Talk:Honda Insight

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Honda Insight article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Automobiles B‑class Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

September 2008

Overall article structure

I'm thinking as the new Honda insight goes to sale, this article is going to get very long. Compare with the Prius article. Probably most of the existing article should become a sub article for second generation insight. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by sub-article? My feeling is that we can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the Second Generation now has its place. 842U (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The article size is only at 20KB which is definitely below even consideration level to separate the article. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Image

Most people coming to the article are interested in the new insight and the first image should be the new insight. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- de Facto (talk). 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The new version should be at the top of the article (just as it is for Honda Civic). The reason the image was being reverted was because it duplicates the photo in the Second Generation infobox. A separate, distinct, photo of the second generation Insight needs to be used for either the lead or the second generation infobox.THD3 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Autos convention on image placement:

"The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other. Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox. Regardless of the ages of the vehicle shown, pick a clear, high-quality image according to the image quality guidelines; one that clearly shows a vehicle relevant to the article without photoflash glare or other photographic faults, against a simple and contrasting background. Such an image is always to be preferred over a lower-quality image, such as one that shows photoflash glare or a distracting background."

It is quite clear that the quality of the photo is the primary factor for choosing the image for the lead infobox. When there is a photo of the 2010 Insight that is of higher quality than photos of the first generation, then that belongs in the top infobox. But not before. IFCAR (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>one that clearly shows a vehicle relevant to the article...

People looking for information on the new Honda Insight don't really care about the old one, and probably won't consider the old vehicle relevant anymore than someone looking for info on the civic hybrid. Perhaps there needs to be two different articles. The second generation isn't really an upgrade of the old one. It was a marketing decision to use the same name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could make the same argument about virtually any car. IFCAR (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying people interested in the 4th gen Prius aren't interested in 3rd gen Prius data? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes as much sense as saying that no one is interested in the first-generation Insight, or that the first-generation Insight isn't relevant to an article about the Honda Insight. IFCAR (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that the "high-quality image according to the image quality guidelines" that we pick for the top infobox should be of the new Insight (assuming that one is, or soon becomes, available). -- de Facto (talk). 10:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a better photo than the existing image, there's no problem. If it isn't, then it's against the convention. IFCAR (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the convention say that it has to be the best quality image that is used, or just that the image used has to comply with the image quality guidelines? -- de Facto (talk). 11:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox." That is explicit. What else would you use to choose the image? IFCAR (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Vehicle production date" has no bearing on the image quality - that is very clear (and very obvious). What is not so clear is why the lead image has to be the best quality image available, and not just an image which complies with the image quality guidelines.

For example, I have 2 images - A & B - which both comply with the image quality guidelines. Does the convention allow the use of either A or B, or is there another criteria, such as which image is the best quality, which also needs to be considered? -- de Facto (talk). 13:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox." It could not be clearer on that point. If you can think of something besides quality for which to make a rational decision for infobox image placement that is not clearly excluded as a possible criterion, feel free to propose it. IFCAR (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions does say that 'Vehicle production date is not a factor'. But if one reads just one sentence beyond what you previously quoted, it also says that 'Low-volume, unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image.' The old Insight was a niche car; according to this very article, fewer than 20,000 sold despite its being on the market for some years. The new model is an inexpensive, mass-market vehicle, and is currently receiving extensive media coverage. Which do you think more readers will be looking for? David Arthur (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same argument, you could say that the first-generation is more representative because it carried the Insight name for much longer.

But more relevantly, the fact is inarguable that there is no high-quality photo of the second-generation Insight, and therefore a photo of one should not appear -- for now -- at the top of the article. Any reader who is confused by this can read the article's second paragraph. IFCAR (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IFCAR. Going through the current group of assets, I don't see an image of higher quality than the current lead image. roguegeek (talk·cont) 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info on second car far to NA centric

The way its written suggests the car is only going to be sold in the US, which simply isn't true. Also the prices are meaning less to everyone outside of NA as we've nothing to compare them to. I'm going to try and adress some of these faults but I've not much to work from so if someone who knows more (and has sources) add some more to it.(86.25.251.62 (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]