Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Chevrolet Vega

There are some real problems with Chevrolet Vega, not the least of which is that it appears to be currently owned by user Vegavairbob; the article doesn't reflect a cooperative effort.

As well, the article has grown exceedingly long, with a fair amount of unsourced information, unreferenced conclusions, and conflations of information. It's essentially become a fan page, with a fair amount of fancruft, trivia... and conclusions that are put forth and represent the positions of... one editor.

Currently, I've flagged the article with the issues, asking that the issues be discussed and resolved on the discussion page before removal of the flags. I can only bear up so well under the personal attacks that go along with even just flagging the article.

Thoughts? 842U (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Good luck on "improving" the article! CZmarlin (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Meaning?842U (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

While I can not dispute that Vegavairbob clearly considers this his (and only his) article, the lack of referencing seems less than risky. I'm only wondering about this one - seems peculiar. The fancruft is heavy, more so than the trivia, and obviously this article is longer than anyone could find necessary. I have to admit though, that while glancing at the article to see what it could use, I found myself stuck reading through much of it as I found it interesting. And 842U, the stars say you might be entering a stormy period in your life.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I do agree, the article has genuinely interesting content; the problem is much of it is synthesized from sources that remain murky because the reader must rely on the single editor serving up their single viewpoint — without the benefit of quotes in the citations. There is real potential in the article.842U (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree on owning. There was a strong sense of it in my limited effort on the page, even with changes I wouldn't think were controversial. I've also felt he doesn't take any kind of criticism well, so corrective measures might end up having unpleasant consequences. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on past occurrences I think the only way this article will ever get fixed is if Vegavairbob is indefblocked. (Crap like this is totally unacceptable and considering his history a final warning for incivility would not be uncalled for.)

He's probably learned by now that if he's unpleasant enough people won't bother dealing with him. He's shown a considerable degree of contempt for the consensus-building process and getting any kind of worthwhile discussion out of him is impossible.

An RFC is an option but I don't see what would come of it that could be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to get movement, but it takes a real willingness to fight with him. (I've usually got it, but he tests even mine, & nobody else I've ever met does.) IMO, Sable's right: block. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A long time ago I read that article thru, It was back then quite good, but its been getting longer article since then, actually I think its too long now to be intresting enough to be read thru. It seems to be never finished it will grow all the time. Also most of the citations are offline type, the article would benefit if it would have some more online sources. See also and external link sections should not be so long with this big article, which has lots of info, there is no need to these. -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to

If only vegavairbob had any edits that did not relate to the Chevrolet Vega. I'm pretty single-minded myself, but I still manage to evade my beloved kei-cars and add content elsewhere every so often. Anyhow, who wants to be the first person to do some cropping? I'd recommend chopping out the section dealing with how they fixed the wood trim application issue. Vega-cruft indeed.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd cull the engine information, which can be moved to the individual engine articles. The "awards" and "reception" sections can also be cut down considerably (and "see also" should be deleted all together). Another potential section for pruning is "The DeLorean factor", of which 80 percent is a large block of quotation. Possibly the original print sources could be scanned, and hosted on Flickr or similar, and the juxtaposition summarised.

Do we need "Car and Driver's Showroom Stock #0"? Surely this can be dumped somewhere else away from our sight?

I am undecided on the "pricing" section. I think there is unwritten rule somewhere that discourages the inclusion of prices, but they really aren't bothering me in this instance. Maybe just delete the model year pricing table?

Other than that, most of the content seems okay. It's a long article, but this is partially due to the large amounts of information regarding the vehicle's manufacture (Lordstown Assembly, Vert-A-Pac, Fisher Body).

I just read the section that discusses the difficulties surrounding the application of the wood trim and thought, "no, leave it there, it's interesting". OSX (talk • contributions) 08:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is WP:NOPRICES -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree on the #0 section & a lot of the "see also", but Delorean, Yenko, the H-platform, & MT CotY should stay; that's close enough related, & still important. If possible, I'd mention the proposed option of a factory aluminum SB V8 (Z23?). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha, it seems we are all Vegavairbob's greatest defenders, as everyone finds something interesting everywhere. I agree that the Car and Driver Showroom Stock piece is fairly irrelevant. For me, part of the reason for removing the wood trim part is the single source given. Maybe the reference could just be listed in a better fashion, was it a personal interview? Emails?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Have we thought of a name for our anti-Vegavairbob cabal yet? See how we carefully avoid using the article's talk page and instead talk secretively behind his back. Granted that he's not a team player but I'm sure there are far more articles requiring our attention than Chevrolet Vega.  Stepho  (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is not happening behind anyone's back: Vegavairbob has been advised of this discussion. This discussion was started to bring fresh eyes onto the situation; the discussion appears productive and there's been a fair amount of positive acknowledgement for Vegavairbob. Given your interests, if Vvb took a similar interest to the Toyota Celica article, you would likely feel differently about the importance of what's happening in the Vega article.842U (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also say, since the discussion isn't just about the Vega, putting it on the Vega talk would be OT. Moreover, I applaud Vegavairbob for his passion, however misguided it got. Anybody with good sources & genuine interest, I'd hope we can reform. I just fear he's not going to bend. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OT? 842U (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"OT?" Off-topic. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There may be a more than slight conflict of interest issue in the article: most of the photographs are by one user, of cars he owns — whether they are relevant or not. 842U (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why, Bob's article has been acclaimed as an unbiased review! Link I think its likely some of the Vega fans view the current article as compensatory advocacy for an unjustly criticized car. Bradkay (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pruned and re-arranged some content as well. The table of contents is far too long, so let's try and cut that down further. The sections, "Engine", "Stillborn engines", and the "122 CID DOHC-16 valves" sub-section of "Cosworth Twin-Cam" should be cut-down considerably and moved to the GM 2300 engine article. Also, we need to get the "Reception", "Awards", and "Criticisms" sections down to a manageable length. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the section APPLYING THE FILM to the Woodie article. This is an example of the problem with the "interesting" aspects of the article Vvb created: the woodgrain applique story is essentially this: workers stop using a technique and have to be retrained. There are probably thousands of examples of this kind of story that happen every month on assembly lines everywhere. And the reference for the "story" is this: Little-known Vega Development stories by John Hinckley, GMAD-Lordstown Vega Launch Coordinator, essentially a book of anecdotes. A not-notable story, referenced by a not-notable author. Interesting, certainly, but highly subjective, from an unvetted author. 842U (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the quickest and least controversial way to shorten the article is to split it into Vega/Astre, and Monza and the badge engineered Monza models. The Monza and Sunbird named Vegas could remain in the Vega article. Bradkay (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I found a postive comment lurking in here! "..the article has been acclaimed as an unbiased review!" from Bradkay. To address this one.. "If only vegavairbob had any edits that did not relate to the Chevrolet Vega." from Mr.choppers. Here is a list of my most frequently edited articles other than the Vega and the number of edits. Chevrolet Corvair[WP] (514), Chevrolet Corvette[WP] (497), Chevrolet Monza[WP] (431), Chevrolet Corvette (C3)[WP] (407), Chevrolet Impala[WP] (316),Chevrolet Chevelle[WP] (314), Pontiac Astre[WP] (218), Economy car[WP] (215), Chevrolet El Camino[WP] (201), Chevrolet Corvette (C1)[WP] (163), Chevrolet Chevy II / Nova[WP] (160), Chevrolet Corvette (C2)[WP] (148), Woodie[WP] (135), Chevrolet Bel Air[WP] (135)...and may I direct you to my home page for the complete list. [1]. And Mr. Choppers, I have downloaded 700 auto images, all puiblic domain, of which 50 are Vega images. That leaves 650 other auto images, doesn't it? I have put quite a bit of work into all the Corvette articles which suffered in quality and content, not to mention many other Chevrolet articles. None of my other contributions have been deleted nor my editing critized from any of the other articles I have substancially contributed to, so I question some of the comments here. But it should be clear I've had better things to do, like improving (auto) articles. This article was praised by some administrators and Users. I did work on it for two years. (there was no interest in it for the first year or more) then taking suggestions (neutality, etc), tt was an effort of several Users after a while, and the issues were addressed as are listed on the Talk page. Other User contributions were reserved for comments and suggestions of which I followed carefully. Yes, it has grown much in size and the (now recently deleted) Review section was too large but should not have been deleted entirely, but reduced in size. (many auto articles have a Reviews or Reception section..now this one doesn't) A Gallery was added with deleted images and Origin paragraph was returned. But by conscious, I trimmed many of the sections and reduced the article's size from 86k to 78k bytes, trimming sections without deleting them to make it easier to read. However it was (is) properly sectioned and organized for selective or complete reading. The five deleted images were returned in a Gallery and a Motorsports sub-section was rolled back. Because of the car's limited Motorsports participation, It is noteworthy to include the road race the car had won for Car and Driver as it verifies the car's one true attribute..its handling capabilites. If removing complete sections was the only thing an editor chose to do I would have left the Origin section (direct info on the car) and deleted the DeLorean factor section. Finally to address ..."because the reader must rely on the single editor serving up their single viewpoint." from 842U. There is no viewpoint from me in the article. The 100 references (now 80) used are all noteworthy, reliable sources. I had all the archives and info to draw from. That makes not a single viewpoint article but a complete referenced article. The reader gets unbiased info which is what this site calls for, unlike other sites. Facts presented are from the first-hand knowledge and experiences of automobile engineers and journalists. (The article is neutral and has been recognized as such). If other Users had the material on this subject, I'm sure they would have contributed text and info to the article. But they don't. Instead some Users label it a fan site and I'm accused of ownership. Not to mention three comprehensive and informative sections get entirely deleted. Good grief.
On a positive note, I'd like to wish all a Happy New Year! Vegavairbob (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, I don't see a lack of positive comments here. Its been said previously that just about everyone finds something they really like in the article and its clear you have probably an unmatched quantity of resources on the Vega. However, my comment about the unbiased review isn't one of the positive ones. I don't see an acclaimation its an unbiased review from a member of a fan site to carry any weight, the actual point of my comment.

We're talking about a car that after a few years of owership, disappointed a lot of people, and failed in the marketplace. Yes, they fixed some of the problems later, but things like not including fender liners on the original design, well fender liners were common practice in 71 and the original Vega not having them could be called negligent.

The engine is more sensitive to low coolant level than other cars of the era, and so the original design should have addressed customer expectations of reasonable maintenance by including an overflow tank. Customers had expectations based on their experience with contemporary cars. If someone built a car today with points ignition, people would be outraged at the idea of tune ups every 12,000 miles. And I'd expect you'd find a lot of those cars dead on the side of the road with burned points with consumers not buying the idea they didn't do something they were supposed to do. Engineering that is advanced on paper but doesn't meet real world expectations isn't advanced engineering.

There are many good things about the article. But just about every comment on engineering ought to be asterisked with "but it didn't work" rather than blaming it not working on the owners or saying its OK because it was fixed later. GM has never built a small car that out of the box met customer expectations, having failed with the Corvair, Vega, Citation, and Cavalier. The Chevette was competitive for only two years, until the Omni and Horizon came out, but the Chevette started life as an Opel.

Its OK for people to like Vegas, for whatever reasons. I don't have a problem with that. People like Nash Metropolitans (I was at a meet once where a quarter of the Metros had trouble leaving under their own power, which diminished the owners affection for them not a bit), late 50s and early 60s Chryslers (where they have to re-engineer the "full contact" brakes to feel halfway safe about driving them), Fiat 850s and 124s (which you dare not drive beyond the distance you can walk back from), and a lot of other kind of poor but interesting cars. I think the Vega is interesting, and can see why people like it, but that should not extend to making the article say they are great cars and that contemporary consumers were wrong about them. Bradkay (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Critciscm section, which is the largest section in the article states engine damage was common...all the known facts are there. I never said it was a great car, in the article or otherwise. I just have all the info on it.. so I made use of it. And I did the same on all the Corvette articles as well. No complaints there...Just because the article is large doesn't say great car, it says complete article. Beware the "expert" with the opinion. He probably doesn't know much about it. I've talked with people that know more about this subject than anyone and have read their comments in many sources. The more someone knows about something the more reserved they are at expressing their opinions about it Ironic, isn't it? Most engineers have a neutral opinion, like this article that includes their own words. An exception is DeLorean's interview (promoting the car) and book (exposing GM mismanagement) using the Vega as one of many examples. My sources in this article include the manager of the Lordstown factory through 1975 and Chevrolet Engineers that worked on the car who don't give opinions, just facts... An informative, neutral Encyclopedic article gives the known facts without bias or speculation from which the reader can draw his own conclusion and opinion. Vegavairbob (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldnt we put this article under GA/peer review? I think its been quite good article long time. Thoughts? -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, what are your thoughts on moving most of the powertrain information to a separate article, such as GM 2300 engine? This would go a long way in reducing the length. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has been reduced a total of 50k bytes - from 128k bytes to 78k bytes. I reduced the article 8k bytes (equal to the size of the Dura-Built 140 and Aluminum engine block sections) from 86k bytes to 78k bytes trimming sections without deleting entire additional sections. Trimmed were the Design, Engine, Cosworth Twin-Cam, DeLorean and Criticism sections and the large production/changes chart was replaced with a much smaller chart. The largest section, Reception was already deleted as was the large Vega variants section, and I just deleted the Stillborn Engine section (4k bytes) including the Wankel since it was never produced, later planned for the Monza, and is (still) featured in the shorter Monza article. Engine section should remain as unlike other GM engines (excluding Corvair) the 140 engine was designed for, and associated with one car - the subject of the article, is the car's notable feature, and the Engine section (including the aluminum block development and Dura-built 140 Durabilty run) is part of the history of only this car, and balances the article's neutality with the Criticism engine subsection. If an engine is only associated with a particular car it should be encompassed in the car article, not just a mention with a link to an engine article. In such cases the seperate engine article should be considered subordinate, a reference. Vegavairbob (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed the article further from 78k bytes to 73k bytes by removing Cosworth Vega section and infobox (added one image of Cosworth and the engine paragraph to Engines) Chevrolet Cosworth Vega a new seperate article.Vegavairbob (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

While I'd agree a lot of detail on it shouldn't stay in, does anyone else think at least a mention of engine proposals should stay in? IMO, something about GM's mooted direction (& a comparison to where GM actually went) merits inclusion: so, mention (if not extensive detail) of the Wankel & Z32 (? aluminum V8) deserves inclusion. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A large Wamkel section with images is in the Chevrolet Monza article as it was (in the final hour) planned for that car. It was included here as well but article was reduced from 128k bytes to 73k bytes by trimming most sections and deleting three. A paragraph on the aluminum V8 prototype is in the last section of the article. I agree on a smaller section (paragraph) on the Wankel added back. Vegavairbob (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wankel sub-section added back (a smaller version-4k bytes)Vegavairbob (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thx. Not only preserving the info, I learned something: it was a 206ci. (!) :D Would that have been a hot rod Vega! (And GM didn't build it... :( :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, and Vegavairbob I'm quite sorry if I offended you. You have clearly added a lot of valuable content to a lot of pages. While I stand by my statement that you are rather single-minded (nothing wrong with that!), I also said "it seems we are all Vegavairbob's greatest defenders, as everyone finds something interesting everywhere." I like your work, but what I like the most is your willingness to cooperate and even prune to the point that the rest of us are beginning to ask you to put stuff back in. I think splitting off the Cosworth Vega was the best way to make this page of a reasonable size (interesting in light of current merger-madness), but I don't see a lot more trimming being at all necessary. Now go help me write an article on the Talbot-Lago T150, one is sorely needed!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not the stubborn Vegavairbob I wrestled with, & I'm glad of it. I like this one much better. :D (I'm no angel, either, so... ;p) And moving the Wankel content to its own page IMO solves that one. I asked Bob this, & let me ask here, since there's still a problem: is there a page where the "aluminum block" section of Vega could be moved to? IMO, it's too OT to stay in, but too worthwhile to just junk. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved large Aluminum block section to GM 2300 engine. Small paragraph of section retained (same size as reduced Wankel section) for Chevrolet Vega and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega pages as per discussion. Click links to view section versions on the three pages. Also large Wankel section moved to a new page (with additions) General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine by the recommendation of TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} who made a new smaller edit for the Chevrolet Vega page. Again click on these two links to view the new GM-Wankel page and the smaller Vega page Wankel section. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I like it. I put back some Vega-specific detail on where it was done & where the blocks went, but otherwise, it looks good. And I'm glad it's preserved in the 2300 page. One (slightly OT) question: did that tech only apply to the Vega-family engines? If not, add it elsewhere, would you, Bob? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice final edit. This edit was moved to Chevrolet Cosworth Vega as well. Not sure if current sleeveless engine blocks have the silicone particle etching or if they are cast the same way. Something to research for sure. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I forgot the Cosworth. :( (Trust a Vega guy to remember. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass article merger

Hi all! Yesterday I was discussing with OSX about further implementing the merges of hybrid articles with their non hybrid counterparts (original discussion,yesterday's discussion and came to the conclusion that they, and pages for high-performance versions of cars, should be merged with their relative page. There is currently no standard for this, and we think that one should be introduced. We also discussed electric cars counterparts, which I think is a topic more open to discussion.

The cars in question that I can think of are:

• Honda Civic Hybrid
• Honda Accord Hybrid
• Ford Fusion Hybrid
• Ford Escape Hybrid
• Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid
• Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid
• BYD F3DM

• Subaru Impreza WRX STI
• Mitsubishi Lancer Evo
• Dodge Ram SRT-10
• Proton Satria R3

• Ford Ranger EV
• Chevrolet S-10 EV
• Ford Focus BEV
• Toyota RAV4 EV
• Mitsubishi i MiEV

Any thoughts? --Pineapple Fez 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We should made list of all those pages, which would be candidates for merging, I would merge all performance versions articles and hybrdi versions, if articles arent too long for merging. We have here lots of these article which could be merged....

• Mazdaspeed3
• Mazdaspeed6
• Renault 5 Turbo
• Renault 5 Alpine Turbo
• Renault 5 Turbo
• Volkswagen Polo G40
• Audi S3

-->Typ932 ^T·C 21:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've created a list below but categorized them because I feel that they may be treated differently. --Pineapple Fez 03:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify, that an article such as Audi S3 will not be completely merged into the Audi A3 article. Instead, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to appropriate location. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Please see noticeboard incident here.--Mariordo (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a simple resolution to this. Add merger tags to each article, but link them to the page where the mass merger discussion is taking place. Like this:

{{mergeto|merger target|discuss=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger}}. That way discussion remains centralized but anyone watching any of the articles will be informed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I oppose to mass mergers. Nowadays, some (hybrid) electric vehicles are more notable and important than their pure petroleum counterparts. Also proposes an Electric Vehicle Tasksforce within this Wikiproject to improve the articles and sections about electric vehicles (some important ones are not in Wikipedia and other non-notable pure petroleum vehicles still appear).--Diamondland (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do which one is more important than other, this is just pure article tidying, its far easier to find all models about same car in same page, we dont need own page for every versions, of course if articles are very long there might be idea to have separate article. -->Typ932 ^T·C 12:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

List

The following list covers the articles in question. If there is anything missing, please contribute.

Hybrid*	Performance*	Electric*	Fuel Cell*	Other*
Honda Civic Hybrid	Subaru Impreza WRX STI	Ford Ranger EV	Mercedes-Benz F-Cell	Honda Civic GX
Honda Accord Hybrid	Mitsubishi Lancer Evo	Chevrolet S-10 EV	Fiat Panda Hydrogen	Dodge Viper E85
Ford Fusion Hybrid	Dodge Ram SRT-10	Ford Focus BEV	BMW Hydrogen 7	Saab 900 Talladega
Ford Escape Hybrid	Proton Satria R3	Toyota RAV4 EV	Mazda RX-8 Hydrogen RE	Ford F-150 SVT Raptor
Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid	Mazdaspeed3	Mitsubishi i MiEV	Mazda Premacy Hydrogen RE Hybrid	Mazda MX-5 10th Anniversary Model
Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid	Mazdaspeed6	Renault Fluence Z.E.	Ford Focus FCV	Honda CR-X del Sol
BYD F3DM	Renault 5 Turbo	Chrysler 200C EV	Mercedes Benz SLS E-Cell	MINI Beachcomber
BYD F6DM	Renault 5 Alpine Turbo	Mini E		Audi A6 allroad quattro
	Renault 5 GT Turbo	Subaru R1e		Mazda Rotary Pickup
	Renault Clio Renault Sport			SEAT Altea XL/Freetrack
	Volkswagen Polo G40			Volkswagen Citi Golf
	Honda Civic Si			Volkswagen Beetle in Mexico
	Honda Civic Type R			Baja Bug
	Holden VL Commodore SS Group A SV			Holden Gemini
	Ford Taurus SHO			Ford Flexible Fuel Vehicle
	Ford XY Falcon GT			Audi Coupé GT
	VW Beetle RSi			Audi Coupé quattro
	Nissan Pulsar GTI-R			Solar-charged vehicle (or AfD?)
	Mitsubishi Racing Lancer
	Mitsubishi Galant VR-4
	Mitsubishi Lancer WRC
	Dodge SRT-4
	Renault 5 Alpine
	BMW X5 M
	BMW X6 M
	Subaru Impreza WRX
	Subaru Impreza WRX WRP10
	Volkswagen Lupo GTI
	Cadillac CTS-V
	Cadillac STS-V
	Cadillac XLR-V
	Chevrolet Cobalt SS
	Ford Fiesta RS Turbo
	Ford Focus RS
	Ford Escort RS Cosworth
	Ford Escort RS 1700T
	Toyota Corona EXiV
	BMW M3
	BMW M5
	BMW M6
	BMW M Coupe
	BMW M Roadster
	Mercedes-Benz CLK-AMG Black Series
	Mercedes-Benz C43 AMG
	Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG
	Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG
	Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG
	Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9
	Mercedes-Benz 500E
	Mercedes E550
	Mercedes-Benz Ponton
	Mercedes Benz Limousine W126
	Mercedes Benz Limousine W126 (1000SEL)
	Audi S3
	Audi S4
	Audi S6
	Audi S7
	Audi S8
	Audi RS2 Avant
	Audi RS4
	Audi RS6
	Audi Ur-S4 / Ur-S6
	Audi 4000CS quattro
	Renault Clio V6 Renault Sport
	Citroën C4 WRC
	Citroën DS3 WRC
	Rover 200 Coupé
	Rover P6 Estoura
	Porsche 911 GT2
	Porsche 911 GT3
	Ford Mustang Mach 1

*Hybrid/Performance/Electric/Fuel Cell/Other refers to a version of a car, e.g the Honda Civic Hybrid is a hybrid-electric version of the Honda Civic

Register your view

Resolved

 – consensus supports review by a case by case basis. --Leivick (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

