Talk:Subaru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Japan / Business and economy / Cars  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 21:05, December 7, 2016 (JST, Heisei 28) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Business and economy task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Japanese cars task force.
 


Pronunciation[edit]

The pronunciation /tsʊbɑːrʊ/ given in the article (added on 4 October 2015‎) is completely wrong and also not even closely matches the Youtube video it references, on top of that it links to the page for IPA for English whereas in the video, the pronunciation is in Japanese. Even if it is supposed to be the transcription for English, it is far off. Where does the /ts/ and stretched /ɑː/ come from? Because I am not a linguist, I cannot say how it is written (or even pronounced) correctly in either language. Until someone finds a proper source for the phonetic transcription or is skilled enough to make a correct one himself, I suggest removing the current transcription. 79.225.17.130 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I know that Aussies and Yanks pronounce it differently. Aussies say soo-bah-ROO while Yanks say soo-BAH-roo.  Stepho  talk  21:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Stepho-wrs. The American pronunciation of Subaru is not a universally agreed one. So It's better to keep the Japanese pronunciation which is the most correct and original. Ttt74 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. This is the English language Wikipedia. English language Wikipedia recognizes the "American" variant of English as a valid alternative; see WP:ENGVAR. The United States is one of Subaru's most important markets, and certainly one of its largest English-speaking markets if not the largest. Given that, excluding what you are calling the "American" pronunciation is ridiculous... particularly since the British do seem to use it too; listen and watch here). It's fine to annotate it as the U.S./British pronunciation, but not to exclude it as if it doesn't exist. Jeh (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with you, This is not the American Wikipedia too. And as well many different countries pronounce it differently: It is bad idea to use the American pronunciation as the main one. Ttt74 (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not the American Wikipedia, but we do include American topics and American issues. Right? Why, we even allow, per WP:ENGVAR, whole articles written purely in the American variant of English! Sometimes those articles nothing whatsoever to do with anything outside of the U.S.! Oh, the horror.
Anyway, as I said (and documented), there is nothing uniquely "American" about the pronunciation used in the US, as the British use it too. It is ridiculous to have an article in English language Wikipedia that refuses to include the pronunciation used by native English speakers in both the US and in Britain.
Nothing was ever said about declaring it the "main one"; in fact I suggested annotating it (it will have to say at least "U.S. and Great Britain"). But to exclude it completely is to say that the common pronunciation used by almost 400 million English-speaking people (I daresay the majority, if not the vast majority, of Subaru's English-speaking market) is irrelevant to the English language Wikipedia. I cannot imagine a valid justification for such an exclusionist stance. Jeh (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Another reference for UK usage - this one from the UK Subaru company. One could discount the Top Gear video as being quirks of the presenters but I think we could trust the Subaru UK company to get it right. No? [1] Jeh (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
And to @Stepho-wrs:: No, we "Yanks" put the emphasis on the first syllable. As do Hammond and Clarkson. Jeh (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I've heard Yanks say the word and it definitely sounds different to the way Aussies say it, even if I can't describe it. However, I have no problem listing it with multiple pronunciations according to major country groups. The only thing I would object to is to have a single pronunciation (US, UK, Australian or otherwise) listed as the one and only official form.  Stepho  talk  06:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs: Thank you for replying! Complete agreement there. WP:NPOV after all requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
Can you find a Subaru Australia ad for reference? I found this but it sounds like they're really pushing the Australian accent for effect. If you listen to a few more of the ads that follow it's not as "pushed". They are in any case putting the stress on the first syllable (as we do in the US) but they're maybe putting a little secondary emphasis on the third syllable, and they're also holding the first and third syllables longer than we do. Maybe like SUUU-baa-Ruu instead of SU-ba-ru. We run through those three syllables very quickly.... depending on the speaker. As if, once we've hit the "SU", we want to get the rest of it over and done with.
Incidentally I found an ad from Germany with the "soo-BAR-oo" stressing. But I can't find it now, and anyway German-language pronunciation isn't relevant here. I'll bet native Spanish speakers use that pattern also, as that would fit their usual rules. Jeh (talk)
@Stepho-wrs: I'm not against using multiple pronunciations. But the solution can be easier and more right, if we want to deal about the one and only official form, when we use the most original pronunciation which is the Japanese one. Ttt74 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't agree that the pronunciation used by Subaru in their own advertisements has any "official" standing? What is it, then? If Subaru wanted us to refer to the car by its Japanese pronunciation, wouldn't they be using the Japanese in their ads? Anyway, this is English language Wikipedia, not Japanese, and so my arguments above stand unrefuted. We document sales figures and other aspects in non-Japanese-speaking countries; why not pronunciation? Jeh (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The ads you are talking about are made by Subaru of America, Inc which is one of the global distributors of Subaru: those different distributors doesn't use necessary the same pronunciation. I don't think using the American pronunciation is a good idea. Ttt74 (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that's what you think. Do you have a fact-based logical argument that is based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Such as WP:NPOV, which you claim to support?
Not just "Subaru of America". As I have pointed out several times, I've also cited ads made by Subaru of UK, and Subaru of Australia. And I've linked a segment from the UK's TV program Top Gear. And again I point out: this is the English-language Wikipedia. The pronunciation used in English-speaking countries is absolutely relevant here.
MOS agrees. WP:MOSIPA#Foreign names says "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first." There's no doubt or ambiguity about that. Jeh (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
MOS agrees: Let me be clear here, I'm not against using English pronunciation before the Japanese one: However, the issue is WITH the common English pronunciation of Subaru which doesn't seem to exist: You've just proved that Australian pronunciation is different from the American one: Besides, Yanks and New Zealanders pronounce it differently from the U.S.

