumours (point 5). Nowhere does it say that it is okay to report rumours just because you have a reference of other people mentioning rumours.

In particular, we want to avoid magazines that pick up a rumour from an undisclosed source. Being undisclosed mean that they immediately fall foul of verified. And we have no idea of whether this undisclosed source is revealing true knowledge (eg they worked on the schedule), or just something they overheard, or they noticed something that was just a design exercise but thought it was a real product (car companies look at many variations that never see the light of day). All this is great for magazine sales but useless for factual knowledge. At WP we want to stick to factual knowledge.

The grey area is whether we report on manufacturer announcements at all. Technically, the manufacturer is speculating on their own release date - plans can and do change. But major manufacturers are pretty good at short term product forecasts and they know how far the preliminary stages are - ie design, testing, production line preparation, etc. They also know that advertising a product and then failing to meet those advertised forecasts often hurt their stock price, so they tend to be cautious. Then there are exceptions like Musk at Tesla. Any forecast by him should be multiplied by 3 for a conservation estimate - see Tesla Roadster (second generation) that has been coming "real soon now" since 2017. But the major manufactures are pretty solid for reliable product announcements.  Stepho  talk  00:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in my questions. Is the use of unnamed sources always rumor? In the Camaro case I don’t think GMAuthority is reliable enough to trust unnamed sources, but if it were a more reputable source it would be enough for me.

Mostly I think the advice page’s restriction of all “information” is too broad. I’d support reverting back to saying articles require manufacturer’s confirmation. I see from the archives that this was the original language. Dw31415 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL reads Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place (emphasis mine). Perhaps that "almost certain" wording can be added here. In general, we are trying to avoid people adding content regarding rumours, whether they are merely clickbait or based on somthing tangible. The aforementioned BMW G50 seems like a pretty sure bet, I wouldn't argue to delete it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• WP:CRYSTAL permits mention of a new car I believe WP:CRYSTAL is wrongly being subjected to original research by editors. In other words, WP:CRYSTAL is being misquoted. A product is not an event. Most of crystal does not apply. A future event, such as a festival or concert is an event. A new car is an object, not an event.

Section 5 of WP:CRYSTAL does apply. That ALLOWS mention, just not as a separate article unless the case for it is stronger. It reads "Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate." (bold added).

This means that Section 5 means new car announcements are permitted,just not short articles that have very little. Vanguard10 (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Just a note that the original unannounced vehicle policy applied to the article level (and must have been later expanded to a broad information ban): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions/Archive 1#c-Roguegeek-2008-10-15T01:24:00.000Z-WP:CRYSTALBALL Dw31415 (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows written policy and guidelines so it was not "later expanded to a broad information ban" because I don't see it in writing anywhere (unless I am in error). The way I see it, one year in advance in nothing special. Several years is possibly too long. There was a debate among Olympic Games articles and articles about the 2028 games faced significant pushback, even wiping out the entire article, with some opinions saying that one year is more certain. Nobody advocated a shorter period and nobody advocated a ban on articles unless the Olympics started. Vanguard10 (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

A product is not an event. It most certainly is. In fact, to use the issue at hand, since no 2027 Camaros have been produced, there is no product or object involved at all, only speculation of its future introduction - i.e., an event. Said speculation is based on anonymous "insider" sources, so the "almost certain to take place" criterion is not met.

Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products... One of the operative phrases here is "newly revealed". No such product has been revealed by GM nor has a spokesperson confirmed that there will be one. --Sable232 (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hasn't it been revealed by reliable sources or at least sources that are not on the Wikipedia list of banned sources? There is a list of news organizations that, if you use them as a citation, Wikipedia will flash a stern warning to you and refer you to the list. On the list are explanations. If we depend solely on the manufacturer as the source, we are not only putting primary sources over secondary sources (not good per Wikipedia) but we are almost entering into forbidden territory (editing as a tool of a private company or stooge). Another point is I looked up the definition of event. A product is not an event. A corporate party to unveil a new product can be an event. Vanguard10 (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

"A new car is an object, not an event." But you are trying to add the announcement of the next gen product to the Camaro article. The announcement is an event. And the announcement is about the introduction of a product - the introduction is also an event. Your distinction between product and event quickly disolves.