Extended content

Support: per my talk page and the earlier discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Support: as per above --Pineapple Fez 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Support Greglocock (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Provisional support. No problem with User:Pineapple Fez' list. But Typ932's add-ons not completely sold with specific reference to the Mazdaspeed models. In using this a a broad trend: there will have to be some case-by-case here. Commonname for example would strongly suggest that Audi S3 be maintained as a separate article, although not necessairly in its present form. The general public, which has always been the target audience of Wikipedia, generally will struggle with a generational shift if the public names for the vehicles are not respected. This is one of the long standing problems with how we present BMW articles. While it makes sense from an industry perspective to separate vehicle the way we have done, Wikipedia is not an industry encyclopedia. We would never advocate the deleting of BMW M3 back into its generation compenents would we? Additionally where some vehicles have made an impact beyond that of the rest of the vehicle, for example Subaru Impreza WRX, still need maintenance. Further: vehicles prepared for market by sub-contract firms - for example the Mazdaspeed models mentioned above, perhaps deserve separate consideration. We aren't going to merge Lexus models back into respective Toyota originators are we? If not these, then why models built by Holden Special Vehicles? Or Mazdaspeed? Of course this then depends on the degree of separation the sports or luxury or in some case budget label has from the main stream manufacturer. --Falcadore (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Just about anyone who is aware of the BMW M3 or Audi S3 would know that these are simply high-performance variants of the 3 Series and A3 ranges. There is nothing wrong with having the "Audi S3" article setup like this and having separate "S3" sections on the main A3 article. Redirects, hatnotes and sound article structure will overcome any issues, just like what has occurred with the Camry. "Toyota Camry Hybrid" now redirects to "Toyota Camry (XV40)#Hybrid". Regarding the Lexus versus Toyota example, this has been settled by the article title naming convention, which outlines that one article shall exist under the international "Lexus" name, for example, "Lexus IS", for which "Toyota Altezza" redirects to. If one was in favour of retaining the Audi S3 article because it is marketed separately, then where would you draw the line? Should we supplement the Mazda Familia article with Mazda 323, Mazda Protegé, Mazda GLC, Mazda Allegro, Mazda Étude, Mazda Genki, Ford Activa, and Ford Tonic so not to confuse readers? I would certainly hope not. The use of redirects, the infobox "aka" field, and bold markup of these alternative names in the lead is more than sufficient to overcome this problem. The same goes for body styles. The Holden Sportswagon is just a station wagon version of the Commodore (sedan). Should this also be separated? Marketing terms used to differentiate otherwise very identical products are not something that we should fall victim to. If Audi called their S3 model "Audi A3 S3", then I would wager that it would not currently have its own article. There is less potential for ambiguity in having the A3 and S3 merged (same brand) than by having "Mazda Familia" and "Ford Activa" located within the same article. As stated above though, there is no ambiguity if the mergers are executed adequately. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Strongly opposed: First, the main criteria for the existence of an article in Wikipedia is WP:Notability, so this batch merging is a blatant violation of this policy as each case should be discussed one by one and on the corresponding article page, where regular editors have a chance to participate (see an example here on how policies are changed, with broad participation, not with the opinion of a dozen pals). If your intention is to do a batch merging, the same procedure as illustrated should be followed. Second, Wikiprojects can only provide guidelines, you cannot dictate policy, reinforcing my argument that each case should be discussed individually. Third, in the particular case of electric cars, plug-in hybrids, and conventional hybrids there are economic, social and environmental aspects that are mainstream and not so relevant for a regular gasoline or diesel, and that this wikiproject has been disregarding due to its clear biased toward the automotive technology aspect. My proposal is to suspend this discussion, and check first what the proper procedure is and the limitations of Wikiprojects guidelines before continuing this discussion. Let's consult with several admins first-Mariordo (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Do you just oppose the hybrid and EV mergers, or all of them? Although you make note of the economic, social and environmental aspects of hybrids, you have yet to back this up with much in the way of facts. Sometimes you list the government tax incentives, but as far as I am aware, not one of the articles that you have edited outlines the social and environmental aspects (and nor do they need to). The hybrid electric vehicle exists for a reason: to discuss these concerns. For the same reason, every article about an individual SUV model does not need to explain that everyone who drives one is an eco villain, because sport utility vehicle makes note of this criticism. All that separates these hybrid articles from non-hybrid models is unencyclopaedic information such as excessive fuel economy lists like this or comparison charts such as this. Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide, nor are we a repository for non-notable fuel economy tests. Remove this drivel from articles, and keep a nice and simple EPA figure, and the length of these articles becomes significantly smaller. Case in point: the Ford Escape Hybrid article is filled with non-notable information such as this fuel economy and environmental performance chart. It lists subjective information such as "annual fuel cost", "carbon footprint (Ton/year of CO2)" and "Annual Petroleum Use (barrel)". Also listed is the fleet of 20 Escape Hybrids used by lifeguards in Los Angeles. This should really be deleted without discussion, as it is not encyclopaedic. An EPA figure along with a comparison with the non-hybrid Escape conveys the message of frugality far more succinctly and is far more understandable to the average reader. For example, "The Ford Escape Hybrid is rated at XX mpg (combined), which is XX percent better than the non-hybrid." A (highly-subjective) table listing how many grams of CO2 is used per year is really quite useless to the average reader. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC) I believe proper policies and procedures should be resolved first, so I will not engage in the discussion of any particular article, at least while they are treaty in batch (I might even agree to some of the mergers individually). And to set the record straight, I am not the only author of these articles, several of them have existed for years even before I began editing in Wikipedia, just check the history of each of them.-Mariordo (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC) If you don't wish to participate in this discussion, then that is your choice. We are simply having a community discussion at a relevant hub (this WikiProject deals with automobiles, so it makes sense to do it here, and not at the Arkansas WikiProject). To discuss individually would be an extremely difficult and years-long process (hence why you suggested it). Plenty of page moves Wikipedia-wide have been discussed at the relevant WikiProjects. In fact, Wikipedia:Merging makes no mention of where the discussion has to take place, so no gross policy violation has been committed. All that is required for a controversial merger is a consensus. If there is no consensus, then nothing will happen. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Please be so kind to point us to the policy or the section in the Merging policy that this proposal for a massive merge is based on.--Mariordo (talk) Please be so kind to point us to the policy or the section in the Merging policy that this proposal violates. The policy is ambiguous for a reason—there is no particular talk page that multi-mergers must be held on, so long as the location is relevant. The Automobiles WikiProject covers these articles, so this page is perfectly suitable. All editors who voted in the Camry discussion have been notified via their talk page. Please stop arguing over trivialities just to prove a point and to waste my time. This is where the discussion is being held. If you don't like it, please go elsewhere to obtain your consensus prohibiting mass-mergers from being held at the talk page of the relevant WikiProject. To the best of my knowledge, as it currently stands, no such policy exists. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Please read Help:Merging#Proposing_a_merger which says: Create one discussion section, typically on the destination article's Discussion page (also known as the talk page). This should include a list of the affected articles and a merger rationale. Tag each article with the appropriate merger tag. All tag Discuss links should be specified to point at the new discussion section. Clearly, is one tag and one discussion for each merge. Again, please point me to the "mass merger" section? Otherwise, please stop this discussion and follow the established procedure for merging articles.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC) We are not proposing to merge the Civic, Escape, and Accord Hybrids all into one article, which is what the above guideline applies to. There does not seem to be any guideline outlining a topic-wide merger, so Pineapple fez chose the most appropriate location. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Strongly opposed per Mariordo. We must consider notability and the social and environmental aspects of cars, not just the mechanical engineering. And a "mass merge" like this is just not on and this discussion should be suspended. Johnfos (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Partial oppose - Perhaps in some of these cases I would support a merge, but others I would not. In the case of, say, Ford Ranger EV and Chevrolet S-10 EV, those articles have quite a bit of unique content and if they were merged they would overwhelm the level of content of the main articles. Ford Focus BEV, however, looks like it could be suitably merged into the article for that generation of Focus. Generally, I'd feel that something where the main article has already been split up by generation would be a candidate for merging, other cases probably not. Add Ford Taurus SHO to the list, there was a merge proposal here recently and I think I'd support that. Unfortunately, I don't think this is something that can be done on anything other than a case-by-case basis. --Sable232 (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC) I somewhat agree with what you are saying. Some of the candidate articles, especially the fuel cell ones, should be definitely merged, the others, would overwhelm the main article so I think that if they are to be merged, generation-specific articles should be created, as they do conform to guidelines. --Pineapple Fez 04:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Also feel free to add to the list yourself! --Pineapple Fez 04:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC) I agree, if the article actually has notable content that would be too excessive if crammed in with its parent article, then by all means split. However, with these ICE-derived hybrids, this is never the case. Once the unencyclopaedic/non-notable drivel is removed, all of these articles would be about half their current size. Also, being verifiable does not make something notable (like the fleet of 20 Escape Hybrids used by lifeguards in Los Angeles). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Strong support – The fact that a particular model is available in various guises or alternative power versions does not change the basic vehicle. There seems to have been no notability established for the different versions of a particular model or alternative power or energy source compared to the basic or traditional versions other than the typical range of puffery and other Boastful Superlatives (BS) from the automakers marketing departments. Information about the different versions of particular models should be in the article about that model, not in separate articles. One other benefit of the merged articles is that it makes comparisons between the different models targeting particular market segments, as well as various technologies and drive systems much simpler. The standard, high-performance, electric, diesel, hybrid, etc. versions of a particular model should be together. There would be no need to jump back and forth between two separate articles to evaluate the specifications, efficiency, features, etc. between the different models, or types of fuel or power. In fact, a merged article could highlight the social and environmental aspects of certain versions of the cars much better when all the versions are together in an easy to compare format. Moreover, a merged description would also help to reduce the amount of potential Boastful Superlatives that are often added to articles describing automobiles by their enthusiasts. CZmarlin (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Nice acronymization.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Support or Strong Oppose - on a case-by-case basis. In general, if there is huge overlap between two short articles that differ only in powertrain options - and if the resulting merged article wouldn't become gigantic and unwieldy - then this is obviously a good idea and I support it. However, in the case of articles that are already pretty huge, Wikipedia policy is to split the article up into more manageable parts. In such cases, using the hybrid/non-hybrid or sport/non-sport versions as the dividing line makes a lot of sense - and merging two articles on the basis of an utterly generic decision like this one...only to have a gigantic article that then immediately needs to be split again - makes no sense whatever, and I strongly oppose it. SteveBaker (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC) The intention is exactly that. There is no plan to merge articles that have genuinely too much content. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Support - Engineering is much more important than marketing, which shouldn't be enough to give a car its own article. We already have a rule that a badge-engineered car's content belongs on the original page, how is the Audi S3 (for instance) exempt from this rule? One of the few exceptions I could imagine is Mitsubishi's Evolution series, which has developed somewhat of an independent existence. Personally, I have always been arguing in favor of this sort of thinking, on topics from the Suzuki Cultus Crescent to the Rover 200/400/25/45 and various MG iterations. Anyhow, support, but allowing for the occasional exception.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Even for the Lancer Evolution, a set index article like the one used at Ford Ranger would work in pointing readers to the correct article. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Perhaps, I'm just saying that the case could be made. Sometimes a sub-version does develop a life all its' own; whether the Evo is there yet or not is another argumetn entirely.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Let's take this on a case-by-case basis. I would hesitate to merge halo cars such as the Nissan Skyline GT-R, BMW M3 etc. into their base models as they have a particular - for want of a better word - "legacy". On the other hand cars such as the VW Golf GTI, Ford Focus ST or Renault Clio V6 ("hot hatchbacks" and similar) could be kept at their base model articles. Cars such as the Renault Clio Sport or any other "warm" version of a production car should be kept at their base model article. I would include hybrid, EV and biofuel versions of production cars in this category as they are merely another power-train option and don't have a "legacy" in their own right. Zunaid 13:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Strongly opposed: Per others above, these need to be considered on a case-by-case. Creating a "rule" that forces articles on all hybrid vehicles to be merged creates limitations where none should exist. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose any hard rule about trim levels or variants. Some of the examples clearly should be merged. While others offer large amounts of valid encyclopedic content that simply would not fit if merged into a parent article. This is not a paper encyclopedia, if someone wants to write a detailed and encyclopedic article about a trim level or power-train option I don't see why that should be a problem. --Leivick (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose any "one size fits all" rule or "guideline" for (most of) the reasons given already by others. Individual cases can be decided on their individual merits, but my starting position is that there are already a lot of entries which could benefit from being split because in the unsplit form they have become over long, formless and unwieldy. A start has been made especially in German wiki of giving models with several generations BOTH a relatively brief overview entry AND more detailed and considered individual entries for each generation of it. EG VW Golf (where the same pattern is now followed by English wiki) or Opel Rekord (where there is still a single rather long entry in English wiki covering all the generations). Of course, splitting out the generations in this way does require a lot of time and care, and it's most likely not worth doing until there is a good quantity of good information already entered in the article to be split. Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC) I like the proposal. The way the Toyota Prius was recently split is a good example, though, a case by case analysis would be required for the articles listed for this discussion.-Mariordo (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC) This is what the proposal has been all along. The Audi S3 example that was given on individual talk pages suggested that Audi A3 would be split by generation (i.e. Audi A3 (8P) and Audi A3 (8L), and the Audi S3 content would be merged into the relevant A3 generation article). There is no proposal to merge an article like Ford Escape Hybrid into the actual Ford Escape article. The plan would be to have Ford Escape (first generation) and Ford Escape (second generation) articles, and the hybrid contents could be merged into these generation-specific articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Each particular case would have to be discussed individually, case by case. I would not agree with the example you just gave. Any hybrid, EV or PHEV that has enough notability should have its own article, and so, the discussion should be case by case, not as a batch as proposed here.-Mariordo (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC) This needs to be done case by case, but first we need to find all those articles which could be candidates for this then we could add vote for every case. -->Typ932 T·C 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Motions of order

Resolved

 – Mergers for the Civic and Escape Hybrid articles will be kept on hold until January 10. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

1) I believe there is no rush to go ahead with these mergers, so in the spirit of a broad participation, I suggest we put on hold these discussion until after the holidays, let's say January 10, 2011, to make sure almost everybody is back in business. Please state below your support or opposition to this proposal. Opinions/Discussion (1): Support hold until 01/10/11.-Mariordo (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support hold until 01/10/11. Let's wait until the primarily involved editors are all back on line before making decisions like this. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support hold until 01/10/11. Johnfos (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose I don't know who these involved editors are, but Wikipedia doesn't take a break for holidays. In my opinion this is a perfect time to discuss these issues. Personally I have much more time to devote to Wikipedia when I don't have school work to deal with. --Leivick (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for restoring the discussion! --Mariordo (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Strong oppose: Wikipedia does revolve around Mariordo's vacation period. You are more than welcome to oppose mergers, but do not inconvenience other editors because January 10 does not necessarily suit others. This is clearly a distraction to terminate a discussion that you disagree with and know will take a lot of effort to defend. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC) User:OSX, before removing again this discussion section and my comments, please read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines under the section regarding "Behavior that is unacceptable". As explained here "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission." There was an ongoing voting and you do not have my permission to remove the discussion or my comments. I am just requesting a courtesy, which editors have the right to grant or deny, but you blanked the discussion when the motion was 3 in favor and 1 against (you) which clearly is unacceptable behavior. Just let other editor express their opinion and read WP:Assume Good Faith, I am not the only one on vacation.-Mariordo (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Again, Wikipedia does not revolve around the Christmas holidays. People take holidays all throughout the year, and there is no single period that suits all editors. You seem to find the time on your busy vacation to reply to all these discussions anyway, so it is clearly a distraction/excuse to end the merger discussion. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I am restoring this discussion that OSX improperly removed from this talk page simply because he disagrees, and reproducing the transcription of the message he left in my talk page: Hi, there is no policy that says discussions cannot take place during the Christmas period, just like we don't make special provisions for other religious events, such as Ramadan. If you are available to discuss then you are welcome to participate, but please don't inconvience other editors because of this. Regards, OSX (talk •contributions) 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I stroked out the issues that have been resolved, but #1 is still pending. Besides WP:Civility and WP:Good faith, I request a hold on the discussion at least regarding hybrids (particularly the Civic Hybrid) so we can concentrate in the arguments, particularly WP:Notability. I do not see the rush to do the mergers, plus what I am requesting is just a courtesy, so I have time to develop the arguments once I am back from the holiday break. Please express your views below regarding my proposal.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) :2) Per the discussion above, clearly a case-by-case is necessary. Nevertheless, OSXand Pineapple Fez interpreted as one admin suggested. To me case-by-case means exactly that, one by one. The two chosen articles are a typical example of why it is not suitable to discuss two or several at a time. To me the Civic Hybrid has much more notability and the article could even be expanded significantly, while the Accord Hybrid is less notable, but the way we are voting does not give us a chance to vote yes in one no in the other. Please state below your support or opposition to a discussion one-by-one. Opinions/Discussion (2): Support one by one discussion.-Mariordo (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support one by one discussion. Weighing the merits of the highly-successful, currently-produced Honda Civic Hybrid in the same discussion as the unsuccessful, relatively short-lived Accord Hybrid does not make sense. These are two entirely different cases, and the "pros and cons" of merging the associated articles should be considered separately. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support one by one discussion. Johnfos (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC) :3) In a normal merge the article subject to the merge is tag and the discussion takes place in the other. In this case only the hybrid articles were tag, so considering that the discussion is taking place here I do suggest to tag or leave a message in the Honda Civic (seventh generation),Honda Civic (eighth generation), and Honda Accord (North America seventh generation) so that regular editors from those pages can also participate. Happy holidays!-Mariordo (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Case by Case

As it appeard that the group concensus is to do a 'case by case' merger, I think we should begin. I would also like to add that I think it would be more appropriate to group certain vehicles into cases, e.g. Mazdaspeed3 and Mazdaspeed6, becvause they are similar both as vehicles and as articles. --Pineapple Fez 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Scrap the whole 'grouping' thing. --Pineapple Fez 23:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Honda Civic Hybrid

The proposition:

• Honda Civic Hybrid > Honda Civic (seventh generation) and Honda Civic (eighth generation)

Opinions/Discussion:

• Support: The Civic Hybrid is simply a relatively minor modification of the Civic that incorporates a hybrid-electric powertrain. It is otherwise the same car. As such, there is a hybrid of the 7th-gen Civic, of the 8th-gen Civic, etc. Making a separate article for the hybrid would be like making a separate article for the Civic HX (which uses compressed natural gas) or making separate articles for diesel versions of cars such as the VW Golf TDI vs regular Golf. Neither of those are done because powertrain modifications do not warrant separate articles. This reeks of hybrid elitism. CGameProgrammer (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Both articles could comfortably merged into their respective counterparts. --Pineapple Fez 01:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: per above and precedent set by Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Turning the Honda Civic Hybrid article into a set index page (similar to Ford Ranger) may be a good idea to assist in pointing readers to the correct articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support to me it is largely a size issue. I don't want to lose encyclopedic information, but I don't want to make articles too long to navigate. These articles could be merged without making the target page too long. --Leivick (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Opposed Strongly Opposed as per all my arguments above. Each article has different merits, so I still believe a case-by-case is more appropriate. I believe that the Civic Hybrid has enough notability to deserve its own article. In the US, the largest market for hybrids in the world, the Civic Hybrid is second in sales after the Prius (see here) and one of the most fuel efficient models in the market today. Furthermore, we have to remember that this encyclopedia is for the benefit of our readers not the editors. During the last months this article has had more than 10,000 visits per month, which shows there is demand for the specific article about this hybrid. And by the way, length is not a good criteria, but length there will be no stubs in Wikipedia, you might find always some article it could belong to. WP:CARS has plenty of stubs, or am I wrong? If the request for a hold on this discussion gains consensus (see my proposal above) I would like an opportunity to expand the article to reflect the social and environmental and other aspects of this particular powertrain that will reinforce its notability and merits to have its own article.-Mariordo (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Merging this article does not effect your ability to expand the content on the Civic Hybrid. If what you add makes it too long, I see no reason it can't be split later. --Leivick (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is not only about merging/redirecting, it's about pruning information about the hybrid model to fit it into another article. That means significant info. will be lost and much time wasted even if it is split later.---North wiki (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No pruning is required for the Honda Civic Hybrid article, as the article seems mostly free of fancruft. I will double check this after I save this reply. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, CZmarlin suggests: "Just as in the Toyota situation, the technical aspects of the hybrid system could be in a separate article (see: Hybrid Synergy Drive) and would be of help as Honda improves and implements their system in its other vehicles". I don't see any objection to that suggestion.---North wiki (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed - These are entirely different cases and should be considered separately. The Honda Civic Hybrid was and is one of the most successful hybrid models to date. The Accord Hybrid was an unsuccessful venture into the "performance hybrid" realm that never caught on with the car-buying public. Separate these discussions, tag the corresponding articles, and please let's wait until after the holidays so that all interested parties can have a chance to take part in the discussion. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Opposed - Now that the Accord and Civic discussions have been separated, we can look at the merits of each case. The Civic Hybrid was and is a landmark vehicle. It was the first commonly available hybrid based on an established platform. It received immense amounts of media coverage separate from other Civic models. It is clearly notable above and beyond the Civic product line as a whole. There is no reason we cannot have a paragraph on the Civic hybrid in the main Civic articles, with a "Main article here" link to the separate Civic hybrid article. This is common Wikipedia practice that should be observed in this case. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

While first, the Civic Hybrid remains a version of the existing Civic with a different engine and transmission. The norm is to treat versions of cars in the main article, with divisions by generation taking precedence. Splitting off to a separate article is done as a solution only if an article is otherwise too long, but it's not the norm. The Citroën GS Birotor, for instance, doesn't need its own page, even though it was highly notable and possibly more distinct from the GS on which it was based in terms of engineering than is the Civic Hybrid.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed per Mariordo and Ebikeguy Johnfos (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - short article, easier to find the needed info from normal Civic article and nowadays hybrid is just like any other engine option... -->Typ932 ^T·C 05:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Just because the Civic is available in conventional or in a hybrid power version does not change the basic vehicle. The platform is similar in both of the generations (up to this point in time) regardless of the type of motive power available in these cars. It is also easier for an uninvoloved reader to compare and contrast the differences between the two power versions when they are presented in one succinct article. Just as in the Toyota situation, the technical aspects of the hybrid system could be in a separate article (see: Hybrid Synergy Drive) and would be of help as Honda improves and implements their system in its other vehicles. CZmarlin (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Honda's equivalent to Hybrid Synergy Drive is Integrated Motor Assist, and it is used by several Honda vehicles other than the Civic, such as the Insight, CR-Z, and Accord Hybrid. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - There is little information in the article and it would be better-presented and more neutrally presented in the generational Civic articles. --Sable232 (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - No length issues, not enough difference to warrant a separate article.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - For exactly the same reasons thrashed out in Toyota Camry Hybrid. The differences in the two cases are not significant to alter my opinion for this car. --Falcadore (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Like Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid I see no reason why this should have its own article when it can easily have its own section in the generation articles. Bidgee (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Opposed By splitting the Civic hybrid into different articles (7th gen. and 8th gen.), I think it'll make comparison across generations unduly and unnecessarily cumbersome.---North wiki (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, the next generation of Civic hybrid will debut within a couple of months and there'll be some changes in its technology, I guess, and possibly a split of models between markets (USDM vs. JDM/EUDM). If that's true, merging the articles and referring all its hybrid details to a separate IMA article may complicate the situation - especially to novice readers unfamiliar with the subject, those who come here looking for info. What applies to previous generations or other hybrids may not be applicable to the latest generation.---North wiki (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, how is a change in technology going to complicate things? Information on the first generation Civic Hybrid would be moved to Honda Civic (seventh generation), and information on the second generation Civic Hybrid would be moved to Honda Civic (eighth generation). Transforming "Honda Civic Hybrid" into a set index article like Ford Ranger would solve any grievances from "novice readers". OSX (talk • contributions) 01:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing procedure

Today expires the request I made for extending this discussion. Since we are 8 9 for and 4 against, my interpretation of the result is: consensus was not reached and the article should be kept. Despite the majority supporting the merger, WP policy states that "few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy." (see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). Aware of my personal bias, and that of most of the participants, I proposed we follow the neutral procedure recommended in Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger section IV:

In more unclear, controversial cases, this determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally done by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard.

