Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid/Archive 1

Archive 1

About suggestion to be merged with Toyota Camry

This is for people that want to learn specifics about the hybrid. They do not care about the history of the toyota camry, irrelevent competition, irrelevent market, etc.. The toyota camary article has 95% info that people interested in the hybrid don't care about. Also this article will contain details of the hybrid version.

This article will eventually grow very large. If you try to include all this info into the Camry page then it will exceed the recommended article length. Perhaps think of the Solera having its own page.

Daniel.Cardenas 21:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding External Links

If you would like to add an external link that is not directly associated with the Camry Hybrid, please discuss here why you think it is appropriate, otherwise it may get deleted. Daniel.Cardenas 16:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Added the followings: Camry Hybrid not just have VSC/TRAC, but also Vehicle Dynamics Integrated Management [VDIM]; also included references for LED tail lights Rgl168 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Motor power is incorrect

The electric motors are NOT 45 HP, though this is a common misconception. They are 105 kW, which is 140 HP. It is the battery that can output 40 or 45 HP (30 kW). For comparison, the Prius' battery only outputs 28 HP, even though the motors are capable of 67 HP. What that means is, in electric-only mode, the Camry's horsepower is 45 HP, but while the engine is running to feed electricity to the motors, their full 140 HP can be used. Similarly, when the Prius is in electric-only mode, it is effectively 28 HP; the motors only run at 67 HP when the engine is feeding electricity to them. CGameProgrammer 00:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch.  :-) Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas 06:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I fixed it myself, to add more details on the battery, ICE, and motors. Feel free to rephrase what I wrote if you want. CGameProgrammer 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The electric motor is more than 45 hp. 45 hp is the net amount of extra power you get when it is running with the gas engine. I think the total power you get from both at the same time is dependant on the rpm of the gas engine (gas engine produced power at high rpm, the electric at low rpm). ZacJ71 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Status as a 'future product'

The car should indeed still be classified as a future product, but not for long. It is in production now and some dealers report they'll be getting the cars in early May. I'd suggest removing the future label as soon as May rolls around. CGameProgrammer

In fact several California dealers near me report getting the cars within the next week. I'll try to take pictures, and upload one to this article. CGameProgrammer 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am now the proud owner of a Camry Hybrid and am driving it every day...it certainly cannot be a "Future Product" anymore. Will see if this is still in the main article page somewhere and, if so, remove it. Theflyer 12:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Toyota / Ford share technology with Hybrids

Just for information and to try out a Wiki, Ford Escape and Toyota hybrids share the same technology when it comes to the traction motors and the programming. I was at a Ford seminar on the Escape Hybrid and it was interesting to see how the two automakers combined their knowledge to create these new vehicles. Be aware that the new regenerative brakes which charges the batteries need to be serviced by trained technicians due to the high pressure hydraulic accumulator in the system. Training for paramedics, firemen and police officers is also recomended in case of an accident in which the "jaws of life" or other cutting tools are used to free the victem. The high voltage required to operate the motor and the battery can contain up to 380 volts and 80 amps. Online information is available for these emergency professionals for all hybrid manufacturers including Honda and GM.Albamontem M Albamonte

If we can source this better, it is good information and should be included in the main article. Albamonem, can you provide sourcing beyond "a Ford seminar"? Which seminar, when, where, who were the speakers? What sources did the speakers derive their information from? Theflyer 18:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If properly sourced, that would be good information to include in the main Hybrid Synergy Drive article. I'm not sure the Camry Hybrid page would be the appropriate place, though. Elcobbola 18:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Price

I removed the reference to the vehicle’s price, as both the base price and delivery charges vary from locale to locale (e.g. United States versus Canada). Additionally, price does not appear to be pertinent to the article in its current form (although it may be appropriate to mention that the Hybrid model carries a price premium over certain non-hybrid Camry models). Elcobbola 18:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think price is useful so you can compare it with other cars in its class like the Altima and previous model Accord Hybrid. ZacJ71 (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not CVT