The English language doesn't necessary support American pronunciation: For example any beginner in English language, if he meets the word Subaru: he pronounce it Su-Bah-Ru, not su-bu-ru as what Americans do.

Do you have a fact-based logical argument that is based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Such as WP:NPOV, which you claim to support: Remember to assume good faith, I said what I think with proves: accusing falsely others of professing their support of WP:NPOV is one of the personal attacks you was warned previously on your talk page: It's just because you failed to prove your claims in any convincing manner: no one else seems to support your changes. Ttt74 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
"I'm not against using English pronunciation before the Japanese one". That's an odd thing for you to say, given that you reverted to exclude an English IPA. If your argument was with the choice of IPA then you should have simply fixed it, or noted that it needed to be fixed.
"The common English pronunciation of Subaru which doesn't seem to exist": Well, one, that claim is not supported by references. But even if it's true, we don't need a "common English pronunciation"; the MOS passage I quoted above supports including multiple English pronunciations. I've added emphasis to the key words that show that.
"su-bu-ru as what Americans do". Not necessarily. Not even commonly to my ear. I would agree that "Su-bu-ru" (where the "bu" uses a "long vowel", i.e. rhyming with "blue") is simply incorrect; there's nothing in the word to suggest a long u sound. But if it exists, it's probably a regional or personal thing. Those happen. Perth and Sydney residents don't speak the same accent either. There's not a lot of difference between "buh" (the "u" rhyming with the one in, say, "bus") and "bah" (rhyming with, well, "ah").
Asking you for a fact-based argument based in P&G is in no way an AGF violation. It's just saying "this is what you need to support your argument, and I don't think you've done that yet."
What do you mean by "P&G"? Ttt74 (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
P&G = Policies & Guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Amatulic: Thank you. Ttt74 (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
How am I "falsely accusing you of supporting NPOV?" Don't you have userboxes on your user page that say you "This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues" and "This user gets quite annoyed when they see POV in the mainspace."? Isn't that you stating that you support NPOV? And why would my claiming that you support NPOV be an "accusation" anyway? We're all supposed to support NPOV.
It seems to me that your argument is basically ~"some Americans mispronounce it, therefore we shouldn't include any American pronunciation, and since multiple accents exist we really can't pick any standard English one, so we should exclude English altogether." I frankly think you're "grasping at straws." MOS is fully aware that multiple national and even regional accents of English exist; that doesn't stop us from including an English IPA in many, many articles. Assuming that the American pronunciation is different enough from say UK to warrant a separate IPA - I don't think it is - excluding the American would violate both NPOV and the MOS passage I quoted. MOS does allow multiple English pronunciations after all.
And it is quite clear that @Stepho-wrs: and I are in agreement, so I don't know where you are getting that no one else supports my changes. Looks to me like you're alone here. Please WP:FOC and stop trying to find fault with me in imagined slights that don't exist. Jeh (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, consensus does not depend on voting. Consensus depends on logical arguments that are based in verifiable facts and in correct application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:MOS is part of the latter and clearly supports the inclusion of English-language IPA, regardless of whether the word is of foreign origin. And that's a "case closed." Jeh (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Given the MOS passage, I will be restoring the English IPA after I check out and maybe improve the actual IPA text. Jeh (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
"That's an odd thing for you to say, given that you reverted to exclude an English IPA", "I frankly think you're "grasping at straws", "WP:MOS is part of the latter and clearly supports the inclusion of English-language IPA, regardless of whether the word is of foreign origin": Well, I just explained my revert [2]: it simply cannot be fixed as you said "we don't need a "common English pronunciation"", but when we got into a conflict like this, it will be better to leave things as it is; Moreover, there is longstanding consensus on all of the other instances of Wikipedia (like the Persian one [3]) regarding the use of the Japanese pronunciation; and it seems that the English Wikipedia is the only one to be using a different pronunciation; So are those instances all wrong for using solely the "foreign" Japanese pronunciation?