WP:CRYSTAL very clearly wants WP to avoid rumours and speculation, regardless of source. WP should only contain facts. Our convention allows the announcement by manufactures because they have accurate knowledge of its likely release date and nobody else does. I will repeat that - nobody else does. If you want to disallow manufacturer announcements (which we always phrase as claims, not facts), then you have zero, nada, zip, no source left for you to insert the Camaro next gen announcement. Since that has been your primary goal, I don't see why you want to close this loophole and lock yourself out. You may also want to read WP:PRIMARY that says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". This allows basic statement of facts from the manufacturer (eg length, weight of a vehicle) but disallows hyperbole such as "America's favorite car" and "the best car on the market". We are not allowing manufactures to dictate to us, we are simply taking their information, filtering out what isn't suitable and then reporting on the basic facts.  Stepho  talk  00:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This quote from the CRYSTAL archives is helpful

With regard to upcoming films, etc. obviously if there is widespread coverage in the mainstream press, that falls under the phrase "the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion." The problem is how to distinguish what is validly newsworthy from what is simply a publicity campaign. One extreme: The New York Times is reporting it. Another extreme: the creator of a very-low-budget film or self-published book personally creates an article about the upcoming release. Somewhere in the middle: the "press coverage" is from the rumor section of a gamer's website, or the "what's new" column of an industry trade journal that customarily prints any press release they are sent, or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this continuum is helpful. We’re talking about more than “rumors”. In our language, we either consider the source reliable or not. Consistently referring to this reporting as “rumors” doesn’t seem like the kind of good-faith discussion we should strive for. Dw31415 (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

And if the source is deemed reliable (not in the banned list of citations), then it is fair game for Wikipedia. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Car magazines speculate about planned upcoming models all of the time; it brings eyeballs to their sites. For decades, every second cover of every single British car magazine trumpeted "New Jaguar F-type?!" and it did not mean that there was ever a new F-type around the corner. If there is actual preparation being reported, then yes, it merits mentioning. As for the supposed 7th Gen Camaro, Motor Trend has published several articles about rumoured 7th gen Camaros, dating back to 2020. The most recent one says that they do not know if it will be EV or ICE, nor if it will have two or four doors. That is speculative; even if GM was spitballing a 7th gen, it is likely as not to be cancelled. GM themselves is quoted saying the company said it cannot comment on speculative reports regarding future product.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

These latest reports are different. A 2027 production date is cited. That is very specific. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

A specific date but from an undisclosed source. Undisclosed. Which means unverifiable. Which means we cannot treat it as a fact. So, we're back to rumours except somebody plucked a specific date out of the air. Anybody can publish very specific information. I can predict the outcome of the next 100 US elections - including the exact margin they win by. But accuracy would be a different matter.

Follow the money. As Mr Choppers and myself have both said, magazines want eyeballs. Most of the long term car magazines are very reliable for reporting on past facts (eg, recent car shows, recent releases, car reviews). All of them also frequently do speculation and reports on rumours. This is fine because they label them as predictions, people know to take them with a large dose of salt and they can be quite entertaining (especially when read a decade later). And they are businesses that must make a profit, so eyeballs/dollars are all important. WP is not about money, so we stick to verified facts.  Stepho  talk  00:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Yes The title's question is if Wikiproject is too restrictive. Answer: Yes, because it is more restrictive than Wikipedia policy. In practice, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. For this Wikiproject, same should be the standard. As far as predictions several years in the future, that seems speculative but if editorial judgment is that the report is good or not far in the future, "print it" in Wikipedia. The guidelines should reflect this more clearly so there is less controversy.Vanguard10 (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Reply to Stepho 1 May 2026 comment about an announcement of a car model is an event. >>> An announcement is only a potential event if the car company makes a spectacle of it. The Tesla Model 3 is not an event. If the Tesla company has a party and makes a formal show of it, the show is an event. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Your logic is quite contorted. An event is anything that has an associated time with it. Agreed that a car is not an event. But the announcement of a new release is itself an event (it has a very definite time) and it is announcing an upcoming event (sometimes an exact date like an upcoming car show but often broader like "next summer"). Your Camaro references all have dates attached to them. And they all talk about when that release will happen. All are events.  Stepho  talk  23:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

