Talk:Toyota Prius

prii not plural

toyota did not officialize "prii" they are just trying to advertise for it, there are actually people severely against the thought, even toyota fans, well they dont have fans, agree its "priuses" plus, its not in the dictionary and nor is it a proper noun, nobody has agreed to that, they just are trying to advertise it,

(67.168.153.41 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

Toyota USA seems to disagree with you. They have said "It comes with great honor to announce that the official plural of prius, as decided by the people, is prii!" (although you have to click on the "and the winner is...prii" to get to the text containing the word "official"). Not sure if we should be using all lowercase :) Toyota Japan has no mention of the word "Prii", so it might only be official in the US. And by the way, Prius isn't in the dictionary either - nor is Camry, Vitz, Platx, tC and most of the other names used in the current Toyota range.  Stepho  (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's stupid too, but since the manufacturer invented the car and the name Prius, they do get to be the "official" authority on how to spell it. It doesn't make it make sense, but it is "official." Bdc101 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The correct plural seems to be Priuses (see here). Nevertheless, as Stepro-wrs pointed out, Toyota or any firm can made up any name, so if they decided to called it Prii, it is officially Prii. But Toyota is so inconsistent with the naming that let's wait and see if it sticks. Wikipedia should use the most common name.--Mariordo (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As a wikipedia user and former toyota employee, i honestly think that priuses are still the official plural though toyota has said otherwise, you dont see anyone saying "prii" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.153.41 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC) (shifted from 'Plural form?' section to here by Stepho-wrs)

Sadly, "official" and "common usage" sometimes don't match. Even worse, sometimes "official" and "use by officials" doesn't match. But we'd love to see a reference with a higher precedence that the one I gave above.  Stepho  (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh quote unnecessary

The Limbaugh quote in this article is totally unnecessary. If he made some sort of point, that'd be one thing. But all he does is just insult liberals, calling them "suckers." He doesn't even bother to explain why he thinks liberals are "suckers." I'm unclear as to what this childish quote contributes to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.173 (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Most Talked About

The Toyota Prius is the most talked about green car on the internet (source). Does anyone want/not want this included in the Wiki?

King4057 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

I wouldn't bother. It's a pretty obvious fact but not a particular useful one and one that may change anyway (fads come and go, the king of the hill soon goes to Boot Hill). We'd also need a solid reference (not Google counts), otherwise it's original research.  Stepho  talk  01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Smog Production

I have read many articles that use the word emissions while trying to describe only CO2 emissions. Should Wikipedia speak of the mediocrity of the first generation prius with respect to smog 'emissions?' The first generation is classified as ULEV along with the Ford Crown Victoria (V8), Ford Mustang (V6), Mercedes-Benz CL500 (V8), and many many others of mediocre results. In perspective, the 2005 Ferrari F430 produces less than half the smog per mile. (epa.gov/greenvehicles) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.2.64 (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you read or what you know; the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. When you edit an article, just below the edit window is a link to WP:V. Please take a look at it.

Regarding the subject, as I told you on my Talk page, cars do not emit "smog". Smog (from smoke and fog) is a meteorological phenomenon caused by the combination of emitted gases and liquid particles in the atmosphere. Smog may be made worse by photochemical reactions brought on by sunlight acting on various compounds (mainly hydrocarbons) in the emissions. Ergo, cars may emit smoke, NO, CO, CO2, particulates, etc., but they do not emit smog.

Should we include verbiage on "the mediocrity of the first-gen Prius"? If you believe your conclusion to be notable and can find a reliable source for the claim, perhaps. I, personally, don't think it belongs here. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My car isn't passing 'smog' right now. Wheather cars produce smog or they make the stuff to make smog that is a matter of semantics. i think this is very important. people want to know what is good for the environment and www.epa.gov/greenvehicles answered a lot of my questions. This is a very appropriate topic for any envoromental car page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.154.98 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about what I think you are, you're not having trouble with "smog", your car is failing its emission inspection. There is a difference, and it's important, and it's actually a matter of physics and chemistry, not semantics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine, and it has rules and guidelines. Sorry if you don't agree with them, but don't blame me—I didn't write them, but I do try to follow them to the best of my ability. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Common usage plural term

I've replaced the use of "Prii" with "Priuses", in all places in the article except in the discussion of Toyota's excercise over it. That is because "Priuses" remains the most prevalent word in common English usage for the plural. According to a search on The Corpus Of Contempory American English, "Priuses" appears 36-times more frequently than "Prii". Wiki should reflect the common usage - and not necessarily the marketing people's preferred usage. -- de Facto (talk). 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

First, please read #prii not plural above.