"And it is quite clear that @Stepho-wrs: and I are in agreement, so I don't know where you are getting that no one else supports my changes": User:Stepho-wrs doesn't seem to agree with your change, when he said: 'The only thing I would object to is to have a single pronunciation (US, UK, Australian or otherwise) listed as the one and only official form': Maybe you should firstly convince him about your claim.

"Asking you for a fact-based argument based in P&G is in no way an AGF violation": You accused me falsely of not following the WP:NPOV principle without proof: and you really need to AGF.

"Anyway, consensus does not depend on voting", "Please WP:FOC and stop trying to find fault with me in imagined slights that don't exist": Maybe you misunderstood me, I didn't mean that you need votes, this is an article and not an election; What I meant is from the agreement side which depends on your ability to convince the other editors about your changes; I'm on your side that consensus should depend on logical arguments rather than voting, but when someone try to push his POV about American pronunciation without giving any logical argument which can may make his case on this dispute resolution is what makes his claim inappropriate.

"" Looks to me like you're alone here"": I think the fact that you failed to convince other editors, is the thing what made you write things like this. Your lack of AGF in this discussion is well showing: So there is no consensus for your change. Ttt74 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no AGF issue here. Saying you are mistaken, or that what you propose (to eliminate all English pronunciations) would be a POV or MOS violation, is not failing to AGF. I'm simply pointing out a problem with your position. It is not a personal attack or an AGF failure just because you disagree. You can be wrong, you can make illogical arguments, you can opine or even act contrarily to WP P&G, you can even propose things that would (in others' opinion) violate NPOV, all while still acting in GF. AGF simply requires that we all assume (absent very clear evidence to the contrary) that the other person is acting, in their own opinion and belief, to help the project. I've never said anything to you that implied anything else.
If I opined that you were proposing something that you knew was contrary to NPOV, that would be failure to AGF on my part. See the difference? (Of course, it must be mentioned that "AGF" is not an absolute rule. Sometimes it is clear that the other person isn't acting in good faith.)
To eliminate the English pronunciation would fail to include a POV that is covered in a significant number of RSs. Again: WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It would be very difficult for you to argue that the English pronunciation is not significant or not important, particularly among readers of English language Wikipedia.
My arguing against a clear POV violation is not "POV-pushing".
It doesn't matter what other-language WPs do. They're not "wrong" for having different rules, but where the rules differ, the rules for English-language WP do apply to en.wikipedia.org. As I quoted before, MOS states unequivocally, with no possibility of compromise, that we should have both the English and foreign-language pronunciation (or multiple English pronunciations if they exist). That is not "my POV", that is WP P&G. P&G always wins. Jeh (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It sounds really odd from your part to be wasting your energy on an article you were not familiar with: either try to improve this article the right way, or else drop it. Ttt74 (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
You really need to respond with fact- and P&G-based arguments. "Try to improve the article the right way" is not it. (But your concern for my "wasting my energy" is noted.) Jeh (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── May I propose we use something like the following simple list:

/tsʊbɑːrʊ/ or /subəru/ (Japanese pronunciation: [tsʊbɑːrʊ])