By Stepho's definition of an "event", which is not the usual definition, then all mention of any car would be banned even if the car company announced it (except Stepho gives a free pass to car companies, allowing them to be a primary source and the only accepted source, which is very much anti-Wikipedia policy). Only when the car was being sold would it be allowed because anything else is a prediction and against a crystal ball. Too many people use "crystal ball" and WP:CRYSTAL interchangeably, when they are really two different terms. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sheesh, do we really need to drag out dictionaries for basic definitions. Broadly, it means "anything that happens". But that so broad it is useless. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/event (points 3 and 4) says "something that occurs in a certain place during a particular interval of time". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/event (point 4) says similar.

You don't seem to be following the conversation - I already mentioned that interpretation of possibly disallowing all future events. Search above for "grey area". Please try to keep up.  Stepho  talk  00:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• No. It is fully aligned with WP policies. It just puts it into words that are appropriate for automobile articles. Specifically, it follows WP:CRYSTAL for not allowing unverified rumours - and magazine references that merely report that there is a rumour do not count as verification.  Stepho  talk  00:22, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Specifically the 2028 Camaro stuff that's on the web doesn't seem to have any authority, it's just a bunch of click hungry websites stealing and embellishing each other's speculations. Contrast that with the GM Volt where had a very misleading show-car for the teenagers to dribble over, and a drip feed of actual GM sourced gossip mostly from Bob Lutz. Greglocock (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  More specifics are needed rather than blanket conclusions. What reference is not from a reliable source? What reference is from a reliable source? Vanguard10 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  Undisclosed source. It doesn't matter if it is reported by the Pope, the King of England, The New York Times your hairdresser or the local Girl Guides newsletter. Undisclosed means it rates as nothing more than rumour, no matter who reported it to you or how many repeat it. Magazines publishing on recent events such as the actual release of a car or a recent trade show are usually very reliable. Magazines publishing future pieces are always suspect - these pieces are usually labelled as speculation and can only be read for entertainment value. It generates sales of the magazine - nothing more. It has the same factual value as the comic strip that some magazines put in.  Stepho  talk  00:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Somewhat off topic UK Car magazine (back when it was good) did a fabulous spread on the FWD Lotus Elan. My friend knew I was working on it and asked which prototype they'd driven. They hadn't driven the prototype. The photos were great! this is the final styling model not a driver, https://www.historics.co.uk/auction/lot/lot-124---1986-lotus-elan-m100-prototype/?lot=16701&sd=1 Greglocock (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Similar for me. I did some work on the Volvo V70 CNG wagon about 10 years ago. We did a lot of the testing in a V60 mule but some of the V70 prototypes had BMW grills on the front to throw off photographers.  Stepho  talk  01:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I did some short term work for a UK car company which I will not disclose. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Undisclosed sources are valid. News articles about politics have it all the time. When the New York Times publishes something, they may have confidential sources, but they run their own quality control to maintain confidence in the New York Times. That is one of the reasons they are a reliable source. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• No – without unnecessarily repeating their well-made arguments, I concur with Stepho-wrs; the guidance as it stands is backed up by policy. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with the outcome on the Camaro (there’s not enough reliable reporting or encyclopedic preparation), but I’m struggling with the argument that unnamed sources are inherently unverifiable. By that standard, the early Watergate scandal reporting would fail the standard. I’m leaning toward waiting for a more compelling set of facts before testing further. Dw31415 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Your ideas point to a reasonable conclusion, that WikiProject Automobiles guidelines are too restrictive but that doesn't mean anything can go into articles. The way it is now, everything is banned unless the car company gives Wikipedia permission to write it in the form of making an announcement. Every other source is deemed insufficient. If that is the case, the CEO of GM should be given the title of Chief Enforcement Officer of Wikipedia. Vanguard10 (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  The guideline does not say that, and nobody here who opposes your position has asserted that. Between that and your previous insinuation that we're all paid shills for GM, you're on thin ice at this point. If you keep casting aspersions against everyone who disagrees with you, your behavior will be reported to WP:AN/I. --Sable232 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  That is incorrect that "we're all paid shills for GM". It is a false accusation against me to say that. What I am saying is that the current wording results in the car company being an enforcer and gatekeeper to what is allowed in Wikipedia. That is different from the false accusation against me. As far as "the guideline does not say that, it does. It reads " ...future or speculative vehicles that have not been officially announced by their manufacturer should not be discussed." The word "or" means taht the WikiProject reads "future...vehnicles that have not been officially announced by their manufacturer should not be discussed.Vanguard10 (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair, Vanguard did not calls us shills. At Talk:Chevrolet_Camaro#7th_Generation, he said we are "stooge or lapdog or mouthpiece of the manufacturer".