The sentence stating the Camry Hybrid has a Continuously Variable Transmission is directly contradicted by the article it links to, which states "CVTs should be distinguished from Power Sharing Transmissions (PSTs), as used in newer hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius, Highlander and Camry, the Nissan Altima, and newer-model Ford Escape Hybrid SUVs." Rsmoore (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fuel economy and environmental performance

Most of us are agreed that economy is extremely important to any hybrid vehicle article. Which means that the entire 'Fuel economy and environmental performance' section applies equally well to the Prius,the Fusion, the Civic. I propose that the table be separated into its own article (or shifted into a more appropriate common article if one exists).  Stepho  (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed. As you can see in the HEV article here, there is already a comparative table among a broader range of hybrids, and even a more comprehensive one here (regarding hybrids sold in the U.S.). The table included in this article is a comparison among hybrids within the Camry hybrid price range (competitors?), and not only shows fuel economy but also carbon footprint and EPA's pollution score, which are relevant for hybrids and green cars in general. So, I do not think it justifies to have an article just with the table. The other article with a similar table as the Camry is the Ford Fusion Hybrid [here]. You can check the Talk pages to confirm that in all of those articles nobody has complained about these tables, and only in the case of the Fusion there was a discussion but limited to which models should be included (several luxury hybrids were included). Also you will notice that the Fusion Hybrid article even has two tables, as for purposes of NPOV one editor properly documented that EPA's mileage ratings are not achieve in practice and made a different comparison. Just as it happened with the Fusion article, there is room to improve the table, deleting models that do not compared to the Camry Hybrid, adding others, or adding other year model Camrys, etc. And by the way, because the Fusion and Camry hybrids are unquestionable mid-size competitors, I believe is fair to have the same table in both articles. Also, there is plenty of comparison in the automotive magazines between the two, if it is considered that some text should precede the table (I can do those edits if there is support to expanding that section - actually was planning to do it later).

Furthermore, you need to take into account that content and perspective in green car articles is quite different from the regular automotive related articles, as the emphasis is not so much about the engineering aspect but instead is about the environmental benefits, the technological advances making the cars "cleaner" or "greener", and the like. Notice for example that articles about luxury hybrids with low environmental value (hollow hybrids and muscle hybrids, as environmental advocates call them) are just short sections (jsut as you guys proposed for the Camry), as clearly in these cases indeed there is no merit for a dedicated article. See for example BMW Active Hybrid 7, Mercedes-Benz S400, BMW ActiveHybrid X6, Cadillac Escalade Hybrid, and Mercedes-Benz ML450.--Mariordo (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mariordo. Johnfos (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral Could you build the proposed page in a sandbox, then we could all review it to see how it looks. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo - thank you for providing a link to a table which is almost identical to the table in the Camry hybrid article. Practically identical tables in multiple articles usually points to a need to put the table in a common place. There are two easy solutions to avoid duplicating data entry in WP. One way is my first proposal of putting the data in a separate article that all the hybrid articles can point to. The second way is to put the table into a template and then put that template into each hybrid article. I believe the template method should work as a good solution because it avoids duplicate work across multiple hybrid articles (my initial complaint) while still displaying the data in each hybrid article (which is what it appears you want).  Stepho  (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All the pointed tables are not identical, only the Fusion Hybrid and Camry Hybrid for the reason already explained above. Now tell me, if there is already a comprehensive table for U.S hybrids (therefore showing EPA ratings), how are you going to deal with European ratings and Japanese ratings, which are different and measure environmental performance different, or in order to delete the small table from the Camry article, you are just going to repeat the U.S. table here as a stand alone article?, which by the way, is not complete yet. Anyway, wait for other editors to express their opinion. You seem like an experience editor but this Camry Hybrid issue is now turning childish. I am here to contribute not to waste time arguing.-Mariordo (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you lost me somewhere. OSX was criticised for not discussing things here before changing but now you are criticising me for discussing things first. Note that I haven't changed the article yet and that I have also modified my proposal based on some of your feedback. How is that arguing? How is it childish to discuss ways that I think will improve the article?  Stepho  (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo, it appears that you are now so desperate to hang onto this article that you are filling it up with unencyclopedic content just so you can state there is too much content for a merger. This article is not a comparison of hybrid cars, it's about the Camry Hybrid. Do you see a performance table at Ferrari California with comparisons to its competitors? What about a table comparing off-road ability on the Toyota Land Cruiser page? Or one on cargo capacity at Chevrolet Express? No, the lazily copy-and pasted economy table is just a ploy to add clutter. Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide, and the table does not take into consideration that other countries use different means of expressing fuel economy (i.e L/100 km and km/L), or the fact that every country has different tests to ascertain this data. So a car might be the most fuel-efficient in one country, but testing methodology could favour another model elsewhere.