Other suggestions are welcome.--Mariordo (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I count nine supports and four opposed. Seems fairly close to a consensus to me? Also, all issues raised by the opposing editors have been adressed by OSX and others and haven't been brought up again. But I am happy to await an administrator if it seems necessary.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the issues to try to reach consensus is one thing, rebutting arguments based on IMO is different. There has been no communication back and forth, just one-side rebuttals. Just see my more detailed argumentation below, instead of engaging the notability or any of the issues raised, just the same arguments kept being repeated.--Mariordo (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is unfair and improper to respond to 'opposing' editors and to state "all issues raised by the opposing editors have been adressed by OSX and others and haven't been brought up again" at exactly the same time. It is only fair to ,at least, notify the other party that a respond is posted and allow sufficient time for the other party to respond.---North wiki (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not feel that OSX has addressed the issues presented by the 'opposing' editors in a manner which supports merging this article. While OSX has responded to opposing editors, his responses have in no way invalidated the information and concerns brought up by opposing editors. There is clearly no consensus on this issue, so the merger must not be allowed to occur. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a very close call. If this was an AfD, I'm not sure how I would close it (I am much to involved to see it objectively anway). It is no surprise that the supports see consensus and the opposes don't. We really should get the opinion of an uninvolved experienced editor who can determine whether there is consensus or not. Any suggestions as to who it could be or where we should ask? --Leivick (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So wait, how it that the minority group of four opposing votes takes precedence over nine supporting votes? That's twice as many in favour plus one more. When 70 percent of the votes are in favour of the merge, I think that satisfies WP:Consensus. However, to alleviate any fears of bias from the opposing editors, let's get an outside party to make the call. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have requested the help of an administrator outside the WP:CARS realm for assistance. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that: this is "not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." ---North wiki (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, the arguments for opposition are in bold, and I have rebutted each:

• The Civic Hybrid is second in hybrid sales after the Prius: sales do not increase the standing of a vehicle. In that sense, the Toyota Corolla would have separate articles just for the "LE" and "XLE" trim levels, because these cars sell in far greater numbers than the much more expensive Rolls-Royce Phantom. The Corolla LE is still much the same car as the Corolla XLE; the Civic Hybrid is much the same car as the regular Civic. On the other hand, the Rolls-Royce Phantom is a very different car to the Rolls-Royce Ghost.

• It received immense amounts of media coverage: many individual trim levels or powertrain variants of one car receive a lot of media coverage. For example, the Mercedes-Benz C 63 AMG is widely lauded by reviewers, and is a very different car to drive than the basic Mercedes-Benz C-Class, but a separate article is not warranted because the core vehicle does not change. The powertrain (which is the part of the Civic Hybrid that differs from the rest of the range) already has its own articles, so we do not need to repeat this on every individual model page. The hybrid system used by the Civic is largely identical to the one used by all other Honda hybrids, so this would result in unnecessary content duplication.

• It is one of the most fuel efficient models in the market today: this again resorts to peacock terms to justify separation. Being more fuel efficient than the non-hybrid is not a reasonable means to separate. How much space does it take to say, "The Civic Hybrid is xx percent more fuel efficient than the 1.8-litre automatic variant according to the EPA... it uses xx miles per gallon in the city and xx miles per gallon on the highway."? The basic Mercedes-Benz C 180 is a lot more fuel efficient (and slower) than the high-performance C 63 AMG version, but they happily coexist within the same article.

• This encyclopaedia is for the benefit of our readers not the editors: exactly, and the current setup makes it difficult for readers to make comparisons to the regular Civic because they have to flick back-and-forwards between two articles.

• Length is not a good criteria: if two articles on essentially the same topic can comfortably be merged, then they should be. The individual Civic generational articles are relatively short at the moment. The Civic Hybrid contents would barely add two paragraphs to each article. The Civic Hybrid is the same basic car as the regular Civic. The only difference is the addition of an electric motor and battery pack (which are outlined at the Integrated Motor Assist article), a change in the alloy wheels fitted, and the placement of "Hybrid" badging.

• WP:CARS has plenty of stubs: correct, but many of these are about cars that have no relation with any other. If they are just a powertrain option, trim level, or a rebadged version of another car, then they should be merged as well, which is exactly what these discussions are seeking to do.

• Merging will make comparison across hybrid generations cumbersome: not at all. The Integrated Motor Assist article explains the evolution of this technology, not the individual model articles. Also, the Honda Civic (eighth generation) article should explain how that generation differs from the Honda Civic (seventh generation), and the hybrid is no exception.

My final point is an extension to the consistent use of the argument, "but the hybrid version of [insert model here] is extremely notable and has received a profusion of press coverage." I will reiterate for the tenth, eleventh or twelfth time now that just because a topic with a slight variation from another receives press coverage does not instantly mean we must give it a special article all of its own. If you take a look at the vast majority of car articles on Wikipedia, they exist as a single article outlining multiple generations, despite each generation most likely being subject to a plethora of press coverage. Each generation shares little or no engineering with the others, yet they coexist—happily and without dispute as well. Case in point: Toyota RAV4, contains information on three unrelated generations because there is not enough content to separate. I can assure you that the first and second generation RAV4s share significantly less engineering than any generation of Civic Hybrid does with its non-hybrid counterpart. The list of articles that are set out like the RAV4 page would run into the thousands: Subaru Forester, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Mazda Familia, Toyota Previa, Toyota Vitz, Honda Odyssey, Toyota Celica, Toyota Avalon, Hyundai Santa Fe, Opel Vectra, et cetera... the list is endless. Only when, and when only, these articles become too long do we start to consider splitting these up. And it would be absurd to do so by powertrain, i.e. "Subaru Forester 2.5-liter", "Opel Vectra V6 petrol", and "Toyota Previa four-cylinder". If these articles become too big, then without a doubt, they would be broken up by generation; hybrid, electric, and performance variants are no exception. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Your interpretation of the arguments is only based your IMO. There are policies in Wikpedia that override any guidelines set by a WikiProject. Please read carefully WP:CONLIMITED: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

• Therefore, WP:NOTABILITY as stated by policy depends on the subject having received significant coverage and this is what determines if an article should exist, not WP:AUTO guidelines. Measured through google hits (6.4 million using " ") and well-known facts about the Honda Civic Hybrid is what determines if there is merit for a stand-alone article, that has existed for years (since 2004) with a respectable number of visitors, varying between 5,000 to 10,000 a month during the last three years. Also remember that as per wiki policies if the notability of an article/subject changes over time this is not reason for deleting or merging the article. The notability of the Civic Hybrid was much greater back then when it was recently launched in the market, and even today continues to be the second most fuel efficient car after the Toyota Prius.
• Article size: Despite being used repeatedly in the hybrids merger discussion as an argument, article size is irrelevant for deciding if the article should be merge as the minimal content criteria does not apply for the reasons explained in detailed below, in the Fusion Hybrid and Prius PHEV merger discussion, using WP:AUTOS GA rated articles as a reference. Also consider that there is plenty of room for improvement and expansion, particularly of environmental performance information, if several of the WP:AUTOS editors allow.
• Relevance of environmental performance: Sustainable transport and environmental performance are not obscure fringe topics nor fancruft-laden (as asserted in these discussions) but rather quite mainstream, just like climate change so it cannot be ignored, and Wikipedia reflects theses facts everywhere, except, it seems, in WP:AUTO. The United Nations, The World Bank and all other international development organizations, and many governments of first world countries (and many developing countries too) make decisions and implement policies following such environmental and sustainability principles (wonder why there are so many government incentives for this types of vehicles). Furthermore, comparison tables like the one reproduced below are built with information provided by the US Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency (not some green advocacy group), both government agencies and considered reliable sources in WP. Therefore, this type of info in a hybrid article cannot be considered fancruft, nor marketing. The rejection of this type of information just reflects the already recognized biased (by some of the editors of WP:AUTOS) against electric drive vehicles that use the glider of existing gasoline or diesel vehicles. The performance indicators included in this table reflect the mainstream new reality that the social and environmental impact of automobiles must be evaluated and relevant information provided to car buyers. This indicators reflect the relevant impacts caused by automobiles, from good old air pollution, through greenhouse gas emissions, to oil consumption/energy independence (particularly to reduce imports from not so friendly countries). As your edit war with me in the recently merged Ford Escape demonstrates, you merged the article cleansing it from all environmental performance but the fuel economy, just by claiming this type of content is fancruft regardless of being supported by reliable sources and being a mainstream subject. Again, not following WP policies but supporting yourself in WikiProject guidelines.--Mariordo (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Placing the hybrid Civic version content within the relevant Civic article doesn't detract from the relevance of the environment, global warming (or the tables). These votes/this debate are not a referendum on the relevance of gas mileage comparisons, tables, or any other content (promise!): it's an attempt to reintegrate a version of an existing car into the main article where most of us feel that it belongs and nothing more. In all actuality, the possible advantages of hybrid versions will be more visible and relevant when placed on the main page, as readers will no longer have to find links and click through them. Mention of hybrid versions in the introductory paragraph will help farther.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Am I talking to a brick wall or not? Just because a topic with a slight variation from another receives press coverage does not instantly mean we must give it a special article all of its own. If you take a look at the vast majority of car articles on Wikipedia, they exist as a single article outlining multiple unrelated generations, despite each generation most likely being subject to a plethora of press coverage. Each generation shares little or no engineering with the others, yet they coexist—happily and without dispute as well. Case in point: Toyota RAV4, contains information on three unrelated generations because there is not enough content to separate. Only when, and when only articles become too long do we start to consider splitting them up.

Having the articles merged does not inhibit your ability to edit or improve the contents at all. It simply moves the contents from one place too another. Note the operative term, "moved", and not "deleted" (unless it's cruft of course). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Integrated Motor Assist article explains the evolution of this technology, not the individual model articles." I'm sorry. Have you been to the IMA article lately? Where does it explain the evolution of the tech.? Furthermore, the article looks more like OR, without citing any source for much of its material.---North wiki (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not our problem if that article does not sufficiently explain the history of the technology—it should—and does not need to be repeated on every article for every car that uses the IMA technology. The regular Civic page does not outline the history of the powertrains either; they have their own articles for this purpose. Your recent expansion to Honda Civic Hybrid is also unsourced and is full of original research. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's not a problem for Wiki, but it's a problem for the editor who stated that "the Integrated Motor Assist article explains the evolution of this technology". 1. It's a factual error, on that editor's part, because the article doesn't. 2. What can be included in the article is not about what should, but what could. There has to be a RS. It seems some editors are confused. 3. If the RS is about changes from one generation to another, what is the rationale to move that away from the article of the latter generation? 4. I think it's beyond the scope of this discussion whether the regular Civic page outline the history of the powertrains used. Furthermore, is there any such proposal from editor? 5. Where is the article that "outline[s] the history of the powertrains" of Civic. Can you show me? 6. The additions to Honda Civic Hybrid article are sourced and cited.

The separation of Civic hybrid from the Civic article is because of public perception. I read many comparison tests between Civic hybrid and Prius, between Prius and Insight, but I have difficulty to find one between Civic hybrid and a non-hybrid Civic from a notable source. (I'm not saying there won't be one, but it's just much, much fewer.) It doesn't seem to be what the public need or want. I also read many commentary about the sales of Civic hybrid against that of Prius, but few would compare the sales of Civic against that of Prius. It's obvious there's sufficient ground to show that, at least in many media reports, Civic hybrid is treated separately from the mainstream Civic models. ---North wiki (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Merge I weighed in on this once before. I see several HUGE problems with the merge. My main concern is that there's more than enough material to justify separate articles, and the honda civic hybrid is far beyond the threshold of notability needed to have its own article. This argument alone should be grounds to speedily close the discussion. But another concern I have is with WP:UNDUE: the civic hybrid directly competes with the Toyota prius; by merging it into civic, Wikipedia is effectively downplaying Honda's leading hybrid car, and the second-most-important hybrid car on the world market. The fact that we're even discussing this seems ridiculous. I recommend a speedy close to this ridiculous and far-fetched proposal. Cazort (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merge — the Civic Hybrid has generated enough independent press coverage, and is a notable enough subject in its own right, to justify the existence of a separate article. I believe that a merge would only serve the desire of some editors for "consistency," not the well-being of Wikipedia readers. *** Crotalus *** 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - as above arguments--High voltage41 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• As a totally uninvolved editor, and non-expert in the subject, I am amazed at some of the arguments used. Deliberately amitting the sort of publication which would consider any variation worth a long discussion and separate review, all general interest publications such as Consumer Reports or the NYT or Popular Mechanics regard hybrids as distinctly separate models that must be separately reviewed, not just as versions.Contrary to a statement above, we do go by press coverage, and if these are covered extensively separately, then they get separate articles. We do follow the sources. Thats the entire basis of WP:RS , WP:NPOV, WP:Original Research, and WP:SYN. And all the more for pure electrics, which are really a different type of vehicle in a similar body and with a similar nameplate. 108.21.112.38 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Honda Accord Hybrid

Resolved

 – consensus supports merger. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

The proposition: Honda Accord Hybrid > Honda Accord (North America seventh generation) Opinions/Discussion: Support - Both articles could comfortably merged into their respective counterparts. --Pineapple Fez 01:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support: per above and precedent set by Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Turning the Honda Civic Hybrid article into a set index page (similar to Ford Ranger) may be a good idea to assist in pointing readers to the correct articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support to me it is largely a size issue. I don't want to lose encyclopedic information, but I don't want to make articles too long to navigate. These articles could be merged without making the target page too long. --Leivick (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Opposed as per all my arguments above. Each article has different merits, so I still believe a case-by-case is more appropriate. And by the way, length is not a good criteria, but length there will be no stubs in Wikipedia, you might find always some article it could belong to. WP:CARS has plenty of stubs, or am I wrong?-Mariordo (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I actually think length (and detail) is a fine way to separate these articles. There might be plenty of information with which to write a full Honda Civic Hybrid article (maybe even an Accord Hybrid article too), but right now neither can stand on its own. At one time there wasn't enough content to have separate generation articles for the Civic, but it got to the point where the main article was just too long to be useful and we split it (in 2005 I would have argued to merge a "Seventh generation Honda Civic" article). Maybe someday the hybrid sections will become developed enough to branch the articles and when that happens we should do so. Some car company articles have all their models merged into a single page because it is easier to navigate than a whole bunch of single model stubs. One nice thing about Wikipedia is that it is fluid, articles can be split and merged as necessary. As a side note I also think this debate is nice part of Wikipedia, many good points being brought up by a number of editors arguing rationally and with civility. People put forth a good faith proposal, it didn't get consensus and we moved on to discussing articles individually, what could be better! --Leivick (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support Now that the discussion is case-by-case. The Camry Hybrid does not meet the notability criteria to have its own article. If the Accord plug-in being tested right now in California or a new generation of hybrid powertrain that seems to be in the works make it successfully to the market then enough notability might grant a separate article in the future.-Mariordo (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Opposed - These are entirely different cases and should be considered separately. The Honda Civic Hybrid was and is one of the most successful hybrid models to date. The Accord Hybrid was an unsuccessful venture into the "performance hybrid" realm that never caught on with the car-buying public. Separate these discussions, tag the corresponding articles, and please let's wait until after the holidays so that all interested parties can have a chance to take part in the discussion. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Weak Support - The Accord Hybrid is only a footnote in history. While the failed "performance hybrid" category may deserve independent coverage if someone is up for the task, a separate subsection of the larger Accord article could be referenced as easily as a separate article. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Opposed per Mariordo and Ebikeguy Johnfos (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support - support per above -->Typ932 T·C 05:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support – Just because the Accord was available in a hybrid power version did not make it a completely different vehicle. The buyers had a selection of drivetrains - from basic and traditional to fancy and "exotic" - in the same car with basically similar comfort and appearance features. There is no reason to have a separate article on the basis of undefined "performance hybrid" market segment. Such marketing puffery seems to be an example of Honda's Boastful Superlative for publicity purposes, rather than encyclopedic information. CZmarlin (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Did you invent the term "boastful superlative"? It really is a great synonym for "marketing puffery" (also a good phrase), which certainly seems to be the basis for all but a few of these separate articles. Hybrids and performance variants should not be given undue weighting over the conventionally powered luxury and "poverty-pack" trims, as this could suggest a non-neutral point-of-view. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support - per OSX, Mr. Leivick, and CZmarlin. --Sable232 (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support - no stand-alone interest. Perhaps in ten years, when the Accord Hybrid has developed into its own line of cars.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support - For exactly the same reasons thrashed out in Toyota Camry Hybrid. The differences in the two cases are not significant to alter my opinion for this car. --Falcadore (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Support Like Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid I see no reason why this should have its own article when it can easily have its own section in the generation article. Bidgee (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Renault 5 Turbo

The proposition:

• Renault 5 Turbo > Renault 5

Opinions/Discussion:

• Oppose - the mid-engined Turbo was in reality a silhouette car, with only a superficial resemblance to the fwd Renault 5. It had a largely separate existence and development history, was of a completely different technical layout and so on. While the engine block, roof, and glass were the same I would consider it its own car deserving of its own article (which could, incidentally, use some fleshing out and referencing).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you give it a try expanding the article to highlight its notability. As it stands today I would be incline to support the merger.-Mariordo (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral Support - the article states that the "mechanicals were radically different". This may be a slight exaggeration, I don't know. However, the shell looks like it's identical between both cars, but all the exterior panels except for the roof and maybe the doors appear unique. The Turbo also goes from front-wheel drive to rear-wheel drive, and so on. On the other hand there is not much content, and the differences could probably be adequately discussed at Renault 5. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think going from FF to MR can safely be considered as radically different, even though the engine block was the same. I do agree though, that the article does need more content.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - short article, easier to find all Renault 5 info if in the same page, doesnt matter if its silhoutte but the same name is enough.-->Typ932 ^T·C 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Also, I propose the merging of Renault 5 Alpine and Renault 5 Alpine Turbo into the main article as well. All the sports versions of the R5 should be on the same page. --Pc13 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Based on the comments above, I would normally oppose this, but this article is short and could easily be merged into the Renault 5 article, as can the extremely short list which is the Renault 5 Alpine and its longer sibling, the Renault 5 Alpine Turbo article. --Pineapple Fez 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Two books have been written specifically about the Turbo model, indicating a notability separate from the rest of the range: Renault 5 Turbo (Grand Tourisme) by Dominique Pascal in 1983, and Renault 5 Turbo: The Forgotten French Supercar by Peter Meaney in 1996. Article should be expanded, not merged. Regards, DeLarge (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Good tip - purchased Pascal's book, with view of expanding article.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Proposed addition to merger - Renault 5 GT Turbo > Renault 5

• Varied. Renault 5 Alpine to Renault 5. Renault 5 GT Turbo to Renault 5. Renault 5 Alpine Turbo to Renault 5 Turbo. Essentially combin all the FF cars together and all the MR cars together. If the MR versions can then create a readable article after merge/re-write is done then leave at that point. If not, merge all the R5s together. --Falcadore (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems that the articles can be merged for now, until the Renault 5 Turbo gains enough content to make it deserve a stand-alone. All the FF cars should definitely be merged to their various generations.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Due to majority support I have merged the Renault 5 Alpine and Renault 5 Alpine Turbo articles - there was actually very little difference between the two pages due to duplication. One could argue that the new merged page could also be merged into the main Renault 5 page as a significant amount of the information is also duplicated there, and might help reduce confusion of the differing version. There is an argument to maintain the Renault 5 Turbo page if it was expanded due to its rather different status and motor sport history.Warren Whyte (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - On working through the Renault 5 Turbo article and reading around some new references, I would propose this should be retained as it is quite different from the normal Renault 5, and with its motor sport history, it could be a very interesting article. Support that the 5 Alpine and 5 GT Turbo can easily be merged into the main Renault 5 Article as they are just sports derivatives of the normal car. Warren Whyte (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this? I have suggested a compromise to merge the Alpine and 5 GT into the main Renault 5 article but leave the Renault 5 Turbo article as it stands. Warren Whyte (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good for now. I still believe Renault 5 Turbo should be merged, but you may as well get a start on the others. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ford Escape Hybrid

Resolved

 – consensus supports merger. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