Toyota get to choose the name of their own vehicle. They made up the completely new word 'Prius' - presumably so that it could be copyrighted. They also get to choose the plural form of their own made up word for their own vehicle. They had a competion for the public to choose the plural form and the public choose 'Prii'. Toyota have accepted that choice and have officially declared 'Prii' to be the plural form. People don't always use the correct form (dealers also making the mistake) but that doesn't mean we need to deviate from the official form. Also, even before the official form was released, people would use inconsistent forms like Prius', Prius's, Priuses and many others.  Stepho  talk  09:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the previous discussion - and there's no convincing reason there to mandate the adoption of Toyota's "official" word rather than the word that is most commonly used in the real-world. Toyota may choose their product names, but they do not control how those names are pluralised in common usage . Wikipedia should reflect reality, not the PR people's whim. We can add the details of the competition to the article (as indeed we have), but we shouldn't take the outcome too seriously. If "Prii" ever becomes more popular in Enlish usage than "Priuses", then will be the time to discuss using it in Wikipedia - but not before. -- de Facto (talk). 10:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Common usage can be wrong in many things - is the Earth flat or does the sun revolve around the Earth? If the correct name is known then it should be used.  Stepho  talk  11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

within popular culture

I imagine the Prius has been mention dozens of times in movies, tv, books etc, i've added a little on the end of the Political Symbolism bit but i'm sure if we can find out more times it can have its own section.Megatonman (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All sorts of reasons can be imagined. That people wish to be identified with the green movement may well be true but we need a reliable and unbiased reference that says so.  Stepho  talk  23:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@Megatonman, please be careful to review the applicable WP policies and guidelines regarding Trivia sections (In Popular Culture, etc.) and discuss before adding it. Trivia sections tend to become a morass of useless crap that has little relevance or notability and really isn't encyclopedic. If the popular culture stuff needs to be in the article, preference is to put it into the mainline text, not in a separate section. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@UncleBubba, it is considered bad form and also confusing to delete something while it is under discussion. While I personally think this section won't stay (for the reasons you gave), it is possible that Megatonman may have some quite solid references to back up what he says. That small section was harmless enough to stay for a few days while we discussed it. Its ultimate fate should have happened after the discussion. That being said, Megaton should come up with some references before adding it back in (sections flipping in and out on a daily basis make me dizzy).  Stepho  talk  04:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not considered bad form at all--read WP:BRD or any number of references to "unsourced changes" written by several people, including the founder of Wikipedia. When someone puts questionable "information" into an article, it should be removed unless it can be sourced.

And, even if it can be sourced, it doesn't necessarily belong in an encyclopedia article, one line of reasoning being "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.". If someone adds something like "Pundits call the Prius 'the tree-hugger's apology' car", without citing a reliable source, it gets pulled. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 05:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Two exerts from WP:BRD stand out for me.

1. 'Problem: Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made.' The discussion has barely begun, so the premise of BRD hasn't really been matched.
2. 'BRD is not a policy.'

But let Megatonman do some research. He might or might not find something worthy of inclusion. If not, then we can always delete it (or in this case, not re-add it) in a couple of days.  Stepho  talk  07:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm fine with that, so long as the challenged text is not reinserted into the article unless properly sourced. If, however, anyone tries to add a Trivia (In Popular Culture, etc.) section to this article--as opposed to integrating the info into the text, I will be taking a long, hard look at it for notability and encyclopedic merit, and so should you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I do think it may be worth mentioning, its a famous and iconic car and for a specific reason, it's brought up in many ways shapes and forms on TV, i'll do some more research and get back to you guys. It's a part in many show plotlines including southpark, but i do realise if it isn't done well, it could be and endless babble of useless junk, i'll look it up. Megatonman (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a good read of WP:HTRIVIA. The main thrust is that what goes into the article must be important for the car, not what is important for the movie. Ie: the Prius might be important within the movie but the appearance may not be particularly important beyond the movie. Exceptions would be for a movie that changed world opinion on green cars - but I haven't heard of such a movie.  Stepho  talk  22:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)