Now to the aftermarket section. It states, "[u]pgrades for the Toyota Camry Hybrid are similar to those of other hybrid vehicles which include extra batteries, chargers and solar panels." I am sure I could get 22-inch wheels, a subwoofer, a microwave oven, toaster and kettle installed if I wanted those as well. Should we add these potential aftermarket "upgrades" as well? "Other available upgrades are aftermarket body kits which include side skirts and front/rear bumpers. The camry hybrid also comes with a rear spoiler, but it can be replaced with an aftermarket one as well": gosh, I would never of guessed I could get a rear spoiler added to a Camry—how informative—and to top it off, it is written with complete disregard for punctuation as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So, I guess that will be a Support for me. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. As per User:OSX - this is just another variant of basically the same Camry. Also I agree that we should avoid comparisons in individual articles. -- de Facto (talk). 10:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• 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. IF this type of exhaustive tabular info is suited to Wikipedia at all (which I am NOT convinced of), it is best left to a "comparison of..." article. Zunaid 12:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OX, you did a nice job organizing, but you are leading one view, therefore please refrain from editing the content of the opposing view, and worst, deleting info and at the same time editing the article to implement your view. Let's finish this discussion first, the article can be improvove later.--Mariordo (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo, you have no right to deny me access to edit this article. I did not merge, I edited the existing contents (and I did not exercise my view at all). Please actually take the time to look at the changes I made rather than blindly reverting. Let me explain the changes to you:

• Infobox "related": those vehicles merely share platform, not enough to warrant inclusion.

• Lead: I removed the U.S.-centric sales info that was repeated word-for-word later on in the article and replaced that content with info regarding where the car is made and sold, and its differences compared to the non-hybrid car.

• I linked to the main article (Hybrid electric vehicles in the United States) rather than duplicating the same table. This will ensure updating the info will be much easier. Also this page is about the Camry, not hybrids in the USA in general, and does not consider other markets. That is biased towards the U.S. and that is not acceptable. The title of the article Hybrid electric vehicles in the United States means that it can be biased to the market.

• I removed unencyclopaedic content from the "Australia" section such as, "Prime Minister Kevin Rudd took the first test drive and highly commended the quality of the drive." The "Australia" section also repeated information that is repeated in the "specifications" section above, it also contained speculation about the next-gen model.

No further information was deleted, and do not tell me what articles I can and cannot edit. I have just as much right to edit the page and make improvements as you do.OSX (talk • contributions) 13:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And another thing. You state, "there was no consensus to delete the table". Well you added that table during the discussion to merge and there was no consensus to include it. Since the table was not there before, it has to go. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OSX, since now we are moving to a constructive move, then I will like to give it my take to improve the article during this weekend, but I ask you to be patient until I am finished (I will flag it in the edit summary). Please take into consideration the guidelines in WP:LEAD, since the lead is supposed to, among other things "explain why the subject is interesting or notable" and "summarize the most important points", and your trimming left some info regarding these two subjects out (from the economic/environmental POV). Also, of course the view has to be global, but when around 90% of the Camry HEVs has been sold in the US, its notability is related to the U.S. market (not North America). Also, please take a look around at the green car articles (HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs, both the general articles and about the specific models). There is a lot of typical content that you do not see in the typical automobile articles, which of course are written strictly from the automotive perspective. I will follow the green car style. Please also look also the tags for Wiki Projects in those articles, I did not added the Energy and Environment tags here to avoid being interpreted as a push of my POV, but those two are typical too).-Mariordo (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sales information because it was repeated word-for-word below. Including the sales figures does not really help your cause of proving notability, because it sells at a rate of less than one third of the Prius in the U.S. market. Sales here in Australia have only been fair, and Camrys in general sell at a snail's pace in Japan. Only vehicles with notable sales are worthy of mention in the lead (such as the high sales of the Toyota Corolla, or low sales of the Renault Avantime).