The proposition: Ford Escape Hybrid > Ford Escape (first generation) Ford Escape Hybrid > Ford Escape (second generation) The contents of Ford Escape would also be summarised and integrated into the appropriate generation article. Opinions/Discussion: Support: the Escape Hybrid is just another powertrain option for the Escape. There is no need to have a separate article for this hybrid system, which is also shared with the Fusion Hybrid (content duplication). To quote CZmarlin from above, "it is also easier for an uninvolved reader to compare and contrast the differences between the two power versions when they are presented in one succinct article." OSX (talk • contributions) 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose: only long and complicated articles should be split up, and the Escape is just two generations. Better would be a single "Escape Hybrid" section in the existing article. The hybrid tech didn't change much over time, so it doesn't need to be divided up. IFCAR (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC) You're right, it did not change much and it is shared with other Ford hybrids, so in order to avoid duplicating content, the hybrid powertrain information should be discussed in an article specific to the powertrain. The same is done with other powertrains shared among different vehicles, like Buick V6 engine, Toyota AZ engine, and GM 6T40 transmission). Both the Escape and Fusion pages would link to this Ford hybrid powertrain article. It is ungainly to compare the various Escape powertrains in the current page setup, and just about every other article that requires splitting up is done so by generation, and not powertrain (Toyota Camry, Toyota Corolla, et cetera). OSX (talk • contributions) 22:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Very few automobiles are split up by generation; most are (more conveniently) in a single article. Nearly every exception to this is a car with a large number of model generations -- like the Camry and Corolla you mentioned -- not like the Escape. To be clear, my objection is only to splitting up the Escape article in what appears to be a reasonable effort to consolidate it. IFCAR (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC) IFCAR, since most of the other supporters of the merger agree that there is insufficient content to also create separate articles for each generation, then I will support this to begin with. If down the track this single article becomes too long, then it may be feasible to split by generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Support merge of hybrid content. I don't see any reason to split a two generation article which is only 31kb long. Oppose split of generations in main Escape article. There is a significant amount of good info on the hybrid page, but I think it can be worked into the main page. --Leivick (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Strongly Opposed as per my arguments above and IFCAR. and also it has to be considered that the article has a summary about the plug-in demonstration project (which by itself still does not merit its own article), which is more related to the hybrid than to the conventional ICE version. Or are we going to cut and dice an article that has enough content just for the sake of unifying the generations? or declare everything that is not automotive (such as fuel economy, emissions, etc provided by an official source such as EPA) uncyclopedic? This is one example of the articles that need more time and more participation to decide.-Mariordo (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Could you please clarify your position? IFCAR's proposal is to merge Ford Escape Hybrid into Ford Escape. This is the same as what I initially proposed, except Ford Escape will remain as a single article, and not an overview page with two sub-articles for each generation. I would support this proposal as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for calling my attention, I indeed misread it and ajusted accordingly.-Mariordo (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Considering that it seems to be consensus in not splitting the Ford Escape article by generation, I would like to expand my arguments for not merging the Escape Hybrid article: Wikipedia:Notability states that "on Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article" and also states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The Ford Escape Hybrid article clearly meets these basic requirements, and using as a proxy of coverage the number of hits in Google, the closed search "Ford Escape Hybrid" returns 482,000 hits (see here). In contrast, the coverage of the General Motors EV1, which nobody here has any doubts of its notability, produces only 91,800 hits (see here). Browsing through the all the reliable sources talking about the Escape Hybrid, this particular powertrain is notable because it was the first SUV hybrid, it is the most sold hybrid by an American manufacturer, its fuel economy as compared to other SUVs. Also the current article highlights some of the environmental and social benefits (just as safety is dealt with in any automobile article) which are not typical of the the regular gasoline powertrain (and these issues are mainstream as reflected by legislation in the U.S., Europe and several countries, and many of the environmental and social characteristics are provided by EPA, not but some advocate group). There is enough notability for the Escape Hybrid to have its own stand-alone article. Wikipedia:Article size: Due to readability issues and technical issues (i.e. mobile browsers), the recommended article size is 32 KB but up to 50 KB is now acceptable. The main Ford Escape article has 31,406 bytes while the Ford Escape Hybrid has 30,554 bytes, so both are within the desirable size and a merger would produce an article that exceeds 50 KB. So a merger will move the consolidated article closer to the criteria for splitting rather than merging. As explain here], a rule of thumb is that if length is > 60 KB probably should be divided and if > 40 KB may need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size). Criteria for merging: As explained by Wikipedia:Merging, "reasons to merge a page include the following: unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic. Discretion should be exercised to make sure merging does not result in an article that is too long or drawn out,..." The reasons provided by several editors supporting the merge in the Camry Hybrid and now here is the convenience of consolidating all info for a given generation. This might be a desirable objective by the WikiProject:Automobiles from an automotive point of view, but has no support in Wikipedia policies, that is not how notability is defined, and on the contrary, is violating these policies and principles in the case of the few hybrids that are notable enough to merit its stand alone articles. A summary section in the Ford Escape article seems to be what is missing with a redirecting to the Escape Hybrid article. I respectfully request the editors who are supporting the merge to carefully review the policies I mentioned above and act accordingly. Our work in Wikipedia is aimed to our readers not us, the Ford Escape Hybrid article has existed since 2004 [2], and since December 2007 has fluctuated between 4000 to 6000 viewers per month, enough demand to keep it as a separate article for those searching for info for the hybrid version.--Mariordo (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Mariordo, there is no gross violation of policy in either retaining the Escape Hybrid article or in the act of merging it. It is through the consensus of this project that determines how articles should best be organised, something that is variable and is not immune to adjustment. Policies should act as a rough guide, and should be worded as such. There are many notable topics that are technically different that are combined in a single article due to the significant potential for overlap. For example, Universal Serial Bus (USB): USB 1.0, USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 are all standards of USB that vary in technical specifications but are located in the same article because of the very reasons outlined at Wikipedia:Merging (which you alluded to above): "reasons to merge a page include the following: unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic." Just because a topic is notable does not mean a separate article is warranted, and there is no one doubting the notability of any of the hybrids list on this page. The Mercedes-Benz C 63 AMG (among other similar vehicles) is widely discussed (and praised) throughout the automotive media, so there is no question regarding its notability as an automobile. It offers different powertrains, tacked-on interior and exterior trimmings, and a thoroughly reworked chassis and suspension. Yet one should not genuflect to the marketing departments that highlight these superficialities and often seem to ignore that the core vehicle and fancy by-product are one and the same. I simply ask, where is the line drawn? An all-wheel drive derivative of a front-wheel drive vehicle with affixed accessories that attempt to accentuate the off-road ability of the vehicle in question does not alter the fact that the core vehicle is the same. The Volvo XC70 is a textbook example of this—an all-wheel drive "off-road tough" version of the regular Volvo V70 (and thus should remain merged). Likewise, the coupe version of the BMW 3 Series (E90) sedan is discussed in the same article, despite most if not all of the body panels being unique, including the entire front-end. This does not relegate the coupe to a lower standing of notability than granted to the sedan; the consolidation occurs because both the sedan and coupe share the vast majority of engineering, and to split the article based on such specifics would lead to significant duplication of content. As CZmarlin has said in the past, a consolidated article helps to eliminate the plethora of boastful superlatives that often seem to plague pages with a strong enthusiast following. In the past, this was almost exclusively the sole domain of performance vehicles, but the previous decade has seen the uprising of a similar group of "green" automotive enthusiasts. Based on your contributions, would I be correct in stating that you fall into the latter category? Because this is where much of the problem lies: as an enthusiast of "green" vehicles, it is very easy to elevate the standing of these vehicles above all others. Performance car followers are guilty of the same, and I think the goal of the most of the editors of this WikiProject is to hamper the opportunity for these fancruft-laden articles to exist. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Oh, and while citing Wikipedia:Article size, you have missed the key operative term: "readable prose". The figures of ~31 and ~30.5 KB that you have used for the Escape and Escape Hybrid articles are not the measurements for "readable prose", but rather for the total article size, including section headings, infoboxes, tables, and references, et cetera. The total level of readable prose for the Escape Hybrid article is ~16 KB, and short of making an actual measurement for the Ford Escape article as well, I would expect a similar figure. If in the future a merged Ford Escape article becomes too large, then community consensus would again be utilised to determine whether the article sould be split back up into the current partitioning based on powertrain, or by generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Somewhat support - As per User:IFCAR. --Pineapple Fez 23:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Support - for own generation articles it the article grows too big when merged -->Typ932 T·C 05:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Support merge of Hybrid versions. Wouldn't mind a generational split but not too worried either way on that point.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Support - For exactly the same reasons thrashed out in Toyota Camry Hybrid. The differences in the two cases are not significant to alter my opinion for this car. Not sure about generational split as Ford have announced there will not be a third generation. Depends on length of merged article. --Falcadore (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Support Like Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid I see no reason why this should have its own article when it can easily have its own section in the generation articles. Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose by-generation split, support IFCAR's alternate proposal. --Sable232 (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Support - Similar vehicles with different power systems should be in one article. This will make comparisons between them easier. CZmarlin (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz SLK

The proposition:

• Mercedes-Benz R170 > Mercedes-Benz SLK
• Mercedes-Benz R171 > Mercedes-Benz SLK

On checking something on the Mercedes-Benz SLK page, I was surprised to see the general poor layout, and then also surprised to see two further pages of questionable format for the two generation models, Mercedes-Benz R170 and Mercedes-Benz R171. I would propose as part of a reformat and edit that these two additional articles are brought back into the main article as part of the mass merge as there is a lot of duplication and inconsistencies. Warren Whyte (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On further reading of some other Mercedes articles, many have a generation per generation article, all by their code names rather than their proper names. Am I treading on toes here, or opening a can of worms? Warren Whyte (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion in 2009 about the various BMW articles that were titled in the same manner (the current "BMW 3 Series (E90)" page was previously titled "BMW E90"). With the Mercedes-Benz models, it is not as straight forward. The newer models, such as the W221 S-Class would be better served under the page name "Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W221)". However, this would really only work for the two preceding S-Class generations as well (the W140 and W220), because the W126 was not really an S-Class as such. The current format (C 240, E 280 CDI, S 320, et cetera) was only introduced in 1993 (the S 320 of 1993, would have been a 320 SE in 1992; the replacement for the 190E 2.6 (W201) was the C 240 (W202), and so on). Unless an editor can come up with a good uniform naming approach, the current format where all models are named in the same way seems to be the best. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in general, but must note that the S-class has officially been called the S-class (Sonderklasse) since the introduction of the W116, and unofficially at least since the 220S (W111) of 1959. However, C- and E-klasse are much more recent concepts, necessitated by Mercedes' hyperaccelerated growth of model ranges.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think on reflection I will leave the current structure of the articles as they are, but continue the edit of the main SLK-Class page so that it makes sense, and reads more like the Mercedes-Benz SL-Class article. However, if strong support exists I am happy to reconsider! Warren Whyte (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no opposition to the mergers, just the page moves. That is, unless someone comes up with a great way to do so, whilst maintaining uniformity that exists currently. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: and delete those excessive technical specifications lists, converting anything notable into readable prose. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support merging of these articles. CZmarlin (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support there is definately insufficient content in the R170 article to support a separate article. There are large chunks of both the main article and the R171 article which are just long lists of specifications, and last I saw, spec lists weren't what wikipedia was about. Trim those out and merging should be fine. --Falcadore (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - since the car is actually called the SLK, there isn't the same need for stand alone articles as there is for the W123, W124 etc.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ford Fusion Hybrid

The proposition:

• Ford Fusion Hybrid > Ford Fusion (Americas)

The excessively crufty "fuel economy and environmental performance" section also requires a significant pruning. See also: Talk:Ford Fusion Hybrid#December 2010 multiple issues. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OSX, would you be so kind to give me a break. You are fully aware that I am still dealing with three GAs reviews, and still pending to expand my arguments in the Civic Hybrid discussion above (that I am expecting it will finish next Sunday (7 days), considering the request I made was granted in the discussion closed by you). I do not understand what is the rush to do several of the hybrids at a time. There is a long list of gasoline vehicles in the list (several dozens actually), but hybrids have been picked quite disproportionately, showing that there is a clear bias against the advanced technology vehicles. The purpose of the mergers is to hear arguments which are different for each case (as consensus was reached on this point) and merger discussions have the main objective to reach consensus rather than counting votes. Therefore I respectfully request that you withdraw the Fusion Hybrid and Prius Plug-in discussions and postpone these discussions following a more reasonable rate, or at least let's agree that the discussion will be open for more than a week (two to four weeks depending on how much you are planning to open - one per week seems more reasonable to me). These two articles are more than 35K, both vehicles are particularly notable, and the Prius PHEV article is mainly about a demonstration program (a change in the article name might be an alternative to the merger). The arguments in this case are completely different than the Camry's. Please let's set some ground rules before continuing this rush.--Mariordo (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to oppose any of the mergers, we have already postponed the first batch due to your holiday, so I am not too keen on doing so again. The reason why I am targeting hybrids is to get them all done and out of the way (I will focus on another group when these are done; it was only the other day that I merged several articles outlining individual Mercedes-Benz AMG models). Also, I have the time to argue these at the moment, time that is required because these hybrid articles seem to be the most difficult to maze through the merger process due to the persistent opposition from yourself and a coupe of other users. So is there a bias towards hybrids? At the moment, probably.

I will happily leave all today's discussions open for at least two weeks, giving you ample time to formulate responses for each case. I am also open to persuasion regarding your consideration to merging the Prius PHEV article, whilst retaining an article for the demonstration programme. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: as nominator and per all the above reasons. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support there is room to merge this information into a subsection after we get rid of the cruft, but this article is an example of a close call, there is good information here that I don't want to lose. I also oppose putting this off further. I was pretty shocked that we took a 3 week break on this previously and I really don't see the point of waiting further. Keep in mind that nothing that we do is irreversible. --Leivick (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support needs some shortening as the hybrid article is also quite long -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly opposed: as per the reasons I detail below. In order to simplify the arguments and reduce the prose, analytics are presented in the following tables to support my arguments:

Comparison of parameters regarding article notability and readers visits (demand) for the three Fusion articles
Performance indicator	Ford Fusion (Americas)	Ford Fusion Hybrid	Mercury Milan Hybrid /Fusion Hybrid (redirects)	Ford Fusion (Europe)
Article size (gross)	35,147	35,825	n.a. (redirect)	5,803
Number of visitors (for month of December 2008-2010)
Article creation date	Sep 2005	Sept 2004 as redirect Jun 2009 as full article	Jan2009/Apr 2009	Sep 2005
Visitors on 12/2010	17,744	4,162 (4,922)	280/480	3,900
Visitors on 12/2009	12,901	3,422 (3,841)	311/108	3,122
Visitors on 12/2008	9,096	260 (redirect)	n.a.	2,050
Results Google hits
Search spelling	Closed data range 1/1/09 to 1/1/11	Without data range	Comments
“Ford Fusion”	2,280,000	4,240,000	Count includes both American and European versions
“Ford Fusion Hybrid”	987,000	1,300,000	There is no European hybrid version
“Mercury Milan Hybrid”	255,000	327,000	There is no European hybrid version
Σ Fusion/Milan hybrids	1,242,000	1,627,000	Sumation of previous two rows, not a Google result
"Ford Fusion V6"	42,800	4,840,000	checked Google.com 20 January 2011

1.Notability: Using Google search as a proxy (close search with " "), the results demonstrate that the Ford Fusion Hybrid has received significant coverage as required by Wikipedia policy. Considering that the Fusion/Milan hybrids have been on the market only since March 2009, the search with a date range shows 1,2 million hits vs. 2,28 million for Ford Fusion (which overlaps some of the hybrid results). The hybrid hits are more than 50%. Even without a restricted date range, the hybrid hits represent a 38% of total Ford Fusion hits, despite the latter being in the market three years before than the hybrid version.

2. Visitors (demand): The hybrid article has had a reasonable demand (as measure by visits) since it was created. The reason for having this encyclopedia are our readers, and they silently vote with their visits to the articles. As shown in the table, the Ford Fusion Hybrid and its two redirects have had more visitors than the Ford Fusion (Europe) during both of the sample months of 2009 and 2010, and around a 25% of the demand of the parent article.

3. Article size: Despite being used repeatedly in the hybrids merger discussion, article size is irrelevant deciding if the article should be merge as the minimal content criteria does not apply for the following reasons:

3.1 The Fusion Hybrid article is 35.8 KB, quite bigger than the Ford Fusion (Europe) (5.8 KB), and almost the same size than its "parent" article (35.1 KB) - In the hybrid article there is not an overlap with the topic of the parent page and neither unnecessary duplication of content (this is the WP policy). By the criteria being applied against the hybrid articles, should the Fusion (Europe) be merged because of its smaller length? or is it notability what really counts?

3.2 Using as a sample the all GA rated in the WikiProject Automobiles, the following table demonstrates that 15 out of 22 GA articles are of similar size and most are quite smaller than the Ford Fusion Hybrid article. What is the of cannibalizing the hybrid article to fatten the parent article, since it is also 35KB? Note that half of the articles are less than 20 KB but they made it to GA.

GA rated articles in WikiProject Automobiles that are similar or smaller in size than the Ford Fusion Hybrid (gross total size in KB)
Article	Size	Article	Size
Holden Apollo	36.3	AIL Storm	18.0
Ford Fusion Hybrid	35.8	Brabham BT46	17.7
Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil	34.5	Talbot Samba	12.4
Chevrolet Cobalt SS	28.1	Lancia Flaminia	12.0
Mitsubishi i	27.0	Simca Vedette	11.5
Toyota Matrix	26.5	Mitsubishi i MiEV	11.1
Ford BA Falcon	26.0	Ferrari P4/5 by Pininfarina	10.8
Chrysler 180	20.5	Autobianchi Primula	7.9

Just as a curious example please note that the Mitsubishi i and the Mitsubishi i MiEV are both WP:AUTO Good Articles! (the latter should be removed from the merging list above, a merge of two GAs is simply nonsense - Desclaimer: I nominated the i MiEV several months ago, well before this mass merger conundrum began).

4.Relevance of environmental performance: Sustainable transport and environmental performance are not obscure fringe topics nor fancruft-laden (as asserted in these discussions) but rather quite mainstream, just like climate change so it cannot be ignored, and Wikipedia reflects theses facts everywhere, except, it seems, in WP:AUTO. The United Nations, The World Bank and all other international development organizations, and many governments of first world countries (and many developing countries too) make decisions and implement policies following such environmental and sustainability principles (wonder why there are so many government incentives for this types of vehicles). Furthermore, comparison tables like the one reproduced below are built with information provided by the US Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency (not some green advocacy group), both government agencies and considered reliable sources in WP. Therefore, this type of info in a hybrid article cannot be considered fancruft, nor marketing. The rejection of this type of information just reflects the already recognized biased (by some of the editors of WP:AUTOS) against electric drive vehicles that use the glider of existing gasoline or diesel vehicles. The performance indicators included in this table reflect the mainstream new reality that the social and environmental impact of automobiles must be evaluated and relevant information provided to car buyers. This indicators reflect the relevant impacts caused by automobiles, from good old air pollution, through greenhouse gas emissions, to oil consumption/energy independence (particularly to reduce imports from not so friendly countries).

Economic and environmental performance comparison among the several Fusion powertrains available in the U.S. market
Type of Powertrain	Type of fuel	Year model	EPA City mileage (mpg)	EPA Highway mileage (mpg)	Annual fuel cost (1) (2) (USD)	Carbon footprint (Ton/yr of CO2) (3)	Annual Petroleum Use (barrel)
Hybrid electric FWD Automatic (variable gear ratios), 4 cyl, 2.5L	Gasoline	2011	41	36	$1,083	4.8	8.8
FWD Automatic 6-spd, 4 cyl, 2.5L	Gasoline	2011	23	33	$1,629	7.2	13.2
FWD Automatic (S6), 6 cyl, 3.0L	Gasoline	2011	20	28	$1,840	8.1	14.9
	E85 flex-fuel	2011	14	21	$2,269	6.6	5.0
FWD Automatic (S6), 6 cyl, 3.5L	Gasoline	2011	18	27	$2,013	8.9	16.3
AWD Automatic (S6), 6 cyl, 3.0L	Gasoline	2011	18	26	$2,115	9.3	17.1
	E85 flex-fuel	2011	13	19	$2,421	7.1	5.3
Notes: (1) Estimates assumes 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, and 15,000 annual miles. (2) Average U.S. prices: $2.82/gallon for gasoline, and $2.42/gallon for E85 fuel. E85 prices vary widely by region. As of early November 2010 the minimum price was $2.02/gallon in Illinois and the maximum price was $2.99/gallon in New York. (3) Direct carbon footprint only and does not account for any potential indirect land use change impacts of biofuels.

And the potential out dating is no excuse for not having this table, it just implies hard work to update the info at least once a year. I do so in the articles I created or where I am the main contributor. I hope that if consensus tilts towards the merge at least this table is preserved. As the Toyota Camry Hybrid demonstrates (and now in the newly merged Ford Escape Hybrid), OSX trimmed all the "green cruft" and left only the automotive info. Finally, it takes quite an amount of time to develop arguments based on evidence, so rushing the discussion goes against the quality of the arguments, and again, what is the rush for getting rid of the hybrid articles if there are dozens of gasoline-engine articles. Considering the list proposed above, the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight and the Honda CRZ (and now the Toyota Prius V I hope) will be the only HEVs to have their own article in Wikipedia, just because of the desire of some editors in this project, who consider a Project guidelines more important that Wiki written policies (pagainst WP:CONLIMITED) and have enough votes to get away with it.--Mariordo (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: And please note that all the multiple issue tags in the Fusion Hybrid article were posted by OSX (Dec 21) three weeks before this particular merger discussion began. I really would appreciate if, according to the recommended rules of a merger, OSX or any editor who proposed a merger refrains from closing any of the merger discussions (an admin can be called to close it if the consensus is not evident). This request is also based in OSX evident conflict of interest.--Mariordo (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Sustainable transport and environmental performance are quite mainstream issues and are are not obscure fringe topics. The Ford Fusion Hybrid is a notable topic which has received significant coverage in news media and it deserves its own article on WP. The article has proved quite popular in terms of number of visits to the page. Johnfos (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. The hybrid Fusion is just another choice of power unit/fuel type options and can be dealt with perfectly well within the main car article. The generic details of hybrid technology is then dealt with in the relevant technical article. I would not expect to see a detailed examination of diesel technology or E85 fuel in each and every car article, but relevant references to the main wiki article. The search argument above by Mariordo is all well and good, but how many Google results for, say, "Ford Fusion V6"? Oh, that would be 1,730,000 on Google.co.uk, over 400,000 more than the quoted hybrid search above, where the car isn't even sold in the UK, and I don't see an argument for a stand-alone Fusion V6 article. On another matter, why would anyone suggest merging the US Fusion with the European Fusion? Two completely different cars that just happen to share the same name (just so we are clear that I only support mergers where the case is well made!). I would have thought anyone who supports hybrid technology would prefer to see this on the main article page so that it is then by default seen as a mainstream powertrain. Warren Whyte (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - For exactly the same reasons thrashed out in Toyota Camry Hybrid. The differences in the two cases are not significant to alter my opinion for this car. That the current Fusion Hybrid article is well written is not a good reason to exempt it from merger discussions. Perhaps it means that a merged Fusion article could actually end up being just as good. If I may add User:Mariordo you are not the sole arbiter across all of Wikipedia on this subject, OSX is not under any obligation to give you special treatment with regards to timing on any issue he so chooses to raise. It's not all about you, you know. --Falcadore (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to note that my opinion that most of these articles should be merged is not part of some sort of gearhead anti-environmentalist agenda. While I do not feel that there have been any suggestion of such, I worry that these debates could seem as "motorheads versus greens" to someone on the outside looking in. For the record, I commute by bike or train and am completely in favor of more efficient and cleaner transport (and less of it, too). Hybrid cars are both technically and socially interesting, but: when based on an existing car I believe that they belong in that article rather than in a discrete entry.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your disclaimer. But take a look a the recently merged Ford Escape Hybrid, OSX trimmed the environmental performance table as green fancruft (I reversed for the record). Oil consumption and greenhouse emission are mainstream issues, fully covered here in Wikipedia, and the info comes from reliable sources (U.S. gov agencies) - see my other arguments below. That table from the social/environmental perspective has similar merit as the tables comparing the different automotive engines for a given generation. Then why the "green stuff" gets trimmed? And also for the record, out of around 40 hybrids in the market, only half a dozen (excluding Prius and Honda CRZ and Insight) had their own articles (the rest with short sections in the corresponding car article), and most of them it was due to notability. I supported the Accord Hybrid merger because this car lack notability. So it is not black and white for me neither, but we need here more dialogue not the rule of the majority vote.--Mariordo (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not OSX for one thing. And I don't believe that the requests for merging is because of any lack of importance, it's simply because these are versions of existing cars. Hence separate articles for the Insight and Prius, but not for the Mazda Rotary Pickup (I hope, even though I'm a Wankel fan - feel free to weigh in) nor the Civic Hybrid.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that because there are versions of existing cars, then there's no need for separate articles. I think it's all about how one perceives, and how one would want the rules be set. If I think since Matrix is essentially a hatchback version of Corolla, I should merge the two articles? Explain to me what's the difference in engineering. I think the majority of the difference is in the body shell. For your information, officially, Toyota treats Matrix as Corolla Matrix, and accordingly, all sales of Matrix in the U.S. are officially disclosed under Corolla, no separation (I know because I read that is the explanation from Toyota U.S.A. for no separate disclosure of sales of Matrix). Isn't that strong enough ground for me to justify merging Matrix with Corolla?