I'm not a linguist, so feel free to suggest corrections/improvements. I would avoid trying to specify particular countries (it can differ even within a single country) but would just have a list of known pronunciations. Is there a linguist project we could ask for some recommendations? - surely they would have come across this issue before.  Stepho  talk  03:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the leading /t/ is coming from in the first one. I just can't make that match anything I've heard. The alternate vowel-sounds for the middle syllable, though, do a good job of covering the variations there. Jeh (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to put it in as you have it, @Stepho-wrs:. We can always improve it later. Jeh (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is an improvement: That's an over-weighting of the American pronunciation over other English variants: and Wikipedia is not here to promote any entity over the other. Ttt74 (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Who said it's the "American" pronunciation? It matches both the US and UK youtube samples I provided earlier. If you think there is another English pronunciation with significant usage you are of course free to add it. (By the way, did you know there is no such country as "America"?) Jeh (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
As I explained above there is other entities, who pronounce it differently. Ttt74 (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Which, as I explained immediately above, you are free to add as alternatives. Meanwhile, including a pronunciation that you happen to regard as "American" (even though it is demonstrably common to both US and UK) is in no way "over-weighting", it is simply inclusive of a significant point of view; exclusion of which would violate NPOV. The fact that there are multiple possible "English" pronunciations, or that one of them happens to be what you call "American", is not an impediment to including an English IPA in any other article here that I've ever seen; there is no particular reason why it should be an issue for this one. If you prefer to work in an area where English pronunciations are ignored as if they don't exist, then I suggest you would be better off not editing the English language Wikipedia.
But... I have made most of these points before, and you simply ignore them. So it appears we are arguing in circles. I am taking this to a DR forum. Jeh (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know about this discussion and edited to this /ˈsbər/. I'm confident that this is an accurate transcription of the way the name is pronounced in the two YouTube videos given as sources. In particular:
  • As Jeh pointed out, the leading /t/ in the current article seems to have come from nowhere. It doesn't seem evident in either source or in the discussion above.
  • From the YouTube video the first syllable and last syllables are definitely /uː/ not /ʊ/. Given the way English is pronounced an unstressed /ʊ/ is most likely to reduce to a schwa, so having a word with two /ʊ/ just doesn't look like an English transcription and raises red flags.
  • The /u/ phoneme in English is a long vowel, transcribed as /uː/ on Wikipedia.
So I think that the primary English pronunciation (the "official" one) should certainly be /ˈsbər/. I'm familiar with the alternative pronunciation and it appears to be just a change of stress to the second syllable. This reduces the first vowel to a schwa (or a rounded schwa) and turns the second syllable to /ɑː/, yielding /sᵿbˈɑːr/.
Ben Arnold (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ben Arnold: Seems fine to me. Thank you for the edit. Jeh (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to say that my edit had been reverted. Since you seem happy I've boldly re-introduced my edit, this time with both alternatives. I hope that I've taken account of the comments here. My change is essentially just a technical correction to the IPA that was already there, although I've also placed the YouTube pronunciation first, because it appears to be the "official" pronunciation. Ben Arnold (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, that revert. Well, I think it is good now and I encourage @Stepho-wrs: to concur. Jeh (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem.  Stepho  talk  05:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for new content[edit]

Although the lede here makes much of the "boxer engine layout" and "Symmetrical AWD drive train" (and deservedly so), these points are inadequately covered in the article body. Although we do have separate articles on both of these they should each get at least a paragraph or two in the "technology" section. Jeh (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no need to do so: This article shouldn't be more than it should be. Ttt74 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
"This article shouldn't be more than it should be" doesn't say anything. These are defining features of Subaru's products (other than the BRZ) and have been for some time. Besides, since they're in the lede, they should be described in the article body (per WP:LEDE). Jeh (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Those three huge lists of models[edit]

This is not what we call encyclopedic content. Encyclopedic content would not necessarily include every model Subaru ever made. Encyclopedic content would describe -- not simply list -- the models that were significantly different from previous ones when they were introduced, would describe how they were different, how well they were received, and how they affected later models (if they did).

Briefly a section of a Wikipedia article should not simply be a list of links to other articles. Per WP:PROSE,

"Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain."

These lists don't explain anything.