I would probably include information such how much less fuel the Hybrid uses compared to the basic 2.4 litre, five-speed automatic car—although please express this as a percentage, don't even bother quoting the MPG figure. You might also want to say, "governments in North America" have offered tax incentives for the purchase of the car, along with other privileges such as the use of car pool lanes." Don't go into too much detail: keep it short, keep it simple. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion ended by a reversal by OSX despite not having reach a consensus about the comparison table, and because it is now buried deep inside in the edit history, I am restoring here the table for reference and to avoid any confusion with the discussion that follos below (v. 2).-Mariordo (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Economic and environmental performance comparison of the Toyota Camry Hybrid
with other similar price range hybrid models available in the U.S.

Vehicle	Year model	EPA City mileage (mpg)	EPA Highway mileage (mpg)	Annual fuel cost(1) (USD)	Carbon footprint (Ton/yr of CO2)	EPA Air Pollution Score(2)	CARB Global Warming Score	Passenger volume (in ft.3)
Toyota Prius	2010	51	48	$819	3.7	8	10	94
Ford Fusion Hybrid	2010	41	36	$1,048	4.7	8	9	101
Honda Civic Hybrid	2010	40	45	$975	4.5	9	10	91
Honda Insight	2010	40	43	$999	4.5	8/9	10	85
Lexus HS	2010	35	34	$1,171	5.4	8/9	9	90
Nissan Altima Hybrid	2010	35	33	$1,204	5.5	9.5	9	101
Toyota Camry Hybrid	2010	33	34	$1,204	5.5	8	9	101
Toyota Camry Hybrid	2011	31	35	$1,241	5.7	NA	9	101

Notes: (1) Estimates assumes 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, and 15,000 annual miles. (2) All states except California and Northeastern states.

U.S. environmental performance table (v. 2)

Unfortunately OSX continues to trim most of the new content without previous discussion here and claiming one man consensus, his. Also, he continues to cherry pick content from this article to export it to the hybrid section in the main Toyota Camry (XV40) (see here the latest). Even for content that he approves, OSX edited the text here to mirror the one he copied + edited in the main article, esentially duplicating this article in the potential recipient if a merge is agreed. So, I am bringing the initial discussion regarding this issue from my user page to continue here, despite OSX reluctance to do so at my request. Also I am restoring the polemical table at the end of this edit, since already has been deleted three times from the article, so it would facilitate the discussion-Mariordo (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So Mariordo, where did you get the information from that you recently added to the "unique features" section? Oh, that's right, Toyota Camry (XV40) and you didn't even state that you got the information from that page so I guess that would be considered plagiarism. Did you see me whine over you doing that? No, because you improved the article in the process. Stop whining and participate in this discussing like an adult. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Check the history carefully, I clearly wrote in the edit summary: "converting section from bullets to prose (helped with some importing from the Camry (XV40) article)" and because of Wikipedia open domain license, there is no such a thing as plagiarism between Wiki articles. There are even some guys in Europe selling collection of our articles charging university textbook prices, and all because of the license we used.-Mariordo (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is your hypocrisy in complaining because I used content from this article at the XV40 page, while you had done the exact same thing except in reverse. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo, thanks for adding the extra information to "Unique features". I do however, believe that the independent fuel economy information is going a little too far. Again, it only adds to the U.S.-centric stance of the article, and any "fuel economy" test performed is rarely go 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.