It's all about how you think cars should be classified, but obviously there can be different points of view. It's about how Wiki:Automobile project treats dissenting voices, how to treat so-called 'minorities'. A 'majority' in a small group of editors doesn't necessary represent the majority view outside that group. ---North wiki (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Matrix is built off the same platform as the Corolla, but does not share any panels or major interior trimmings at all. The car may fill the void vacated by the Corolla hatchback, but it is not a Corolla at all (in fact there is a dedicated (and unrelated) Corolla hatchback model that is sold in other markets). Many cars share a name or part of a name with another, yet have little or no relation (i.e. Subaru Liberty/Subaru Liberty Exiga, Honda Accord/Honda Accord Euro, Toyota Yaris (hatchback)/Toyota Yaris (sedan), Honda Civic (Asia/North America/Honda Civic (Europe)...). Names are a marketing concept only. This merger discussion has nothing to do with a shared name, but shared engineering that differs only in terms of powertrain. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Fusion hybrid is notable by itself to have a separate article. (Note: I think it's Wiki's policy only for articles of subject that is notable, I can't find any Wiki policy about grounds that 'difference in engineering or technology' is a necessary factor in such determination.)---North wiki (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I see from comparing Google search stats which is being used to promote notability that the V6 Fusion has more search results, but I don't see a need for a stand alone V6 article... Warren Whyte (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fusion V6 has more google 'hits' does not mean the Fusion hybrid is not notable. Don't shift the argument. BTW, I wouldn't mind if you make such a proposal and seek consensus. ---North wiki (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support This is just Toyota Hybrid Camry all over again. --Pineapple Fez 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merge — the Fusion Hybrid appears to have enough notability on its own to warrant a separate article. Combining it into the main Ford Fusion article would make things more difficult for readers for no good reason. *** Crotalus *** 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. 1. Hybrid is not just another powertrain!!! It is an expensive revolutionary technology that greatly reduces oil consumption and air pollution! Manufactures cannot just add a "Hybrid powertrain" to any model they want - it is a risky and costly choice. That is why there are very few hybrid models on the market and most manufacturer cannot afford to have even one model!!! 2. If you merge the articles it makes it difficult for a person to learn about a hybrid model because a person has to waste lots of time sifting through the unrelated none-hybrid material. As we saw above in Google search and other statistic numbers lots of people are interested specifically in Hybrid by typing for example "Ford Fusion Hybrid" in the search box. Why you make it difficult to learn for these people? I think that is exactly your agenda - to discourage people from learning about valuable green technologies. Yes, i do believe you have a wicked agenda! Stop this nonsense! Unmerge all hybrid articles immediately! People want to learn about "Ford Fusion Hybrid" - let them learn! ---Yegort (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid

The proposition:

• Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid > Toyota Prius (XW30)

• Support: as nominator and per all the above reasons. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: No need for a separate article.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed: as per the reasons I detail below. In order to simplify the arguments and reduce the prose, analytics are presented in the following tables to support my arguments:

Comparison of parameters regarding article notability and readers visits (demand) for the three Prius articles
Performance indicator	Toyota Prius (XW30)	Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid	Toyota Prius
Article size (gross)	25,366	24,192	42,224
Number of visitors (for month of December 2008-2010)
Article creation date	Nov 2010	Dec 2009 as stub Feb 2010 as full article	Oct 2003
Visitors on 01/2011	1,320	1,687	30,492
Visitors on 12/2010	2,365	2,662	55,772
Visitors on 6/2010	n.a.	1,374	36,244
Results Google hits
Search spelling	Hits close “ “ search	Comments
“Prius”	20,000,000	Count is all inclusive of all generations, including PHEV
“Toyota Prius”	8,970,000	Count is all inclusive of all generations, including PHEV
“Toyota Prius Plug-in”	4,810,000	Common use term
“Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid”	3,370,000	More formal term

1.Notability: For the following reasons, I think there is enough merit for the Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid to merit its stand-alone article:

1.1 Using Google search as a proxy (close search with " "), the results demonstrate that the Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid has received significant coverage as required by Wikipedia policy. The search with “ “ parameters returns 4,8 million hits for the informal name and 3,4 million for the more formal name. The number of hits is quite high considering the first concept was unveiled just in 2009 while talk about the Prius dates back to the late 90s before it was launched in Japan.

1.2 This article has evolved from the Prius PHEV concept car to the PHEV demonstration (or preproduction?) model currently being field tested, and there is little info about the production version to be launched in late 2011/early 2012, as Toyota has not provided much detail. For this reason, most of the content deals with the ongoing demonstration program in the several countries, just like the Mini E electric car as explained in the corresponding article. I believe that a more suitable solution is, after the merger discussion is closed and if the article survives, to open a new discussion to decide if an article change name is required, and I suggest to do so in the article page, not here to avoid confusion with the mass merger.

1.3 This vehicle is a plug-in electric vehicle, therefore both its technology and environmental performance and impacts are quite different from the regular gasoline-electric Prius.

2. Visitors (demand): The PHEV article has had a reasonable demand (as measure by visits) since it was created. As shown in the table, the Prius Plug-in article (without considering the six redirects that add around 500 more visits per month) has had more visitors than the Prius third generation article in the two months since the latter was created. This reflects that our readers are a bit more interested in the plug-in version thant in the third generation Prius.

3. Article size: Despite being used repeatedly in the hybrids merger discussion,article size is irrelevant deciding if the article should be merge as the minimal content criteria does not apply in this case for the following reasons:

3.1 The Prius PHEV article is 24.2 KB, almost the same size as the Toyota Prius (XW30) (25.37 KB), while the "parent" article Toyota Prius is 42.2 KB. In the plug-in hybrid article there is not an overlap with the topic of the parent page, actually most of the contents deals with the demonstration program of a preproduction version, and the recently split third generation article already has a short section about the PHEV and there is no unnecessary duplication of content.

3.2 Again, using as a sample the all GA rated in the WikiProject Automobiles, the following table demonstrates that around half of the 22 GA articles are of similar size or smaller than the Prius PHEV article. What is the purpose of cannibalizing the hybrid article to fatten the parent article, since it is almost the same size? Note that half of the articles are less than 20 KB but they made it to GA without a problem.

GA rated articles in WikiProject Automobiles that are similar or smaller in size than the Ford Fusion Hybrid (gross total size in KB)
Article	Size	Article	Size
Toyota Prius	42.2	Chrysler 180	20.5
Holden Apollo	36.3	AIL Storm	18.0
Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil	34.5	Talbot Samba	12.4
Chevrolet Cobalt SS	28.1	Lancia Flaminia	12.0
Mitsubishi i	27.0	Simca Vedette	11.5
Toyota Matrix	26.5	Mitsubishi i MiEV	11.1
Ford BA Falcon	26.0	Ferrari P4/5 by Pininfarina	10.8
Toyota Prius (XW30)	25.3	Brabham BT46	17.7
Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid	24.2	Autobianchi Primula	7.9

Again, it is illustrative to note that the Mitsubishi i and the Mitsubishi i MiEV are both WP:AUTO Good Articles! (the latter should be removed speedily from the merging list above, a merger of two GAs is simply nonsense - Disclaimer: I nominated the i MiEV several months ago, well before this mass merger conundrum began). This is an example of how articles with the same glider but different powertrain can coexist and both be GAs.

As the evidence presented shows, from the POV of Wikipedia policies there is no justification for a merger, and Project guidelines do not supersede Wiki policies (please see WP:CONLIMITED). The merger of this article quite frankly is a disservice to Wikipedia readers.Mariordo (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: For reasons stated, above by Mariordo. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per analysis provided by Mariordo. Johnfos (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support: First, could someone please show the guideline that states merging of two GA articles is "nonsense". Anyone can request a community reassessment of an article. Many articles no longer have GA status as they change over time with new contributions, additional information, or even evidence of redundancy with material that is contained in other similar articles. Second, although the tables and statistics shown above look impressive, the fact remains that the basic automobile and platform is the same. It just happens to be available and marketed by the manufacturer with a variety of power or fuel technologies. There are many examples among a particular line of models with a significant range of differences between a "basic", all manual and economical version, and its fancy fully "loaded" and powerful edition. Although having divergent characteristics and target markets, this does not mean the different variants get separate WP articles. Third, the fact is that automakers will be introducing ever more varieties of fuel and power technologies to the marketplace. To have a separate article for every version of powerplant/fuel/propulsion that will be available on a particular platform is unnecessarily redundant. CZmarlin (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much good content in the plug in article to be merged with the 3rd gen page. In response to CZ, I think we have to take it on a case by case basis. Not every power train/fuel option is going to deserve an article, but the plug in Prius is one of the first and there is enough content to need a separate article. --Leivick (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Common-based vehicles should be described in one article covering all their fuel/technology/power trains with separate and detailed articles about each of their particular motive technologies. The notable and "good content" would then be highlighted in its own article. After decades of reliance on the internal combustion engine, manufacturers are rapidly introducing various hybrid vehicle drivetrains. It would be redundant to describe all the different technologies in each individual car line using it. An example is the case with all the Toyotas (and other brands) that share Hybrid Synergy Drive. There is no point in repeating the same information in articles for every version of model that uses this system. Although the "first" use of a technology may be "notable" on a particular vehicle, that is not a threshold for a "separate" article that stands the test of time. Any technology is soon applied across a number models marketed by a particular manufacturer, or even sold to competing automakers. For example, there is not a separate article for the first automobile model featuring a steering wheel,automatic transmission, air conditioning, fuel injection, or other new technology. These were all significant developments that changed the automobile. Rather, the innovative feature is mentioned in the overall history of the vehicle, and can be fully described in a separate article. Of course, the total amount of Boastful Superlatives within the "merged" articles would be lessened, but WP is an encyclopedia, and not a marketing arm of the automakers and their enthusiasts. The bottom line is that no matter what the fuel/technology/power train, the plug-in version of the Prius model uses the same basic platform, dimensions, interior, and other major characteristics as its "regular" - and already well known - "traditional" version. In summary, there is no long-term justification to have separate articles for the diesel-powered, four-wheel drive,convertible, nor plug-in versions of an existing car ... even if they were "first" in the market. Thanks CZmarlin (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Daniel J. Leivick, this edit shows the Toyota Prius (XW30) article without the plug-in version contents merged. However, this test edit shows how the article looks when it is merged (with no contents lost or hidden away). Having a separate article because it is a "world first" does not make sense if other vehicles are going to adopt the same technology in the future (thus making a separate article for the powertrain a better option). Also, the Prius PHEV is not the first plug-in hybrid—that honour goes to the Ford Escape. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Or is it? "the (BYD) F3DM was the first production plug-in hybrid sold anywhere in the world, starting in December 2008"  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - For exactly the same reasons thrashed out in Toyota Camry Hybrid. The differences in the two cases are not significant to alter my opinion for this car. And please - can we generally be a bit more judicious in the usage of these Strongs. The usage of strong or weak is not supposed to be a measure of our personal involvement. Personal involvement is not supposed to be a part of the debate. --Falcadore (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per analysis by Mariordo. ---North wiki (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly support - This is even MORE similar to its original or donor vehicle than other hybrids. --Pineapple Fez 22:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it has the same engine and transmission as the regular Prius, but has additional batteries and the means to plug it in. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment' - you know you don't get extra votes by putting in 'Strong' or 'Strongly'. Shouting doesn't get extra benefits. --Falcadore (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - These articles are far too large to be made into a single article. Besides all this merging just takes more content off wikipedia. Personally I do not like scrolling though enormous masses of info. Where possible it is best to have separate articles and with these articles more than any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.128.215 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What we should maybe do is if these idiots insist on merging these articles to try to eliminate the EV articles, we should just get rid of the gas car content in the merged article. That way more people will know about electric cars than ever before. These idiots should know it cuts both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by High voltage41 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

High Voltage, I would prefer not to be called an idiot. While I disagree with the positions of some of the above editors, I respect all of them - especially with those views directly opposed to mine. They have raised valid points. I don't agree with all of the points and some of them I give much less weight to but the idea of a discussion is to hear viewpoints different to yours so that all parties can make an informed decision. To address your main point, I have seen no-one mention deleting any EV information - quite the opposite, they (including me) want to put the EV info into the article of the parent car. If somebody types in the name of the old EV article then they will be automatically redirected to the appropriate section of the merge article - nothing is lost. Thanks.  Stepho  (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for using the word idiot, and you are right this is for hearing viewpoints. These two articles though are extremely large and can not be merged without losing an astounding amount of material. As an avid wiki reader and editor I personally find it much nicer to have separate articles for EVs and plug in hybrids because I am not interested in reading about the gas car even if the body and interior are exactly the same as for the mini E. I find it frustrating when some editors suggest vehicles such as the Ford Focus EV, which are very different from Gas to electric, make comments which are untrue, such as that they are simply different drivetrain options. To sum it all up merging articles loses information and those in market for an EV are not interested in gas cars even if they are similar, different audience.--75.155.128.215 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We aren't here to cater to the "I don't like petrol/diesel powertrains" rant of EV fans. Some people might only be interested in diesel VW Golfs, but too bad, that information goes with petrol models. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

High Voltage. Apology accepted, welcome aboard! As Ben Franklin said, 'I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' So I can't classify your arguments as ranting - even though I personally prefer merging. I take it that a critical issue here is that the EV enthusiasts really don't want to have to sift through all the non-EV material in order to get to the EV info they want. Fare enough, I also hate having to wade through stuff I don't care about. Is it possible to have it both ways? One possibly way would be to have EV subsections. These show up in the table of contents at the top of each article. EV enthusiasts would quickly scan the table of contents, see an entry labelled EV (or similar), click on that link and start reading. I'm seeing a similar pattern to what we saw in the early 1980s with the introduction of vehicles with petrol+carb engines, petrol+EFI engines petrol+EFI+twincam engines and diesel engines (and occasionally rotary) - all based on the same body and chassis but aimed at quite different customers. Is the difference between the regular Prius and the Plug-in really a huge difference? The plug-in article seems to imply that it has 2 extra batteries that allow it to stay in EV mode until they are depleted. Then it transforms into a regular Prius until charged at a socket (ie still gasoline based for long drives, still lugging that gasoline engine around at all times, plus also lugging around two more heavy batteries). The plug-in's technical section is actually quite short and the bulk of the article is a long list of trial launches. People tend to care about trials when they are new but will this list of trials be worthy of keeping in five years time (when hopefully hybrids and EV have become standard). Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that one. I would be against deleting this information entirely, but specific references to the cities involved in the trial, the exact dates, and precisely how many cars each city was provided with is hardly necessary. Maybe mention the total number per country and leave it at that. As I said above in the i-MiEV discussion, articles on vehicles that use a form of hydrocarbon as a fuel do not make any mention of the companies/governments that make fleet purchases as this has no discernible affect on the car—a sale is a sale.

The likes and dislikes of certain readers has little merit. In articles about global cars, market-specific information such as fuel consumption and trim levels are separated by market and have separate sections (i.e. "Europe", "Asia"). Readers from the United Kingdom would likely have little interest in the trim levels offered in the US, nor would they care about the US EPA rating. However, they would be interested in the trim levels available in their own market and the MPG figure given by the UK government. Having special sections like this makes it easy for readers to skip information that is not relevant to them. If a fan of electric vehicles doesn't want to know about the donor vehicle, then skipping to the "EV" section should more than adequately suit their needs. I can't see how a separate page makes things any easier. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mazda Rotary Pickup

The proposition:

• Mazda Rotary Pickup > Mazda B-Series

Opinions/Discussion:

• Support - No need for a stand alone, since this was just a re-engined third generation Mazda B-series.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - per nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rover P6 Estoura

The proposition:

• Rover P6 Estoura > Rover P6

Opinions/Discussion:

• Support - Just a custom bodied estate version of the P6. Also, the Estoura should be removed from Template:Rover. Cool car by the way, never knew of it before.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - per nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - same car basically -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Audi Coupé B2

The proposition:

• Audi Coupé GT > Audi Coupé (B2)
• Audi Coupé quattro > Audi Coupé (B2)

Opinions/Discussion:

• Support - Both of these are just different versions of the typ 81/85 (FF/quattro) Audi Coupé, also commonly referred to as the Audi Coupé B2. See also de:Audi Coupé B2. Additionally, the earlier lower spec versions were called just plain "Audi Coupé" or "Audi Coupé GL", so using "GT" in the title is entirely incorrect. There are problems with the succeeding B3 Coupé/Cabriolet as well, but I will place that on the Audi 80 talkpage.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Audi Coupé (B2) article, support merging both Audi Coupé articles (and Audi Quattro) into an Audi 80 (B2) article. The B2 coupe is just a coupe version of the B2 sedan. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That would prove much too far a cry for me at least. The Audi Quattro could possibly be merged with the Audi Coupé B2 (I wouldn't like it, but if there was consensus I could probably live with it), but the Audi 80/Coupé:

• Are of different marketing categories (family sedan vs sportyish coupé)
• Have different names
• Have largely different development histories (no diesels, separate production dates overlapping B3 Audi 80)
• Share not one visible body panel
• Share not one external dimension (the Quattro not even chassis dimensions)
• The 80 and the Coupé are grouped separately in every single piece of period literature accessible to me: from the Swiss Automobil Revue via Italy's Quattroruote (Tutte le Automobile del Mondo), World Cars, German Auto Katalog, the American Standard Catalog of Imported Cars and so on. The Coupé and Quattro are occasionally grouped together (aggravating as I find it!), but the 80 and Coupé are never listed as conjoined in any period print item available to me.
• If we were to join the 80 and Coupé, then the VW Golf and Audi TT should perhaps also be conjoined, as they too share a bottomplate. The B2 Passat and B2 Audi 80 should most definitely be combined, as they have considerably more in common than do the Coupé and 80. I consider it clear that there is a limit as to what can comfortably be combined in any one article.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When I took a deeper look into the relationships of these vehicles, the front-end and front doors of the Audi 80 (B2) seem to be common with the myriad of B2 coupes on offer (see these images of the sedan and coupe). So do these really share no panels as you claim (granted all Audis tend to look more or less the same anyway)? Marketing categories and names are superficialities, companies always do this, with the "all new" or "new and improved" product that is really a major facelift or a re-skin of what was perviously sold. Not sharing external dimensions seems reasonable if they are of different body styles. Sorry to be picky, I just need to get this clarified before reconsidering my vote. I will probably compromise on allowing the coupes to exist independently because there is a fair amount of content on hand. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! My bad, I committed a hasty reading. Maybe I need a parts catalog... nonetheless, I still think they deserve a standalone. As far as content goes, I have plenty more but wanted to wait until a merger takes place.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support merging Audi Coupé GT and Audi Coupé quattro into Audi Coupé (B2). Audi 80 is getting big-ish already, so merging substantial content from other articles into it may not be the best idea. Letdorf (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC).

The plan is for an Audi 80 (B2) article, not to dump all this content into the parent Audi 80 page. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support as per Letdorf's GT and quattro into Audi Coupe, but does not need (B2) in brackets? Would prefer the simpler Audi Coupé, which already exists and is redirected to Audi 80 Warren Whyte (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: the model name "Audi Coupé" was used for several generations, not just the B2, so the disambiguation is necessary unless the article will cover all generations of Coupé. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC).

Which it very well may in the end, I just want to merge it all one step at a time. I think such a joint article might actually be the best in the end as the later Audi Coupé and Cabriolets developed an ever more independent existence.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Audi 4000CS quattro

The proposition:

• Audi 4000CS quattro > Audi 80

Opinions/Discussion:

• Support - Absolutely no need for this particular version of a rebadged Audi 80 to have its own page.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - per nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Only a rebadged Audi 80/90 from what I can see. Warren Whyte (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mitsubishi i-MiEV

Opinion/Discussion:

• Strongly oppose - it would be ridiculous to consider merging Mitsubishi i-MiEV with Mitsubishi i. Different technology, different drivetrain.---North wiki (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral - As the name suggests, its just an electric Mitsubishi i, however this is quite a large article, the technologies are different (as per above) and the markets are different.Pineapple Fez 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support - If I had written these articles, it would have never occurred to me to separate the electric motor version. While the markets are quite different, and the Citroën and Peugeot version further complicate matters, it is still a Mitsubishi i with an electric motor. But I find this less problematic than many other of the articles up for discussion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - for the following reasons:

1. Both articles are rated Good Articles ! This means both have been assessed by an independent editor for notability, reliable sources, etc and no reservations were raised due to the article size (see the review here and see above the summary with the typical size of GA articles in the WikiProject automobiles). Though there are no policies, common sense dictates that it does not make more sense to merge two GAs.

2. Notability: If being GA is not enough, a Google search returns 1.73 million hits, which shows that has received significant coverage. In contrast "Mitsubishi i" returns 812K hits, which shows that the electric car has become more notable that is gasoline sibling. And for the record, as of the end of last year the MiEV was the most sold modern production electric car, highway-capable or city car, as 5000 units have been produced by November 2010, while the Tesla Roadster had only +1,500, and the REVA +3,500. Until Nissan accelerates production of the Leaf, the i MiEV will continue to hold the record of the EV with most sales in the world (you can check the facts in the Wikipedia articles). Finally, most sales of the "i" are concentrated in Japan, and availability is limited to Asia, Oceania and the UK. The i MiEV in contrast is slated for sales worldwide.

Number of monthly visitors (December 2009-2010)
Month	Mitsubishi i MiEV	Mitsubishi i
Article creation date	July 2008	Oct 2005
Visitors on 12/2010	4,727	2,734
Visitors on 06/2010	2,337	1,940
Visitors on 12/2009	327	3,102

3 An electric car is completely different than an ICE gasoline car. The exterior shell or glider might be the same, but the MiEV plugs in while the i requires refueling; the MiEV has a limited range while the i does not; the MiEV and the i have different environmental impacts (the former could be better or worst depending on how the electricity is generated);.... The real issue here is that electric car has a completely different technology than ICEs, and as such, if the EV fulfills the WP notability requirements, all electric cars should have their stand alone articles (I hope this becomes an WP:AUTO guideline so we do not have to waste time discussing case by case). From an encyclopedic POV what is the difference between the Nissan Leaf and the i MiEV? Just because the latter share the glider there is no excuse to have a single article.

4. Demand (our readers): as shown in the table in the right, the number of visits of the electric car has been growing fast to the point that now more readers look for the electric car article than the gasoline car one. It will be quite a disservice to our readers to merge the articles. The section about the EV in the "i" article just need an update.--Mariordo (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - These two cars are distinctly different and mechanically completely dissimilar. A Ford Mustang and a Chevy Camaro are far more similar than these two vehicles, yet no one is suggesting merging those two vehicles. Stop the anti-EV madness. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Ebikeguy and Mariordo. Johnfos (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - just another powertrain option, the unique powertrain should have its own page if it is notable. The demonstration programme is verging on cruft, and should be cut down substantially. Articles about regular, not so fancy vehicles do not state, "In May 2009 XYZ Enterprises purchased 1,200 Toyota Camrys for their sales executives to drive around the cities of blah blah blah to meet with potential customers. ABC Incorporated in Canada also purchased 900 Camrys the following June for their employees to travel to and from work in." Seriously, why does in matter that the City of Sydney council received one iMiev to compliment its fleet of Prii and Hybrid Camrys? Not notable really, the same goes for the other cities listed. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't MiEV already the powertrain article? --Pineapple Fez 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Several good reasons above; my favorite is that the people searching them are different. People don't decide to buy a car and then pick between electric and gas; they decide to buy an electric car and then pick between the models available. As usage stats show above, a lot of people look specifically at the electric info, and it should remain separate. RedmondChad (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Wiki is not a buyer's guide. Nevertheless, Wiki should be a good source of information for readers when they need, in ways easy for them to use. ---North wiki (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - I didn't like this article when it was created (and still don't). However, I'd be strongly opposed to merging an article out of independent existence when it's been passed as a Good Article. Regardless of the fact that I personally disagree with that editorial assessment, it clearly meets WP's standards to stand on its own. Frankly at this point a merger would be extremely pointy, and would likely lead to an edit war. I for one would be quite happy to side with the "eco-editors" and revert any attempts to merge/redirect this page. --DeLarge (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merge for all the reasons specified above — this is one of the most ridiculous merge requests I've ever seen. *** Crotalus *** 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - why the rush to get rid of every article on electric cars these days? the iMIEV looks the same as the gas version, but is a different car with different performance and cost characteristics that will appeal to a completely different segment of drivers. Nobody who is interested in the electric version will care a bit about the gasoline version (except maybe in the performance comparison). 19 January 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darelldd (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - The Mitsubishi EV is an important vehicle for the EV revolution and thus far has sold so far 5000 in japan. This vehicle is coming to north American markets this fall as a completely redesigned EV and thus it's article is likely to be greatly expanded in the future.--High voltage41 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

See the suggestion that this be merged into the gas version seems quite biased. Why is the article on the gas version said to be the parent? Why not merge the gas with the electric as a small paragraph? To have a consensus merge you would have to completely change the way these articles are written, just to be fair, with equal sections on both vehicles and not assuming either to be the parent. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Subaru Impreza WRX STi

To merge Subaru Impreza WRX STi with Subaru Impreza WRX?