  @Vanguard, you did not pay much attention during maths class - the technical term is "required but not sufficient" when a condition is a must but is not enough on its own to reach the conclusion. Eg, to survive I need water. But that is not enough - I also need food, shelter, warmth, etc. We say that announcements not backed up by the manufacturer are not allowed. That doesn't mean that manufacturer announcements get an automatic pass. It is a filter that removes some of the references as unreliable. We then look at the announcement and judge it again. The big manufacturers have shown themselves over a long period of time to be reliable in announcing products. Others like Musk at Tesla have proven themselves absolute crap at future announcements, so we filter those ones heavily. See Tesla Roadster (second generation) for examples of not trusting the manufacturer - check the history and talk page for my own contributions for filtering/labelling these announcements. Another example is how we trust manufacturer figures for basics like length and width of vehicles but do not trust for fuel economy or emissions figures - too many of them are tempted to lie when there is money on the table. So, we are by no means shills/lapdogs/etc of the manufacturers and we would appreciate it if you didn't make such unfounded accusations.  Stepho  talk  00:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

  paid editing or editing as a tool of a private company - . That it was changed to editing as a tool of a private company or stooge does not change the clear meaning behind it. Given their subsequent actions, it is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith here. --Sable232 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  I’ve given Vanguard10 a gentle trouting and hope we can leave it at that and move on.

  The framing of necessary but insufficient is helpful and have an idea to write up later. Dw31415 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  @DW, reading the very article that you pointed to, section Watergate_scandal#Deep_Throat shows that the journalists themselves think their role (and by implication, Deep Throat's informant role) has been overstated. And there was plenty of corroborating evidence that eventually concluded the affair. It is this corroborating evidence that we are lacking for the Camaro.  Stepho  talk  22:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• No. The reliability of the publication itself isn't in question here.

  If the Anytown News runs an article stating "John Towndrunk reports that he caught a 60-inch muskellunge in Anytown Lake last Sunday", Wikipedia cannot state in the Anytown Lake article that the lake has 60-inch muskellunge in it, for reasons which should be obvious. This is an extreme example, but it shows how a reliable source can publish a reportable fact ("X said Y") without the underlying information necessarily being accurate. If the Anytown News reports "the fish & game department found muskellunge up to 60 inches long in their biennial lake survey", that is what Wikipedia can state and cite in the Anytown Lake article. --Sable232 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion is not about Anytown News nor is it about the muskellunge fish.

  The discussion is about this phrase... "...information about future or speculative vehicles that have not been officially announced by their manufacturer should not be discussed. If an article is created or information added to an existing page about a speculative vehicle, it is to be either deleted

  What that means is all mention of a model is banned unless officially announced by the manufacturer.

  If it read that editors are to be cautious about writing about a car that has not been officially announced and that reliable sources must be used, that would be reasonable to me.

  Vanguard10 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  The question asked at the beginning of this section is this: Is the unannounced vehicles guidance too restrictive? What change would make it more consistent with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:CRYSTAL? My comment was directly related to the reliability of sources. Please pay attention rather than immediately jumping in to keep bludgeoning the discussion. --Sable232 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)