We can either split them out to a separate "list article", as is done at List of Toyota vehicles. Or we can turn them into a navigation template, like the ones at the end of the General Motors article. It would have three major sections for historical, current, and concept models. It could have further subdivisions based on type of vehicle, or whatever else seems appropriate.

Of course we can (and should) also add prose describing the significant models, why they were significant, etc. But for a "big dumb list" of all of the models, either a separate list article or a nav template is what we're supposed to do. Jeh (talk) 07:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Overly detailed" template[edit]

This template was recently added to the article by @Ttt74:. I request that she or he explain specifically what she or he considers "an excessive amount of intricate detail" in the article.

This article is actually of considerably shorter length and to contain considerably less "intricate detail" than other articles about major car manufacturers. Currently it is at about 37,500 bytes and about 20 section and subsection headings, and just one L4 heading. For comparison, the Toyota article is about 139,000 bytes and about 38 section and subsection heads and over a dozen L4 headings. The Nissan article is about 78,000 bytes and about 32 section and subsection heads.

If anything it would appear that this article is deficient in its coverage and lacking in detail.

Exactly what "intricate detail" is the problem here? Jeh (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

... never mind, Ttt74 changed it to a "geographic imbalance" template, with edit comment indicating her or his issue is with the addition of English pronunciation. This is already being discussed above. Jeh (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

History, etc., section[edit]

"From 1954 to 2008 the company designed and manufactured dozens of vehicles including..." It is not appropriate to simply change the "To" year to 2012 and tack on the BRZ, because this material is describing what happened during the company organization and ownership of that period. As described in the next subsection, Subaru went through a lot of partial ownership changes and so on up to 2008, but 2008 was a "sea change" in which "Toyota increased their share of FHI to 16.5% in July of 2008" (after GM dumped their stock in FHI). And the BRZ was co-developed with Toyota after that.

You can't describe the BRZ as something that happened in the period before Toyota bought that FHI stock, nor as something that happened without Toyota's involvement. And that's what you're doing if you put it in that list, given where that list is in the narrative. Jeh (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

From the above I can understand where you are coming from. But this is by no means clear in the article itself. The paragraph talks about the P1, then suddenly switches to a list of vehicles from 1954 to 2008. It does not make it clear that 2008 is a special year (although this is mentioned in another section, far away from that paragraph). If 2008 is used as a special year then it should also be mentioned why that year is special. If 1954 to 2008 gets a list of vehicles then 2008 onward should also get a list. Or we could just delete the idea of lists since it doesn't seem to add much to understanding the history.  Stepho  talk  22:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. It was perfectly clear to me from the article itself. But it could be made more clear.
I think mentioning the most significant vehicles developed under each period of ownership/organization would add significantly to the context in this section. This would mean breaking up the existing list (as necessary) into multiple periods. I am sure some of those in the existing list happened after the Nissan acquisition in 1968, for example. From the dates given in the existing list + the dates for the various stock movements, it Looks to me like the R2 through the Forester belong in the "Nissan period", and the Baha through the Exiga to the "GM period", then of course the BRZ in the 2008 and later Toyota period. Jeh (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I've taken a crack at the above. What do you think? Jeh (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's better but the part that seems confusing to me is how the main part of the history section is mainly a chronology that is then followed by topical subsections. To me, the chronology stops as soon as we changed topic to shareholders. It is not obvious that the chronology is meant to continue or that there is an order to the following topics.  Stepho  talk  05:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I propose making the "Later partnerships" section the end of the History section and adding a new L2 section for "International operations" or some such. Maybe that little "marketing" subsection can be moved back to the history section. However since marketing slogans are very country-specific, I wonder about that. Jeh (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good - go for it!  Stepho  talk  07:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I went. There are still some disconnected things but I think overall it's an improvement. I can't do much more with that part without doing more wide-scope rewriting than I want to. Jeh (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Excellent - it now flows much better and is much easier to understand. The only other change I would make is to lift the 'Marketing efforts' up to L2 so that the History section can work as a chronology from start to end. The change of direction when it gets to marketing is a little jarring. I would also be tempted to put years in the remaining 2 history section titles (ie 'Fuji Heavy Industries (FHI) and Subaru's first cars (1915–1968)' and 'Later partnerships (1968–present)' but I'm not too fussed if that doesn't happen.  Stepho  talk  10:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)