Opinion/Discussion:

• Strongly oppose - notable, length of article. ---North wiki (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per above--the TOC is even too big for my screen. --Pineapple Fez 21:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Provisional Support - In theory. STi's are in the end just hi-po examples of the WRX and share the same image and history. To all but the fans the two are interchangeable. That having said, because of the length of the STi article that won't be achievable without dumping a very large portion of the article. It's vergeing on attempting to compress the range of HSV models articles into Holden Commodore. Based on this a simple merge isn't going to work, and the sheer volume of material to be removed would in effect make this merger discussion closer to an AfD. While this arguement has been used in defence of the hybrid cars that was an easier edit to achieve because of the volume of cruft and over-description. I would like to know the practicalities of the merge before a confirmation of a merger tick or cross. --Falcadore (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral both articles are a huge mess of cruft. If someone wants to reorganize them and either merge them or leave them separate I would support it either way. --Leivick (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment indeed - perhaps both articles should be tagged for major re-write prior to merger. A simple merge likely would not be simple. --Falcadore (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Too soon - both huge crufty messes, largely useless. Could they be split into WRX by generation, each including the STi version? In terms of notability, generation trumps spec. I would welcome some serious pruning, but arguing with fanboys isn't exactly my idea of fun.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Second proposal

• Subaru Impreza to be split into:

• Subaru Impreza (first generation)
• Subaru Impreza (second generation)
• Subaru Impreza (third generation)

With the contents of Subaru Impreza WRX and Subaru Impreza WRX STi to be cleansed of cruft and merged into the appropriate generational article. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: as nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: as nominator. -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Provisional support - I could see each WRX generation (including STi content) also needing separate pages, based on the amount of material that would remain even after heavy cleaning up.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This makes more sense than the other proposal. --Pineapple Fez 21:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose.

For starters, on procedural grounds: there's an entire wikiproject -- WP:WRC -- who can lay claim to this article just as legitimately as we do (see the talk page), and as far as I can see they've not even been consulted on these mergers. Mashing the two together just because it suits us is a Very Bad Idea™ (and that objection stands for every proposed merger of homologation specials, or any other merger where more than one WikiProject has a banner on their talk page).

Second, I'd say it's going to be impossible to write a good, cohesive history of the STI if its broken up across three articles. The development of the cars by Prodrive, the delay in switching from the Legacy Turbo to the Impreza in the early '90s, the twenty year rivalry with the Lancer Evolution, etc. None of that is relevant to the mass market versions, but it's very relevant to the WRX/STI.

Finally, the performance editions have an independent notability as demonstrated by multiple books dedicated only to them: "Subaru Impreza" by Graham Robson (2007), "Subaru Impreza Turbo" by Andy Butler (2006), "Autocar on the Subaru Impreza Turbo" (2008), "Subaru Impreza WRX" (Japanese), etc.

I'd be OK with an eventual merger of the WRX and STI articles in due course, as long as everyone is consulted, but that's as far as it should go. --DeLarge (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment As the competition versions of the WRX and WRX STI, while admittedly high-profile, make up a very small number of the vehicles, aren't the competition versions very much a secondary consideration? Additionally are the WRCs even relevant? Ford Fusion article does not contain detailed history of the evelution of Fusion NASCARs, which like the WRCs are modified well beyond their production roots. --Falcadore (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

They may be a secondary consideration to the Impreza as a whole (although I wouldn't necessarily say so -- the company's image was completely transformed by rallying, and it wouldn't shock me if it turned out that turbo'd Imprezas were the bestsellers in the 1990s); however, they're not of secondary consideration to rallying. In fact, without the WRC and Group A/Group N, I suspect that the WRX and STI wouldn't even exist (the same is true of the Lancer Evolution). This is why I objected to us not informing the Rally WikiProject -- what's significant to us and to them are entirely different, but their interests are just as legitimate, as is their entitlement to be included in the discussion.

By the way, there's significant differences between rallying and other forms of motorsport like NASCAR. Specifically, the rally-rep cars must be (a) built in relatively large quantities -- 5000 per year must be sold before the rally versions can be homologated for competition, and (b) even the most high-powered, top-end race versions must be completely road-legal, since they're required to drive on public roads between the special stages they compete on. It was a lot more than just sticking a badge on a racing car for marketing purposes; the road and race versions are inextricably intertwined, hence why books like this and this exist. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Today['s] NASCAR race cars have very little in common with street cars. Almost every detail of a NASCAR car is handmade. The bodies are built from flat sheet metal, the engines are assembled from a bare block and the frame is constructed from steel tubing... "[3] ---North wiki (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Rally prepped Imprezas, which take the form of the WRX and STI models, are road cars. They are built for the road and driven as such. Group N specification Imprezas, the most numerous of the modified competition Imprezas, are highly specialised extreme modifications, and many of which are not done by Subatru or by Subaru Technology. Interior is stripped, roll-cage inserted, complete replacement of suspension package with adjustable options as rally specification suspension systems are completely incompatible for road use, replacement of exhaust systems, removal and raplcement of dashbord electronics. Even at 'showroom specification' Group N level, these are highly modified very-low volume cars. Group A and WRC models are of course even wilder again, and much even lower volume still with a mere handful built - and handbuilt by Prodrive not by Subaru. Apart from the prestige of rally competition, it is comparable for say for example Ambulance modifications of vehicles like F-Series trucks - which wikipedia does not cover at all. While the rally prepped 5000 hologation cars might come close to rally car specifications, the rally cars themselves are not the primary intention of what these vehicles are for, and more than any of the 500 Group A touring cars of each kind created with circuit racing homolgation in mind the the 1980s. While these cars wer created with modifications for rallying in mind, they still had to sell 5000 of them to the public of which the vast majority would never be converted to rally cars.

As for the special stage claim? Most if not all contries give special dispensation registration to rally cars for competition. In point of fact they are not road legal, but allowed under special caveat, because otherwise the sport would not exist. --Falcadore (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is getting a bit tangential, but...

Your experience is the polar opposite of mine. Aside from Australia and Greece (and possibly US/Canada where the sport's profile is much lower) I can't think of a country with "special dispensation" for rally cars. They have headlights, indicators, treaded tyres, licence plates, and meet the minimum noise and emissions requirements, all of which are tested in scrutineering. Ergo they are road legal. It's not a claim, it's a plain and simple fact up in this part of the world. The mods you mention may render the car "non-standard", but they're certainly not automatically illegal for road use. And many of those mods -- removal of dashboards, heavy engine mods, removal of exhaust systems -- were forbidden under Group N, at least prior to 2001.

If they're getting a "special caveat", why bother fitting licence plates, treaded tyres, etc in the first place?

As an aside, aren't you getting your terminology confused? A "rally-prepped" car is one which has been prepared for rallying, not the bog standard, unmodified vehicle. --DeLarge (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right about tangential, but in essense I was merely disputing that the rally prepped homolgation specials are actually rally prepped. The differences between a Group N rally car and an unmodified STI are still marked. Considerably less than Group A and WRC. And btw - never said anything about modifying engines.

The intent of disputing the rally prepped claim was to suggest that based on modifications and the numbers that are modified (compared specifically to the numbers that are not modified), that competition is not the primary goal of these cars. While it might have been the reason the cars were created, if it was the primary goal then majority of that 5000 (multiplied by the number of models that is re-homolgated) would actually be rally cars. --Falcadore (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me the Motorsport project would also have some interest in this, beyond just rallying, since it would (does) touch on homologation & how it works (or doesn't...). From Falcadore's comments, I get the sense he thinks we shouldn't do pages on rally specials or ambulance bodies, with which I would disagree (because I favor including as much as possible, & because, if there are pages on Pokemon characters & every episode of "Seinfeld", the bar for inclusion is already pretty damn low). I'd agree, tho, the "homologation specials" are only tangentially related to the actual WRC cars. (And that presumes Subaru isn't outright cheating on how many are built, & whether they're actually for sale, or just "for sale" to a very select group of customers masquerading as "public".) Which might be reason enough to have a separate page, to address the situation (fact & fiction), without cluttering the Impreza page proper. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not say we should not. I said there are no ambulance modification pages. Not an opinion, a statement of fact, the pages do not exist. --Falcadore (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, then. I got a different impression. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ford Focus BEV

To merge Ford Focus BEV with Ford Focus (international)?

Opinion/Discussion:

• Strongly oppose - notable, different drivetrain, different technology ---North wiki (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Although the technologies are different, the article is short and U.K. demonstration program, U.S. market and Marketing aren't all that important. --Pineapple Fez 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - A short article on a prototype (not for sale) version of a production car? Definately. --Falcadore (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support not enough content to justify separate article, could easily be a section on the main Focus page. --Leivick (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - since this one is just more than a stub I might be tempted to go for the merge, despite being a different technology. Nevertheless, the potential parent article is already long enough (60.3KB), and considering that the EV is slated for market launch by the end of 2011, it is quite likely (as occurred with the Leaf, the i MiEV, and similar articles) that new content will be added fast and even more as the market launch approaches, so I do not see the point of merging it today to split it in a few months. Other question is that the article is about the preproduction car, and it seems the production car is going to be called just Ford Focus Electric, so this means that as new developments unveil there is a chance for an article name change (existing content would become a couple of sections of the production EV). Also, this EV is going to be sold in several regions so I do not know if the right place to merge is Ford Focus (North America) or Ford Focus (international). With so many ifs I rather wait and see (and vote to keep the stub in place) + despite just being a fat stub the number of visitor has jumped in the last months from 1K to 3K which means the stub is more convenient for readers looking for info about the EV rather than sorting through the long article.--Mariordo (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - For reasons listed by others, above. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Ebikeguy and Mariordo. Johnfos (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - stub, just one version of the car -->Typ932 ^T·C 03:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: same car different powertrain. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Mariodo's reasons are awfully compelling. RedmondChad (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - same car, different drivetrain. Electric versions of existing cars very rarely need their own articles.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - Though the marketing for the Ford Focus and the Ford Focus BEV might be similar, the development of each car is very different. Developing an all-electric drivetrain will have very specific issues, and those issues should be discussed in a separate article. For example, the SAE J1772-2009 plug is a requirement for North American electric vehicles that is not applicable to other markets. Standards and certifications will be different for each market, so the development of the vehicle will differ. For example, electric motors in North America must follow the NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) MG-1 standard, but electric motors in Europe (and other parts of the world) typically follow IEC (International Electrochemical Commission) standards. Developing a car with an electric powertrain is very different from developing an ICE car, and documenting that development will require a separate article. ---MNEAAmember20 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.127.89 (talk)
• ""oppose"" Same Car, Different Drivetrain, is a contradiction in terms. The car is the drivetrain, everything else is style. also the BEV is managed out of a totally different group--71.178.199.89 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - The ford focus EV is very different not only in drivetrain, but also in the body, interior features, everything. In fact it shouldn't really be called a ford focus, as you see from it's recent release. This is a very different vehicle.

Mini E

To merge Mini E with Mini?

Opinion/Discussion:

Peugeot 106 Electric

* Strongly oppose - notable, different drivetrain, different technology ---North wiki (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - different drivetrain is not a basis for separating an article. The Mini E is just a Mini with a battery and an electric motor thrown in. As a matter of fact, it begins life as a regular Mini without a motor and then sent to Germany where they drop in the electric bits. It is hardly notable, except for in terms of an extremely specific category ("the world's first major car manufacturer to deploy a fleet of more than 500 all-electric vehicles for private use"), and not exactly a new idea. Peugeot too, slapped an electric motor in the 106 back in the day (and sold a few), but it too wasn't notable, and they weren't the first car manufacturer to try and gain a little green cred in such a cheap way.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Limited production run of an already existing model? Merge please. --Falcadore (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose plenty of encyclopedic content and no room for it on the main mini page. If it was merged good content would be lost, which in my mind is a very bad thing. --Leivick (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No content would be lost. If the Mini article becomes too big, it can be split by generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Besides most of the same arguments I made about regarding the i MiEV, the parent article is already long enough (77.7KB) plus the additional space required to expand the section about the Mini E (the current section is quite outdated/inaccurate and short as compared to the Mini E article which is 21.8KB with no green fancruft as called here). Also it is important to note that the Mini E is not a production car but a demonstration car, and as such, the article deals mainly about this demonstration program and BMW plans to developed the production Mega City Vehicle. And for the record, a Google search with " " returns 1,26 million hits.--Mariordo (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: The content of the Mini E section in main Mini article was so outdated that I believe it might misguide this discussion. So I updated the content with a two paragraph summary from the Mini E article. Now I believe it makes more evident that it does not make sense to throw in the parent article all the details of the demonstration program/field testing.--Mariordo (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - The two cars are mechanically completely different. BMW treats them as two entirely different programs. The Mini E has received immense amounts of media coverage and is entirely notable in its own right. Merging these two vehicles would be similar to merging the entire Ford product line into one article. It makes no sense. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Ebikeguy and Mariordo. Johnfos (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: if the Mini article becomes too big, it can be split by generation as there are now two. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Mariordo lists lots of good reasons. Most important is how & why people are looking for the information. People looking for info on electric cars don't care about the gas model details. People looking at gas models may find it interesting that there is an electric model, but a link to a separate article is good. They don't pick Mini and then try to figure out which powertrain they want. Especially with the Mini-E program going away, they won't look at the article to pick out a car; they'll be looking at the history of e-car rollouts, and the Mini-E program was significant. RedmondChad (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

How was the Mini E important? It's just a regular Mini with an electric engine thrown in, and "the world's first major car manufacturer to deploy a fleet of more than 500 all-electric vehicles for private use". Hardly of enough importance to warrant a separate article from the gasoline/diesel-powered Mini. If it's too long, delete all the unimportant stuff about how one was delivered to the government car pool in Downing Street etc etc.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: Same rationale stated previously in support of Ford Focus BEV article: Developing an all-electric drivetrain will have very specific issues, and those issues should be discussed in a separate article. For example, the SAE J1772-2009 plug is a requirement for North American electric vehicles that is not applicable to other markets. Standards and certifications will be different for each market, so the development of the vehicle will differ. For example, electric motors in North America must follow the NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) MG-1 standard, but electric motors in Europe (and other parts of the world) typically follow IEC (International Electrochemical Commission) standards. Developing a car with an electric powertrain is very different from developing an ICE car, and documenting that development will require a separate article. It is misleading to claim that a manufacturer can simply "drop" a motor and batteries into a car and sell it. Standards are developed to ensure safety when using electrical components by NEMA, and standards are developed to ensure safety when operating a motor vehicle by the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers). Achieving compliance in all categories is very difficult. As another example, the battery in one electric vehicle can differ greatly from another electric vehicle. Tesla motors chose to "stack" lithium-ion batteries that were typically used in laptops, whereas General Motors initially used lead-acid (and later Nickel-Metal-Hydride) batteries in their first electric vehicles. (As a side note, a drivetrain will "drive" the car by transferring the power to the wheels. Powertrain will "power" the drivetrain.)---MNEAAmember20 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.127.89 (talk)

• Support - I volunteered to take part in the Mini E trial as I live quite close to Oxford, but alas was turned down, so I feel I know a fair bit about the subject... However, I support the merging as it is the same car, just a different powertrain. Next will there be proposals for a stand-alone diesel article?! Many of the arguments above are way too much swayed by Mini's advertising and PR, rather than taking a more pragmatic encyclopaedic view of the article in question. The depth of detail about the field testing is way over the top for what is a public prototype. Warren Whyte (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

BYD F6DM

Whoever included this plug-in hybrid concept in the list forgot to check that there is no article for the BYD F6 gasoline sibling to merge to, so such a merge is an impossibility.

The proposition: To scratch this stub from the list inmediately.--Mariordo (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I (and I'm sure a few other editors) would make an article for it if that was what the group consensus was. --Pineapple Fez 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be a first, create an article to justify a merger? --Mariordo (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It need a 'parent' article anyway though, weather it merges or not. You wouldn't have a Ford Fusion Hybrid article without a Ford Fusion article. --Pineapple Fez 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think so, but for the time being there is no parent, then there could be no merger, so the proposition stands.--Mariordo (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariordo, this has clearly moved beyond a merger to a page expansion. The expansion proposal put forward by Pineapple Fez is completely valid, so there is no need to have a heart attack because the terminology of "mass article merger" is incorrect. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose:This is an anti-EV witch-hunt, pure and simple. Stop the madness. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It sure is and the witch-hunt will continue until we are ridded of all unnecessary articles such as this. Feel free to start a witch hunt against any of the articles that I have edited as well. For example, Holden Apollo, a holy and "untouchable" good article (per Mariordo's reasoning of his iMiev "good article") that was almost exclusively written by me personally. I expanded the Apollo page as a separate article to the Camry page when I thought along the same lines as you did; that is, Wikipedia must have separate articles for every variant of every car. I now believe it should be merged, so please do me a favour and nominate it. No hypocrisy on my part. Another one of mine is Holden Suburban. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I do not blindly follow your commands as to which articles are to be considered unnecessary. Many valid articles start out as stubs and grow from there. That does not mean they are unnecessary at their inception. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He is not saying that its stub characteristics have anything to do with it. Stub or not is not the important part. What he is saying is that cars which are based on existing cars do not need their own articles. We do not have a Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer page, we do not have a Opel Corsa Diesel page. These, just like the Mini E and BYD F6DM, are versions of existing cars, and as such they do not need their own articles. Separate articles for versions of other cars are only split off if and when the main article becomes too long. When this happens, the preferred mode of splitting is along generational lines, as it is along these that the most thorough engineering differences occur. Ebikeguy, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the Holden Apollo should keep its own article?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: proposal to transform this page into a page outlining both the hybrid and non-hybrid car (page move required). OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: creating a BYD F6 page. This can also include hybrid content (will they ever build it? BYD promises a lot of vaporware)  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think that all that came out of the F6DM project were a few concept cars. BYD seem to be developing the S8DM SUV instead. --Pineapple Fez 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose:This is insane as there isn't even an article on the gas version yet, this can maybe be discussed when there is an article. Perhaps we should just merge all articles on vehicles and delete all sections referencing the gas versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.128.215 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• This conversation has turned into a complete non sense and lack of regard of wikipedia policies (so I withdrew the proposition that opened this discussion). Anyone can create a new article, so please, go ahead and create the BYD F6 article, you do not need permission from anybody here, nor seek for consensus. Nevertheless, creating this new article with the BYD F6DM is even more crazy. The proper thing to do is once the F6 article is created, then it is possible to begin a merger discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I can think of a few articles that changed title to accommodate the entire range of models, for example: Lexus RX Hybrid --> Lexus RX (XU30) and Lexus LS Hybrid --> Lexus LS (XF40). Doing it this way maintains the article's edit history. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari 375

Hi - anybody know the appropriate relationship between 1954 Ferrari 375 and Ferrari America? The former obviously pushes one side of the legal dispute in its second half, but I assumed that the first half is more or less OK (after a little editing). Is there another article it should be merged with, or is it best as a standalone article? Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the first one's been deleted (copyright vio?) so question is now irrelevant. 4u1e (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nissan Leaf compact or mid size?

As some of you may be aware the Nissan Leaf article is currently undergoing GA review, and as such, any content dispute will quick-fail this GA nomination. An anon editor yesterday switched the lead to state that the Leaf is a mid size not a compact, so temporarily and for the sake of consistency I changed the infobox to mid size (US) adding the RS that supports such classification. The dilemma here is that Nissan always said the Leaf is a compact but last November the US EPA issued the Leaf equivalent fuel economy it compared its fuel efficiency within the mid size class see here, thus creating the present confusion. Nissan Leaf's US site now omits any classification.

Considering the expertise of editors in this project, I request your contribution in achieving consensus on how the Leaf should be properly classified so that we can correct the article without long disputes. My first take would be to state in the infobox that is "mid size (US)" and "compact (international)" and omit in the text any classification in the lead by just saying ... is a mid-sized five-door hatchback electric car manufactured... Please state your comments below. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Per this Autoweek article, Nissan seems happy with the "mid-sized" designation. I'm no expert in size-ratings, but it seems reasonable to leave the size rating as designated by the EPA and endorsed by Nissan. That said, I would go with whatever consensus is achieved in this discussion. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

From the exterior, the Leaf does probably look more like a compact, but it is the interior size that counts according to the EPA. The Nissan Tiida (Versa) is also a compact, but due to its interior size, is classified as a mid-size. The Prius shares similar dimensions with the compact Corolla, yet due to its interior packaging, is classified as mid-size. If the EPA says it is mid-size, then the Leaf should be regarded as mid-size here. If you can reliably cite a source that says something along the lines of, "the Leaf is mid-size according to the EPA, but has been widely noted to share similar external dimensions to many compact cars", then feel free to do so. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 23:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My first take would be to state in the infobox that is "mid size (US)" and "compact (international)". There's no internationally agreed size class, only various regional ones, so that wouldn't be right. A Leaf isn't "compact" in, say, Europe, because we have a different name for that class of vehicle.

Considering the expertise of editors in this project... Ho-ho, very amusing. We have editors here, not experts.

I would go with whatever consensus is achieved in this discussion. We should go with what reliable sources say, not decide for ourselves.