I am happy to leave the EPA figure intact, and would like to include the Australian and Japanese figures as well. However, I think we can tone everything else down. Rather than the excessive table, we could say something along the lines of: "When released, the EPA rated the hybrid about 57 percent more economical on the city cycle, and 13 percent more economical on the highway cycle compared to the non-hybrid 2.4 liter automatic version." These are numbers that people can actually recognise. In the article's current form, all I see is a bunch of confusing numbers that seem way over the top. You could also add a sentence that says, "independent testing has achieved mixed results" with three or four citations to different tests (not just those that equal or better the EPA either, try and find one that's worse to balance out the statement). OSX (talk •contributions) 05:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please move your June 27 comment to the article's Talk page. We will continue the discussion there.-Mariordo (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to discuss here as that is where I started the conversation. How about we wait for the current verdict about the location of the contents before we go around making any more drastic changes? Would you be agreeable to resume this discussion when the other one is finished? This way we will not be discussing several things at once. Kind regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 06:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, no one is stopping you from making any changes without a consensus first, after all WP:Bold is an excellent thing. However, if there is an objection, other editors have every right to revert and request a consensus.OSX (talk • contributions) 06:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to OSX arguments and rationale for the fuel economy and environmental performance table:

• Due weight: The claimed US-centric bias of the article is simply the logical result of the U.S. being the main world market for HEVs (more than 50% of all cumulative sales up to December 2009 + Japan they have together more than 80% of the global market share for hybrids) and the plain fact that the U.S. is also the main market of the Camry Hybrid, as more than 90% of Camry Hybrids sold worldwide until 2009 were bought in the U.S. (see the exact sales figures in the article). Furthermore, there is also emphasis in California, because it is the main hybrid market in the U.S. and also has its own and more stringent tailpipe pollution in the country, and probably in the world. As already explain in several discussion above, the environmental performance in green car articles. While wait for other opinions and will restore the environmental performance table in the U.S. section, and if other editor want to add other country ratings for fuel economy and emissions, they are welcome. Nevertheless, I would expect that info to come from countries where the Camry Hybrid sales are relevant for purposes of due weight.

• Merit of the alledged "superfluous information": As already has been explain ad nauseam in this talk page, the key difference between the conventional car article (automotive/engineerign perspective) and articles about green cars is that the latter emphasize the environmental aspects such as fuel economy, emissions, awards, special features, and other issues regarding its economic consequences and sustainability and policy issues. On the other hand, just as the typical automobile article presents tables regarding engine and powertrain characteristics for the model of interest (as a very appropriate example see here the two existing tables in the Toyota Camry (XV40) article), I think there is nothing out of line to present environmental characteristics for several trims presented in the hybrid article, comparing the performance of hybrid vs non-hybrid models. Furthermore, to do an interpretation of the data, such as calculating percentages between hybrid and non-hybrid as OSX suggested, you will have to chose among several trims with several emissions standards, so this clearly would be blatant original research. Besides using data from a reliable source, another advantage of a table is that it allows to put the info together in a WP:NPOV manner, allowing each reader to draw its own conclusions. As examples, and I hope this deals with the superfluous claim, the info in the table shows that the new 2011 Camry Hybrid has a slightly lower environmental performance than the previous year models. The table shows that California standards result in Camry Hybrids with much better environmental performance in terms of smog pollution s compared to the federal standard. The table also shows which powertrains are cleaner, and the combination of all shows that due to California federal standards, gasoline-only powertrains produces much more less smog pollutions than hybrids sold under the federal standard. So I do believe there is a lot of useful info in the table presented without violating OR and NPOV policies, and better than presented in prose. Nevertheless, if someone is aware of such content in text format from a RS, then we would have an alternative to the table. Also, there is plenty of room to add or delete some of the triems, i.e., there are more 2011 trims not included. Finally, as a good reference example, please take a look at the general content of the Toyota Prius article, and in particular, look a the fuel economy section and sub-sections here. Over there nobody has considered superfluous the fuel economy presented by year model and for different countries.