The EPA has, for quite a while now, defined cars by their "interior volume" (combined passenger and cargo space),[4] so their external dimensions aren't really relevant. "Mid-size car" (in America) is an invention of the EPA, so if they say that's what the Leaf is, shouldn't we just follow Nissan's lead and acquiesce? However, I best prefer the suggestion to omit it entirely from the lede. It constantly annoys me that so many articles in WP state the EPA's definition of a car's size class as if it were some kind of absolute which applies worldwide. It's a descriptor that should best be limited to the infobox (or, if I had my way, categorization and nothing else). --DeLarge (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Different countries define cars by different measures - internal volume (EPA), external volume, wheelbase, overall length. If they differ for the same car then all we can do is list the differences (with the supporting references). Also note that just saying 'Nissan says' is misleading because Nissan USA my say quite different things than Nissan Japan, Nissan UK, etc. In the US it would be quite natural for Nissan US to follow the EPA. It is also to Nissan USA's advantage to compare the economy of their lightweight car to heavier cars. But Nissan Japan would be more likely to state the classification given by the government bodies - even if it differs from that given by Nissan USA. I haven't followed all the links but http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62G2MB20100318 says it is built on the same line as the Juke compact crossover. http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/17/nissan-announces-european-prices-for-leaf-under-30-000-after-i/ says it looks like a compact family car. The US may be the biggest market but it can't override what other countries say. For myself, its external size is typical of a compact. I would drop the infobox classification (which doesn't handle complications well) and add some text in the main body to list the differences eg 'The US EPA classifies this as a mid-sized car based on interior volume while other countries classify it as a compact based on exterior dimensions).  Stepho  (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Its a small family car ... -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I will assume that you have a reference for that. And that's the problem, we can find multiple, valid, official references that define it differently. If the US EPA says that it is a mid-size car then in the US it is a mid-size car - but not necessarily elsewhere. We must mention the different classifications in the text. The only real choice is whether the infobox has a single class (but which one, and the joys of edit wars), put both classes in (too complex) or leave it out (hey, where did that go?).  Stepho  (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If we know the body type, size/doors we can determine the class, if automaker says or anyone else says its supercar we cant use that as reference if it really is not -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A Leaf supercar would be something to see :)

The problem is that even knowing all those factors, different authorities combine them in different ways. Some use only interior dimensions (EPA), some use only exterior dimensions. If we make up our own formula then we are either doing original research or creating our own memes.  Stepho  (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sales numbers

Socckee (talk · contribs) is adding US sales numbers to several articles. I've noticed it when he reverted my deletion of a US sales table from Mercedes-Benz C-Class. Should we allow this? US sales are not particularly more relevant than any other country, and if we start adding other countries, when should we stop? --Pc13 (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Good-luck finding global tallies for so many models spanning an entire decade, if I personally could have done so I would have.Socckee (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally think sales numbers are okay, so long as they are cited. However, I certainly see your point about the potential for these tables getting very unwieldy when more than a few markets are listed. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the tables are unwieldy when they are collapsed, anyone who wants to view the table would probably be interested in the data.Socckee (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's a car widely sold worldwide, they should have worldwide sales/production figures or none at all. Picking out just US sales for a Mercedes is biased and wrong, and it opens up the door to adding sales for X Y and Z markets and thereby turning the article into a mess.

The proliferation of sales and production figures is becoming a problem. Missing/incomplete data, the mixing of sales and production figures (see Talk:Mercury (automobile)#Fixing up the Mercury article, usage of figures for only a single market, and in some cases the lack of an indication as to what the figures even are, create the potential of these things hurting the articles more than they'd help.

I wouldn't oppose doing away with them entirely (the annual numbers that is, not a total for the car's entire production run or for a single generation since that is much easier to manage if the source is available). --Sable232 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is no harm to make mention of a model's home market or perhaps key export market, but generally I would agree that specific country sales records will make for cluttered articles. I agree that there is interest in overall production (as mentioned by Sable 232), and perhaps on a year-by-year basis, but breaking down sales per country will become information overload. Warren Whyte (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If the models aren't country/area-distinct, segregating them makes no sense, but including, frex, all Ford Escort sales by year (even if distinctly different models) is also a bad idea. (I presume segretating by type is intended, even if annual sales are aggregated...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say segregating sales by key regions makes perfect sense. Individual regions aren't even remotely homogenous and these variations are notable.Socckee (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they are okay, as long they are internatiional figures for cars sold everywhere, or mostly sold in some specific country. Its not good idea to have only some market data for international vehicles. -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Warren, the home market, key export markets (usually including the US by sheer volume) and grand world-wide total are suitable. A complete list country by country is overload - imagine the full list of countries for the Corolla :) It must also be made clear whether production or sales figures are being used and whether it is by calender year (Jan-Dec) or model year (varies year by year in the US, ie change over can be in Aug, Sept, Oct or even Nov).  Stepho  (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Define key export markets. It's either a global figure or none at all. --Pc13 (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Any export market that covers 10% or more of the total sales of a vehicle would be a good indication of a key export market and is surely significant and notable. For many manufacturers that would include the US. Russian and Chinese manufacturures would likely not include the US.  Stepho  (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

US sales are always reported by calendar month/year rather than model year. This will allow other countries (presumably also going by calendar year) to be added to the same table, if data is available. IMHO, whatever country's sales figures are available from a reliable source, go ahead and add them -- but consider adding home/major export markets first. --Vossanova ^o< 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Stepho was saying: "either a global figure or none at all". Stepho, can you please clarify? ---North wiki (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That was me. I'm opposed to sales tables for separate countries, because I don't believe it's possible to agree on what a key market is. Any country with a large population will have more cars sold than a country will a smaller population. So does that mean Sweden isn't an important market? Belgium? Lithuania? Israel? Cambodia? Guatemala? The alternative is to allow every market, making it conceivable to have sales figures for 191 countries. That's a mighty big table. --Pc13 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, numbers available most probably are by sales, by country/region (e.g. E.U. market). I don't recall companies like GM or Ford (in the U.S.) release global production number by model on a periodic basis. (It can be quite messy, Ford's Ranger in USDM and rest of the world market are two different vehicles, Ford Fusion are two unrelated vehicles in USDM and EUDM, if my understanding is correct. However, U.S. sales number are reported irrespect of model year/model change, sales of different generations of one model are aggregated. That may present a problem as articles are generally divided by generations. Furthermore, U.S. sales number of all major automakers are widely available and released timely. Information from European market, I found, have significant delays and can be sporadic. ) I think if a reliable source of sales in markets like Cambodia or Guatemala can be found (in English?), it may be considered if in a 'collapsable' form for 'other markets' is acceptable to other editors. -North wiki (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC) edited: North wiki (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my slow response - for the next month I will have only limited time to check on WP. I believe that it is very easy to decide on key markets as per my 10% suggestion above. Yes, small countries like Sweden (where my current projects are located) will probably not get an entry. Australia (where I live) also rarely gets a mention. Australia is often used as a test market because it has western tastes but is small enough to not kill the bottom line when it doesn't work. If I argue for either of them to be included on the basis of 'me too' then the table gets unwieldy. But any market that is providing 10% or more of the sales of a particular vehicle is surely a key market. For some borderline cases you may have to use some judgement. Eg if the breakdown is 15%, 9% and then a pile of 3% and less markets then you obviously go with the 15% and 9%. Note that I consider markets to be broad - eg Europe, S.E Asia, China, Africa, US (including Canada or not???), not necessarily single countries. And of course, worldwide figures should always be added (in addition to the key markets) if they are available.  Stepho  (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sweden, as the home of Volvo, Saab and Scania, probably should be mentioned I would have thought. Presumably these makes have disproportionally higher sales in their home nation, much in the same way Peugeot, Citroen and Renault do in France. Additionally won't car sales increasingly quote Europe as one market rather than 20-30 component countries? --Falcadore (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I've let my Toyota bias creep in. I should have said that Sweden doesn't generate the sales numbers of foreign (ie non Swedish) cars - not when compared to the US. For cars made by Swedish manufacturers then Swedish sales will probably make up the requisit numbers. I don't know what the numbers are for non Swedish sales of Swedish cars but the proposed 10% rule would also show whether to accept or reject them. I think I mentioned way up above somewhere that the home market should also be included. Apologies for the lack of clarity.  Stepho  (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

GM fullsize dimension comparison tables

Over the past few days, an editor has placed a table on every single GM fullsize car article comparing the dimensions of the 1974 model to the dimensions of the 1977 model. He's also spammed every talk page with some rant about conspiracies and propaganda (apparently, the reason he's using the 1974 dimensions is because he believes GM fudged the numbers in 1975 and 1976).

I didn't feel like reading though the whole treatise, but what I gather is that head and leg room and trunk space increased while shoulder room decreased (from my own personal experience I can say the downsized cars feel roomier in every way except overall width). I don't think we need these massive tables cluttering up articles (look at the mess on Buick Electra) just to prove someone's point. The infoboxes already have the exterior dimensions, they don't need to be duplicated for the sake of "comparison." --Sable232 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah these should be removed as cruft. I see the point that the editor is trying to make, that there was some marketing babble in the mid 70s regarding the interior dimensions of these cars. However there is automotive marketing babble all the time, we don't need to try and correct this 35 year old borderline false advertising here. --Leivick (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New infobox?

Example

for example 1st generation
Manufacturer	Fiat
Production	2005-present
Class	Mini crossover SUV
Body style(s)	5-door hatchback

I was wondering, should we make new infobox, with default image size of 250px (maybe option to use different size also) and caption option to picture, as it seems that caption is used very often now (and the caption text styling/placement varies a lot) I was testing this in my sandbox, only problem is that it would need some work of existing pictures and captions, but it would bring some help for placing pictures you could just use Image= File:carpicture.jpg and caption as Caption=1956 Mercedes Someone with better understanding could make totally new box, as this current one is little bit out of date....maybe some bot could do all the changes? What do you think? I also lurked some other language wikipedias and many of them have fixed image sizes and so on... this our current box looks like some ancient version, which needs much of understanding (from beginner editors) how to edit those fields. This whole process would of course be huge and should be done someone who knows better the box scripting and bot using for changes. -->Typ932 ^T·C 09:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I support such a change of this nature, but only as an alteration to the existing inbox, not an entirely new one.

Maybe this would also make a good opportunity to implement the larger 300 pixel-wide image? OSX (talk • contributions) 00:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We would need some expert to implement these to be sure everything goes right, otherwise we could mess lots of articles, it would also be huge job for some bot to fix all images and captions, not sure how could this be done. -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't like the captions, they seem to be spreading to more and more articles so adding that function to the infobox would be a good idea. I don't see what we'd need to revamp the entire thing for though.

I can't remember what all I said last time the 300 pixel-wide infobox was proposed, but I know I mentioned that we'd have to unequivocally forbid left-aligned images in the same part of the page as the infobox (we should probably do that now, but with a 300px-wide box any text would be even more difficult to read). --Sable232 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We could add that caption option probably quite easily as I been made in my test template, that would not need any must changes to current automobile articles. in my opinion it would be good idea to do to get all boxes to look same, now we have many different caption styles in use. We must also make clear rule when to use it, there is no need to double the infobox title there. -->Typ932 ^T·C 18:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

STP initials query

The Studebaker article at this section indicates that under Studebaker's ownership (according to their 1960 Annual Report) STP was short for the "Scientifically Treated Products" Division. This represents a change from "Scientifically Treated Petroleum", as per the STP article. Does anybody have some early company literature or other means of verifying what the intials have meant from time to time? If so, can you please post info and discussion at Studebaker Talk Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of SuperCars (top speed 240 mph or faster) for deletion

The article List of SuperCars (top speed 240 mph or faster) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SuperCars (top speed 240 mph or faster) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Falcadore (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Quarter Panel Article

The Quarter Panel Article has been rated a stub for several years. In addition to being rated a stub, it has a significant error in that a photo on the page misidentifies a fender as a quarter panel. I particpated in some recent edits of the related Fender Article and some of the material I contributed there is applicable to the quarter panel article.

It seems to me a major rewrite is in order. I'm wiling to contribute but believe my wiki skills are inadequate for me to be involved as a major participant. Bradkay (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the image is a misidentification. As far as I know in almost all modern vehicles quarter panels and fenders are one and the same. Vehicles have front and rear quarter panels which in modern vehicles also act as fenders. This might be an American versus UK English issue. --Leivick (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

US auto industry usage of the terms is not interchangable. I don't have access to UK auto industry material. It would be good if someone with access to such information were reading. The fender article has it correct (last time I checked.) Bradkay (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I though as well. Maybe a merger would be appropriate? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger is appropriate if its believed the words are interchangable. I think the fender article shows they are not. Bradkay (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I see there have been some edits. I'm willing to work on expanding the article but would prefer having some guidance. Bradkay (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessively crufty fuel economy tables

Over at Ford Escape and Ford Fusion Hybrid there have been some excessively crufty fuel economy tables added, littering both articles. Over at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid last year, there was a similar discussion revolving around an almost identical table and the overriding consensus was not to include these. When this was brought up at WP:CARS, the consensus again was for this detailed fancruft to be excluded, as documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Fuel consumption / performance figures.

In this Escape article, the EPA figures are already mentioned in the text (for both the hybrid and non-hybrid). By including the table as well, the exact same information is being duplicated, albeit twice, because the "annual fuel cost" figures are nothing more than a translated way of expressing miles per gallon. Also, there is a clear bias made when this table in included because it only takes the United States into consideration, excluding Canada (as usual) and all other markets that the Escape/Fusion is sold in. Basically, it's all or none, and listing them all would be simply not be feasible.

I would have though that an EPA figure would be suffice. Annual fuel cost (USD), carbon footprint (Ton/yr of CO2), and annual petroleum use (barrel) goes far and beyond was is acceptable. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For the convenience of the interested editor, the content under discussion is the following:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rated the fuel economy for the 2010 Escape Hybrid (FWD) at 34 miles per US gallon (6.9 L/100 km; 41 mpg_‑imp) city, and 31 miles per US gallon (7.6 L/100 km; 37 mpg_‑imp) highway. The following table compares fuel economy, carbon footprint, andpetroleum consumption between the hybrid version and other drivetrains of the Escape family as estimated by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy. The Escape Hybrid meets both California's SULEV and PZEV standards, with tailpipe emissions better than 90% less than the average 2003 new car and zero evaporative emissions.

Economic and environmental performance comparison among the several Escape powertrains available in the U.S. market
Type of Powertrain	Type of fuel	Year model	EPA City mileage (mpg)	EPA Highway mileage (mpg)	Annual fuel cost(1)(2) (USD)	Carbon footprint (Ton/yr of CO2) (3)	Annual Petroleum Use (barrel)
Hybrid electric FWD Automatic (variable gear ratios), 4 cyl, 2.5L	Gasoline /Electric	2011	34	31	$1,324	5.8	10.7
Hybrid electric 4WD Automatic (variable gear ratios), 4 cyl, 2.5L	Gasoline /Electric	2011	30	27	$1,459	6.5	11.8
FWD Automatic 6-spd, 4 cyl, 2.5L	Gasoline	2011	21	28	$1,840	8.1	14.9
4WD Automatic 6-spd, 4 cyl, 2.5L	Gasoline	2011	20	26	$1,925	8.5	15.6
FWD Automatic 6-spd, 6 cyl, 3.0L	Gasoline	2011	19	25	$2,013	8.9	16.3
	E85 flex-fuel	2011	14	19	$2,269	6.6	5.0
4WD Automatic 6-spd, 6 cyl, 3.0L	Gasoline	2011	18	23	$2,115	9.3	17.1
	E85 flex-fuel	2011	13	17	$2,592	7.6	5.7
Notes: (1) Estimates assumes 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, and 15,000 annual miles. (2) Average U.S. prices: $2.82/gallon for gasoline, and $2.42/gallon for E85 fuel. E85 prices vary widely by region. As of early November 2010 the minimum price was $2.02/gallon in Illinois and the maximum price was $2.99/gallon in New York. (3) Direct carbon footprintonly and does not account for any potential indirect land use change impacts of biofuels.

As stated in the merger discussion above:

• 1. Wikpedia policies superseds any guidelines set by a WikiProject (if a guideline regarding environmental performance exist please point it to me). Please read carefully WP:CONLIMITED: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."
• 2. Relevance of environmental performance: Sustainable transport and environmental performance are not obscure fringe topics nor fancruft-laden (as asserted in these discussions) but rather quite mainstream, just like climate change so it cannot be ignored, and Wikipedia reflects theses facts everywhere, except, it seems, in WP:AUTO. The United Nations, The World Bank and all other international development organizations, and many governments of first world countries (and many developing countries too) make decisions and implement policies following such environmental and sustainability principles (wonder why there are so many government incentives for this types of vehicles). Furthermore, comparison tables like the one reproduced below are built with information provided by the US Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency (not some green advocacy group), both government agencies and considered reliable sources in WP. Therefore, this type of info in a hybrid article cannot be considered fancruft, nor marketing. The rejection of this type of information just reflects the already recognized biased (by some of the editors of WP:AUTOS) against electric drive vehicles that use the glider of existing gasoline or diesel vehicles. The performance indicators included in this table reflect the mainstream new reality that the social and environmental impact of automobiles must be evaluated and relevant information provided to car buyers. This indicators reflect the relevant impacts caused by automobiles, from good old air pollution, through greenhouse gas emissions, to oil consumption/energy independence (particularly to reduce imports from not so friendly countries).
• 3. As the Ford Escape case demonstrates, you merged the article cleansing it from all environmental performance but the fuel economy, just by claiming this type of content is fancruft regardless of being supported by reliable sources and being a mainstream subject. Again, not following WP policies but supporting yourself in WikiProject guidelines. And by the way, this table is different from the table in the Toyota Camry Hybrid so that discussion is not valid for this discussion. US DoE created this source of info after the Camry Hybrid was merged, and it is the same for the Ford Fusion Hybrid above.--Mariordo (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This pathetic citing of all these alleged policy violations is getting ridiculous. You aren't citing any policies at all, you are merely warping ambiguously worded guidelines to substantiate your cruft. Here's one for you to read since you are that way inclined: WP:Not—just because it is verifiable does not mean it needs to be included. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The fuel economy table consumes a lot of space. Fuel economy data is useful for comparing different vehicles. In isolation as it is, its close to useless. I am not advocating mileage comparisons in this article. <G> Bradkay (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Too much specialist info too thickly spread. That's my main reaction. Also

ANYTHING citing a value in US dollars (or any other currency) will quickly become outdated because different governments devalue their currencies at different speeds in order to fund their .. um ... spending. You can usefully record that the thing used 10% more (or less) fuel than a competitor vehicle tested at the same time using the same test (thought even there you have trouble because different fuel consumption tests give different outcomes). But that problem is dwarfed by the currency one. How many people - even if you limit your sample to people living in the USA - will be any the wiser if you tell them baldly what it cost to tank up a Toyota HiLux in Michigan in 2000 using US dollars? And if state sales taxes vary, what does sales tax do to that if you go to Wisconsin? Or even Ontario? Or are your figures excluding taxes? So which of the applicable taxes are you excluding?

Most of the tabulated environmental data at this level are way beyond the scope of an article on the vehicle and have the added problem that - even within a single country - there is very little consensus on what is a relevant cost. The information belongs in a specialist entry where the assumptions on relevant costs can be clearly stated along with their justifications. Clearly and fully. You can and should certainly reference between those entries.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

These tables are updated regularly by the corresponding US agencies (EPA and DoE), and both tables are presented for hybrids that are mainly sold in the US. Doing the updates is a hard work but not an excuse for not including the content. I do regularly update statistical info in most of the articles I created, my GAs, or where I am the main contributors, so more work is no reason for not providing more info to our readers. The info is quite relevant for the American market, where the vehicle is sold. Notability do not depends a worldwide view, it depends of the content, there are thousands of articles for especific countries, regions, etc in Wikpedia. If the US has been for decades the biggest car market in the world and the article refers to a car sold mainly in the U.S., claims of worldwide view are simple nonsense. The carbon footprint of the three different powetrains with different engines is not cruft, not in the US at least, quite the opposite, it has been mainstream for a long time.--Mariordo (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but isn't Ford Escape supposed to be an encyclopedic article about an SUV built by Ford? I do not believe it to be Wikipedia role to provide consumer advice about powertrain options, particularly consumer advice limited to a single market, based on a single model year. It seems to me this drifts too far from Wikipedia's scope. --Falcadore (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Monroney label showing EPA's fuel economy and environmental comparison label for the 2011 Chevrolet Volt.

The information included in the table is the same info provided in the Monroney label affixed to all new cars sold in the US. The figure in the right side shows the Monroney sticker for the Chevy Volt (not quite representative but it is the one that was handily available). EPA designs this labels to be easily understood by the general public, so this info is not too technical as argued above, nor it is some fringe fancruft. Now that mass production electric cars and plug-in hybrids have been launched, this content is even more relevant (and shows that concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and oil dependency are mainstream) and governments have tax incentives and grants as part of their policies to support the sustainablity of the transport sector. Operating costs are included because buyers pay a premium for their hybrids and plug-in cars, and operating costs make up part of that premium, so this is not marketing.--Mariordo (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that addresses none of what I just stated, indeed almost seems as they you agree with me, in that it is consumer advice provided for the benefit of a single market on a single model year. All your reply has done is state that it is federally mandated consumer advice for a single market. Surely data as detailed as this should be used as a reference (since it is no doubt easily obtainable from external sources), not as a contribution with the summary of that data placed within the section on the vehicle generation the data is relevant too? --Falcadore (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The information is technical. Its also nearly irrelevant, not just in an article here but in the real world. The low credibility and usefulness of the EPA milege ratings are the reason for the scornful use of the phrase "Your mileage may vary" in unrelated every day conversations.

The EPA's annual changes in the information it presents and its format, plus changes over the years in the testing methods and adjustments in the results, are part of a futile struggle for it to gain credibility, which it lost almost immediately upon first providing gas milesge ratings. Claiming significant relevance of the EPA stickers on the cars is a lost cause. The EPA can't even achieve that. And even if they had significant real life relevance, the information still doens't belong in a Wikipedia article. Bradkay (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a consumer advice website. They should not be included for the same reason we don't include parts lists or detailed tables of cam shaft tolerances. If someone is interested, these figures are easy to find elsewhere and I see no problem just linking to them. --Leivick (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ford Fusion Hybrid gets worse. It acts as a comparison guide with other hybrids. Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide, so why are we comparing the Fusion Hybrid with other hybrids? Last year at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid, Zunaid put it succinctly: "The article is about THIS car, not OTHER cars. In a similar vein, we do not compare the fuel economy of a VW Polo diesel against other diesels in its segment, acceleration of the Nissan 370Z against its competitors, luggage space of one make of station wagon vs another etc., except BRIEFLY in the prose if it is merited. These types of comparison tables are problematic in terms of synthesis and you'd have trouble identifying which vehicles (in the entire world automobile market) to include or exclude in the comparison."

It then lists just about every independent fuel economy test ever performed, which again is silly. Articles on performance cars do not list every 0–100 km/h time obtained by every magazine, they list the official figure if any at all. Any "fuel economy" test performed is rarely going to yield the exact same MPG as the EPA figure. The good thing about EPA is that while the actual figure may not be indicative for every single driver, it's consistent and this makes it ideal to compare one figure with those from other cars. Ditto for other government tests. So all the crufty additions, including tables, comparisons with other models, and independent fuel economy tests (which are explicitly denied inclusion per WP:CARS/Conventions#Fuel consumption / performance figures) should be deleted (in any article). A concise EPA figure should remain. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

EPA cycle tests for fuel economy are presented all over the automobile articles, and as I had read from some of your comments, because they are standardized they provide a reliable benchmark. Your judgment of EPA ratings is your opinion, and I respect it, but here in Wikipedia that is called original research. So now WP:AUTOS also decides taht EPA/DoE are not a reliable sources?

My point is that the environmental performance is just another feature of automobiles, just as tables describing the technical specs of several engines or the safety ratings (I am assuming climate change and energy independence are not being questioned as mainstream). Then, the carbon footprint, oil imports and fuel economy of different powertrains/fuel of a given model year (that one is for 2011) provide the same useful information for the reader as the safety ratings. Furthermore, if most of the Escape and Fusion hybrids are sold in the US, I do not see an issue regarding lack of worldwide view. Also, this content could be accommodated in a US market section (as I tried in the past). And regarding the alleged promotion, the info comes from government sources, and indeed many government are provided substantial incentives to help introduced more environmentally friendly powertrains and seeking less oil imports (that is mainstream too).--Mariordo (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariordo, my opinion of the EPA is my opinion, but I am not littering my opinion throughout articles so your criticism is invalid. I am pretty sure most editors will tolerate an EPA figure; what we take concern with are the excessive and redundant charts and comparisons to other vehicles. As others have said, we are not a consumer advice website. Our job is not to assist car buyers in finding the best car for them, but to encyclopaedically outline the car itself. There are other forms of technical cruft that get removed as well, such as the diameter of the brake rotors and what not (see above thread). You have a specialised interest in MPG that goes far beyond what the vast majority of people find interesting. Just like data outlining the diameter of brake rotors is removed, so too should crufty "environmental performance" numbers regarding a single market during a single model year.

Even in the case of the Fusion, a car sold only in the Americas, you have ignored Canada and South America. Even if Canada was included at the very least, yet another table would be needed, adding to the clutter. A compromised solution, may be to link directly to the fueleconomy.gov website. This way, you won't have the burden of updating these articles either. It should also be noted that in 10 years time from now, how relevant is all this information going to be when the car is out of production? Are the handful of readers who find this information useful now going to find it useful in a decade when fuel prices will likely be two or three times higher?

Then if we include the cost of fuel, what about other running costs? These include servicing costs (which usually vary at each dealer), the cost of new tires (for each diameter and width of wheel on offer), replacement transmissions (which may have an average life span of only 170,000 kilometres), the cost of a replacement key if the original goes missing, the insurance risk category, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The be-all and end-all of hybrids is the economy and (hopefully) reduced emmissions. Which makes the tables worthwhile. As stated above, they currently only detail a single country (the US) but it is reasonable to assume that this is representative of other markets. If other markets differ markedly then they should be added to the table (if data is available) but otherwise I wouldn't worry about it. Since EPA is a government department with a large number of users, it is considered a reliable source. I did statistics at university and I learnt that averages like the EPA figure are often useless for an individual (eg your driving style and circumstances may vary) but they apply well to a large population (some drivers get more, some get less but on average it balances out). However, the table could be trimmed down a bit (after all, it only has to be representative, not exhaustive) by removing the annual columns. I'd also be tempted to remove or merge some of the rows but I'm not quite sure which ones (6 cylinder gasoline engines have very similar figures and are quite different to the hybrid, E85 and 4 cylinder figures).

On the other hand, the second table comparing the Fusion to other hybrids should be in some common article instead of being listed in each and every hybrid article.

A few further notes about the current discussion. I treat consensus the same way I was taught in statistics to treat confidence intervals - anything less than 90% is unreliable and 95% or 99% is preferred. 9-4 is nowhere near consensus, look for 10-1 and that final 1 should have rather weak arguments (and Mariordo has good arguments). Rebuttals don't count as addressing the issue unless they are strong enough to convince at least some of the participants to swap viewpoints. Currently we just have a couple of monkeys screeching at each across a stream (no offense, this is meant to be humour). Now, back to the fray :)  Stepho  (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you know that a 10-1 consensus is almost never going to be attainable (although it did happen with the Escape). Why should a minority of two or three editors out of 10 justify a retention of the status quo? Nothing would ever get done if that was the case. 51 percent is not a consensus, nor is 60 percent. Above 65 percent, I think is reasonable.

The EPA is a reliable source, so quoting the EPA mpg figure is fine. The other stuff like annual fuel costs is redundant and is going too far. If you don't agree with this then that is fine, but an opinion held by yourself and Mariordo is not going to invalidate the opinions of the majority. Not once in my time at Wikipedia have I seen a "no-consensus" declaration given to anything over 65/35. I take it what you learned in university is to do with repetition in science or similar? That is, if you repeat an experiment, 90 percent of the data should be within a small range, with less than 10 percent outlying. Discussions cannot be called "unreliable", so this has little relevance amongst human beings. People are different, people think differently, and people have different opinions. This is why when people vote on a two-party preferred basis, the end result is usually 45/55 at the most. Name an election that resulted in a 90/10 ratio that is not in a communist or fascist state? What works in science does not necessarily translate to what is desirable in the real world. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good, we are starting to get some common ground. At least part of both sides say that EPA data is reliable. You (OSX) and I have also agreed that the annual costs are not appropriate (doesn't translate to other countries, whereas the mpg and tons of CO2 can be representative of most countries). Hopefully we can sway a few more monkeyseditors that a trimmed table is more useful than either no table or a large table.  Stepho  (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stepho, I have always said an EPA figure is fine (even during the Camry discussion). I just don't see why we have to go beyond what is reasonable with all the other stuff. Not too keen on the tabular format myself, I prefer prose which is the format preferred Wikipedia-wide. Tables are a lazy option because they require zero creativity in the formulation of sentences. Encyclopaedias should be written in prose wherever possible (how many tables do you see in Britannica?).

As a fair compromise, I will agree to:

• An MPG figure in prose;
• A CO₂ figure in prose (I did not advocate the inclusion of this previously, but this figure tends to be quoted with the MPG or L / 100 km figure by governments in Australia, Europe and North America at least).
• Both figures are to be contained within a section specific to the market in question, titled "North America" or "Europe", et cetera. These same sections would also list other market-specific information such as trim levels as well.
• No mention of independent tests, unless it is widely cited that the figure(s) is/are extremely difficult to achieve in the real world (i.e. Mazda CX-7 2.3-litre turbo and Chevrolet Equinox). This would require several citations from reliable sources.
• No comparisons to other vehicles, or mention of unrealistically low figures (such as those 80 mpg figures the hypermillers achieve—these are not relevant to "normal" drivers, and hypermilling can be achieved in any car).

I think we as a WikiProject have been very accommodating to Mariordo's concerns. Prior to the Camry discussion, the general consensus at this WikiProject was to not mention fuel economy data at all, due to its subjectivity and market variance. I then managed to form a consensus that government figures are okay so long as they are contained within a section specific to the market in question (as documented at WP:CARS/Conventions). I have now said a CO₂ figure is okay as well.

Now all that I ask is for Mariordo to consider the wishes of all other editors here and accept this compromise. He may include links to the fueleconomy.gov website, documenting the information agreed as unfitting for a general-interest encyclopaedia by all other participants in this discussion and those previous. This compromise would apply to all vehicles from the fuel-sipping Prius to the antithetical, mammoth-sized 6.0-litre V8 Ford Excursion. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Economic/environmental performance for US market 2011 Ford Escapes
Type of Powertrain	Type of fuel	EPA City mileage (mpg)	EPA Highway mileage (mpg)	EPA combined mileage(1) (mpg)	Carbon footprint(2) (tons of CO2 / yr)
Hybrid electric FWD/4WD (4-cyl, 2.5 L, CVT)	Gasoline	34/30	31/27	32/29	5.8/6.5
4-cyl, 2.5 L (6AT) FWD/4WD	Gasoline	21/20	28/26	23/22	8.1/8.5
6-cyl, 3.0 L (6AT) FWD/4WD	Gasoline	19/18	25/23	21/20	8.9/9.3
	E85 flex-fuel	14/13	19/17	16/14	6.6/7.6
Notes: (1) Estimates assume 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, and 15,000 annual miles. (2) Direct carbon footprint only, does not account for any potential indirect land use change impacts of biofuels.

I'm not quite as opposed to tables as OSX, as they can sometimes make information clearly visible which becomes unreadable in prose form. However, the giant and disruptive tables used before, the "yearly fuel cost" and the comparison tables including other cars do not belong. I made a smaller version of the table that may prove more palatable - but I still fear that these exact tables will then start popping up in every article for every car which is on the EPA website. Nonetheless, I feel that a collapsible, smaller table which does not cut off the main text is much nicer than the current edition. I also repaired the references, a few of which were broken due to bad spacing and one of which still pointed to EPA's Ford Fusion page. I bolded the combined MPG, as this would be of main importance to most.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposed table isn't all that much smaller than before, so I cannot support it—a text-based solution is fine. Imagine if these tables were utilised in a three-generation article sold in just two major markets such as the UK and the US? That would mean six ungainly tables cluttering everything up. Collapsible or not, it takes everything too far. What if the 2012 Escape has efficiency improvements? It will only add to this. Prose is much more succinct:

The Escape with front-wheel drive and the 2.5-liter engine was given a combined rating of 23 mpg by the EPA; all-wheel drive versions were rated 1 mpg lower. The hybrid's rating was 32 mpg (FWD) and 29 mpg (AWD), with the gasoline 3.0-liter version rated at 21 mpg (FWD) and 20 mpg (AWD). The 3.0-liter E85 version was rated at 16 mpg (FWD) and 14 mpg (AWD). OSX (talk • contributions) 10:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer tables due to my mathematical training. But in the spirit of co-operation I can accept Mr Choppers suggestion exactly as he gave it. But I am not the one you need to convince. Let's see what the others have to say.  Stepho  (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Tables may be a bit easier to read, but they look terrible. See the result here with just three generations and three major English-speaking markets. Once you say yes to one table (for the US), you can't deny editors from including other major markets. It's getting to the point where I am wondering whether we are trying to give readers information about the car in general or just fuel economy data? So please think about the consequences before agreeing. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

EPA MPG figures with conversion templates in prose are horrible, some sections are full of numbers in certain American market cars, I would use tables for consumption figures. For example "Corollas with the 1.8-liter engine have an EPA fuel economy rating of 27 mpg city/35 mpg highway, both numbers being lower than those achieved by the previous generation. The 2.4-liter is rated at 22 mpg/30 mpg with the automatic and 22 mpg/29 mpg with the manual. All engines are ULEV II certified. Toyota carried over the 13.2 gal fuel tank from earlier models.[18] In order to help improve fuel economy the new Corolla uses an electric power steering unit instead of a belt driven hydraulic pump." if we convert this to l/100km and imperial gallons it just isnt good for prose. -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Conversions can be left out as far as I am concerned. They only add to the clutter. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this is international Wikipedia for english users, those mpg figures doesnt give much info for europeans or those who are not familiar with mpgs, and many of the cars ares sold worldwide, and even if they are not sold, it might be intresting to read (=understand) those figures, In my opinion best way is to add those figures to same table were engine/performance figures are. -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is another option I fully support.--Mariordo (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with the proposed simplified table as shown above. Tables are the best way to make comparisons and as stated by Typ932, to provide this content in prose is not easy on the reader. Of course the example provided by OSX in the RAV4 article is horrible, but I do not see that one as the typical case because the use of these environmental performance tables is useful only in qualified cases, such as hybrids, for vehicles sold in a few markets, and with a bit of creativity and common sense we can keep it to something manageable, and you can always play around with tables to present valuable info in a readable form. Wikipedia articles evolve over time so I will not concern so much about the what ifs. As an example, if an editor decides to add a column to include passenger volume in ft3 (i.e. the Fusion Hybrid), then such info can be removed on the grounds that such feature is not related to environmental performance. I am comfortable enough with this solution to go ahead and change right away the Ford Fusion Hybrid and Escape tables.--Mariordo (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fuel economy is only one of many aspects of a car's attributes, and does not merit tables, full of fuel economy stats, in isolation. By all means, add a column to a performance table and add a fuel and CO2 column if appropriate, but a stand-alone table is of little use. Also EPA is of no interest to the rest of the world outside the US. CO2 is of interest in much of Europe (especially in relation to taxation), so a C02 figure is of some interest (though not annualised as suggested previously in this discussion. Same with barrels of oil... it is up to the reader to interpret performance data to suit their own needs. Prose should be the preference as noted above, so to highlight a particulalry interesting model with good performace figures would be appropriate, but every single derivative of a range? Leave that to the manufacturer's websites and fan websites. Warren Whyte (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

CO2, when listed, should most definitely be measured in g/km rather than based on assumptions of yearly use. Simply multiply by 37.57977.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

While one aspect of a car's performance, I think fuel economy data has little relevance. On anything other than a current model year car, the data is historical trivia.

Its difficult to justify inclusion of material in an article that people have shown real life they pay little attention to. For example, in 2008, with US gas prices at all time highs, large vehicles remained the best sellers.

Consumers treat much of the EPA data as cruft. If its cruft real life, its double cruft on wikipedia. I prefer no fuel economy tables and a passing prose menjton at most. Bradkay (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative powertrain meat puppetry

Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariordo.

Hi, Pineapple fez has just notified me of Mariordo and company's rock-bottom Wikipedia:Meat puppetry attempt, see green.autoblog.com. Thoughts?

Here's an archived version should it go missing. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And here's some shoddy journalism from "Miss Electric": original, archived version. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, not even wait for me to show up! First, Wikipedia:Meat puppetry is clearly tag in the top as "This is a failed proposal" so you are directing the discussion to the wrong policy. The right place is WP:MEAT. Second, you are maliciously bringing your unsuccessful attempt to get me sanctioned due to canvasing (see here), which ended up in nothing one admin explained to you that my behavior was within the policies, and another admin had to call your attention for making threats and a list of demands (not counting the votes of the alleged canvassing). Third, it is an universal legal principle that you are innocent until proven the contrary, but you already said from the first line that I am guilty (not suspect). Since you already opened an investigation I will make my case there, but both blog publications have a lot of content from the discussions above and specific quotes, from me, from you, and other editors. Wouldn't you think that there is possibility that the guy or gal was so lazy that simply did a cut and paste? And to add more spice to this alleged "leak" you are accusing four editors of suspected sockpuppets just because they support the same POV as me? Four, I really welcome the scrutiny, external and internal, in favor or against my POV (AutoBlog has a lot of those with very similar wording use in the discussions above), and I most of all, I do not understand your huge concern, Wikipedia is wide open, everything we write is registered in the history, available for anyone to check, so this WikiLeak is just an oxymoron! Last, when are you going to learn that discussions here are based on arguments to try to reach consensus, seeking excuses to eliminate votes against your position has been a constant throughout the hybrids. As stated in WP:MEAT: Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideallynot be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Are you worry that the tide was beginning to change? Stop the distractions and let's go back to the discussions. I would say no more for respect of Wiki civility pillar (or until I cool down).--Mariordo (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty clearly Mariordo based on the language in the "anonymous" tip (I could go deeper into my reasoning if needed). If this is the case it is a pretty startling bad faith attempt at off cite canvassing. The effort to remain anonymous means that they no what they are doing is against policy and wrong. We picked up a few SPA votes, which should certainly be discounted. What I find interesting is the comments on green.autoblog largely support the merger of these articles with a good understanding that as hybrid versions of vehicles become more common separate articles for EV and hybrid powertrains become less important. --Leivick (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought when I was reading the comments, astounded that most are in favour of the mergers!

Like you've said, there are a number of other give-aways in the language that point it to Mariordo, but I'll bring those up if need be later. I would like to solicit the opinions of a few more editors before making a formal complaint. In my initial two mergers (Camry Hybrid and Elantra LPI Hybrid) Mariordo canvassed votes from editors that he knew or had a strong reason to believe would support his perspective. Pleading ignorance barely scrapped as an excuse the first time, but second time round he had no excuse. It seems that he is getting a little more advanced with his canvassing attempts this time.... let's waits and see. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't say it's meatpuppetry at all. At no time does the un-named source request that readers of the blog come to WP to contribute to the argument. It's only the blog authors (Sebastian Blanco and Miss Electric) who do that. And looking at the comments on the autoblog article, there doesn't seem to be a mass inclination to join in. Meat-puppetry, like vandalism, has a specific definition on WP and I wouldn't say this meets [sic] it. --DeLarge (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it meatpuppetry either. It is canvassing, while not directly requesting votes, it is clearly intended to scew the discussion in their favor and the anonymous nature of the "tip" is clearly an acknowledgment that they understand the issues with this and want to avoid scrutiny. How are we supposed to develop a consensus when editors are clearly attempting to poison the discussion by soliciting outside voices to argue in their favor. --Leivick (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside voices? I thought Wikipedia was the encyclopedia anyone could edit? If this canvassing brings in some new, very rational and sensible arguments in opposition to the mergers, should we discard them purely because they're from new editors? We can judge the arguments by themselves without worrying about who they're from. --DeLarge (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, it's a green car blog so it is clearly an attempt to skew the voting. It is also against policy to do this. I have seen big notices placed by administrators at the top of discussions before that say something along the lines of, "If you were requested to comment here from outside of Wikipedia please do not join in this discussion as it may skew the results of the discussion..." OSX (talk • contributions) 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly is meat puppetry. The notice at the very top of WP:MEAT, states:

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, and seek comments from other Wikipedians or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

The definition speaks for itself really. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It still wasn't meatpuppetry though. Read what I said, and re-read the blog postings. The anonymous source NEVER says "come to WP and argue in our favour". Only the blog authors themselves do that. As DJL says, it was canvassing.

If you check WP:CANVAS you'll see the appropriate/inappropriate chart at the top of the page. By only e-mailing one person (with no guarantee that a subsequent blog posting would result) and by keeping their tone very neutral and non-canvassy, the anonymous source has managed to tick two of the four boxes as far as keeping their behaviour "appropriate".

And it's canvassing's a behavioural guideline, not a policy. ;) --DeLarge (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at terms used in the definition: "It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to [...] communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate."

"Advertise" is the operative term, and advertising is certainly what has occurred. Mariordo has been very sneaky in his use of terminology to cover his back to claim any number of excuses. We don't know what was is in the contents of the original email, but I can almost guarantee that there was some sort of request to publish a story on it. We only get to see the quoted material that Mariordo wanted to see published. Call me cynical, but it is only basic common sense. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And as I said before, they sent one e-mail with no guarantee that a blog post would subsequently be written unless they have editorial influence. The blog authors did the "advertising", and the blog authors made the meatpuppetry requests. The anonymous source did neither. --DeLarge (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No guarantee, but certainly the intention and hope that the blog authors do the advertising. What was published of the anonymous source does not explicitly ask others to join in, but the second response below certainly has links to the appropriate discussions down to the very section headings. If it is as neutral as you claim, why would Mariordo choose a green car website? Why not a general interest website? It would be like having a debate on Israel and one editor emailing an anti-Israeli blogger to assist in skewing the discussion. If you oppose the mergers that is one thing, but to defend a text book case of meat puppetry is not on. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and on the AutoblogGreen website, Sebastian Blanco states, "AutoblogGreen was sent the an [sic] anonymous message through a friend..." Would a friend who is also interested in green vehicles really turn down such a request? I think not. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be a shame for this to turn into a Wikipedia policy argument. I got the feeling that there was a start of a consensus that stand alone articles for a mere powertrain alternative of an existing car rarely merited a stand alone article, and the blog appears to be ignoring the pretty sane discussions here and doing eco-friends no favours by playing the green-wash card. Warren Whyte (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Warren, meat puppetry (like sock puppetry, but sneakier) is a serious policy violation—the outcomes of major discussions can be skewed by this behaviour. I am not trying to turn this into a policy argument, but there is a clear and serious violation at hand here that is disrupting the very foundations of this project—community consensus. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is ample evidence that it is you, since you admitted on the blog that "a few years ago did my bit in trying to upgrade the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid , which at one point was a "Featured" article." Well I checked the edit history and confirmed this. I have zero doubt that it was you; the language used, the tone, and the terminology; it has Mariordo written all over it. How many people around the world do you think are following this discussion? And why would the tipster need to remain anonymous if they weren't a particiapant in this discussion?

"Are you worry [sic] that the tide was beginning to change?": well yes actually. By seeking editors from a website that has a clear bias to alternative-propulsion vehicles, the higher majority of the reader-base is going to oppose the changes because it is a green car fan website. Just like if I posted the a similar whinge on an anti-hybrid/EV page, you wouldn't like it (and I am not anti-hybrid or EV, I just don't see the point in separate articles). If I am anti-hybrid and EV, I must also be anti-performance car and anti-badge engineering as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious Mariordo is trying to attract off site support for his position. I don't even disagree with Mariordo on a lot of what he has said and have voted in agreement with him a number of times, I valued his voice in this discussion, so accusing me of attempting to undermine his position based on Wikilayering policy is a total red hearing. What I find doubly troubling is his response to it, which amounts to: 1. "You used the wrong link to the policy page, here is the right one." (So what?) 2. "You have accused me of this in the past". (Doesn't make a difference, being accused of something in the past and not having been reprimanded doesn't give you a pass now.) 3. "I haven't been proven guilty, but will not assert my innocence." (This isn't a court of law and pleading the fifth isn't going to work here, the fact that you sent these messages anonymously indicates that you knew what you where doing was wrong and wanted to avoid scrutiny). 4. "It isn't a problem anyway." (It is a problem when you attempt to sway a discussion by selectively soliciting outside influence. How would you react if OSX went to an anti-hybrid blog and said "eco nuts are trying to create needless pages to boost hybrid vehicles.") 5. "You are doing this solely eliminate votes and undermine the consensus building process." (This sort of canvassing is what undermines the consensus building process and creates huge amounts of needless drama. OSX pointing it out is a result of your actions, so shifting the blame isn't going to work)

I'm not really sure what should be done, but I think ANI might be a good idea and I definitely think SPA votes need to be discounted. --Leivick (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You can see my initial response [5], where it belongs. I will not participate in the Roman circus here. Since OSX already open an investigation and do not see the point to continue discussion here. Go and comment there.--Mariordo (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Daniel. I am not really qualified to deal with these sorts of deceitful practices, because I usually keep out of red-tape that extends beyond WP:CARS (I have never had to deal with anything on this scale before). So far I have opened up an investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariordo. Would ANI be redundant or a worthwhile excerise? OSX (talk • contributions) 05:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the sockpuppet investigation is going to turn up anything because I don't think there are sockpuppets involved. I do think making a neutrally worded post at ANI would probably be a good idea we could go around in circles here. I would suggest showing your reasons for believing the anonymous tipster to be Mariordo. In my mind the lack of denial and outright support for the behavior makes it clear to me, but others might need the connection in language and circumstances between the tip email and Mariordo's other posts to be fleshed out. Also try not to make it too long a lot of ANI regulars practice TL;DR. --Leivick (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"The term meatpuppet may be considered derogatory and should be used with care." Wiki:Meat ---North wiki (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the huge concern is. The comments at Autoblog Green largely agreed that hybrid vehicles don't need their own articles.

Furthermore, the blog post specifically calls on people who already have "clout" -- that is to say, established editors, not people newly recruited for the cause. IFCAR (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Buick Roadmaster

This was once a short concise article. Sections on generations have been added with charts and photos but almost no text. The result is a page that is mostly white space, and a lot less usable than the article was without the generations. I have posted about the problem at Buick Roadmaster Talk suggesting either more material be provided or the generations be removed. Bradkay (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Performax International

A new article has been started by a new editor here at Performax International. The article appears entirley self-promotional advertising. The author particpates in no other articles except to further make his company look better. I'm familiar with the business, they are a low-volume importer of motor vehicles into Australia, specialising in right-hand-drive conversion of low volume sports cars from left-hand-drive markets that have no presence in Australia. Despite large amount of references (mailny to its own advertising so far as can be told, I believe this fails notability, however I wanted opinions of others before I go any further. --Falcadore (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the first two paragraphs are OK. Rest is promotion. Bradkay (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but... is it AfD worthy? What is the usual limits for automotive companies? Is it notable? --Falcadore (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've puzzled over the line between notable and not without success. I concentrated on the first two paragraphs, not the majority of the article which is clearly promotion. The first two paragraphs indicate this is a real company, although small, not someone hacking up cars in his garage pretending to be a company. So if its a company, its notable to me. This may not match policy, which I admit puzzles me. Bradkay (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that if the article is even 20% true, it would be notable - after having been cut down to about a quarter. I would like to include (a rewritten version of) the process of engineering a conversion, as I found that part rather interesting. What do our Aussie editors say, have you heard of Performax Int'l?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of this Queensland-based company in passing as the company behind RHD Chevrolet Camaro conversions. I am not sure how notable they are though. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)