Economic and environmental performance comparison
among Toyota Camry gasoline and hybrid versions available in the U.S. market

Type of powertrain	Year model	Certification sales region	Emissions standard	EPA City mileage(1) (mpg)	EPA Highway mileage(1) (mpg)	Annual fuel cost(2) (USD)	Carbon footprint (Ton/yr of CO2)	EPA Air Pollution Score	EPA Global Warming Score	Smog-forming polution(3) (gr/mi)
Gasoline Auto 5 speed 2.4 L	2007	Federal	Bin 5	21	30	$1,656	6.15	6	7	5.29
Gasoline Auto 5 speed 2.4 L	2007	California	LEV-II SULEV	21	30	$1,656	6.15	9.5	7	0.99
Gasoline Manual 5 speed 2.4L	2007	Federal	Bin 5	21	31	$1,590	5.91	6	7	5.29
Gasoline Manual 5 speed 2.4L	2007	California	LEV-II ULEV	21	31	$1,590	5.91	7	7	4.13
Hybrid Auto Variable 2.4L	2007	Federal	Bin 3	33	34	$1,169	4.35	8	9	2.81
Hybrid Auto Variable 2.4 L	2007	California	LEV-II SULEV	33	34	$1,169	4.35	9.5	9	0.99
Hybrid CVT 2.4 L	2011	Federal	Bin 3	31	35	$1,205	4.48	7	8	2.81
Hybrid CVT 2.4 L	2011	California	LEV-II SULEV	31	35	$1,205	4.48	9	8	0.99
Gasoline Semi-automatic 2.5 L	2011	Federal	Bin 5	22	32	$1,529	5.68	5	6	5.29
Gasoline Semi-automatic 2.5 L	2011	California	LEV-II SULEV	22	32	$1,529	5.68	9	6	0.99

Notes: (1) Value adjusted to EPA 2008 revised methodology. (2) Estimates assumes 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, and 15,000 annual miles.
(3)The value represents pounds of NOx and non-methane organic compounds (NMOG) emitted by the vehicle if it were driven 15,000 miles per year.

Finally, regarding the proposal to "wait for the current verdict about the location of the contents before we go around making any more drastic changes? " of course I am all for it, but only if OSX stops deleting new content without seeking consensus and cloning this article in the XV40 article. Today I will restore the table and some of the other content OSX trimmed (summarized) in the US section to avoid further friction. Then, we should wait here for comments from other editors, and after OSX writes a rebuttal or comments on my arguments above, I propose the two of us voluntarily refrain from editing or participating in this discussion, here and in the main Camry XV40 article for a whole week (until Sunday, July 4) to make room for other editors to comment here in the RfC, or edit the article without any interference from you and me.-Mariordo (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, there is no reason to clutter this article with loads and loads of fuel economy data as I mentioned above. Just because it's a hybrid does not make the case any different. An EPA figure is adequate, and I've even stated that a percentage fuel economy difference is fine. You state that "you will have to chose among several trims with several emissions standards, so this clearly would be blatant original research." No it's not, because it is cited in the EPA ref, how is that OR? By choosing the 2.4 litre automatic variant, we are choosing the same engine without the hybrid, and we're choosing the automatic version because the hybrid also uses an automatic (or CVT). The 2.4 litre/automatic is also the model that sells in the most volume, so it's quite a logical choice if you ask me.

Bias: you state that because U.S. sales are the most prominent, then U.S. only MPG information is therefore okay. No it's not okay. Australia has only had this car since February 2010, so it's sales haven't had the time to accumulate, Thailand is in a similar situation. Sales by market is not a measurement of how much bias we allocate to each market. Each market should be given an equal weighting even if only 100 cars are sold.

Additionally, I never claimed a "one man consensus", I said there was no consensus. Also, with my edits to this article that are such a cause of distress to yourself, I believe that you have also been editing the article as well Mariordo. So why don't we wait until a consensus is reached on the merger and AFTERWARDS continue this discussion as I suggested before? OSX (talk • contributions) 00:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo, perhaps a read of WP:SYNTHESIS might aid an understanding of what OSX is driving at. --Falcadore (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am very aware of it. Taking data from a RS and analyzing, making assumptions about which variables to consider (which trims to compare) and calculate percentages, that is blatant OR. What is the problem with summarizing data from EPA Green Car Guide? That is all I did, and if the Prius article has similar fuel economy summaries how come anyone has complaint over there?-Mariordo (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Falcadore, would you be so kind to elaborate a little, I really do not see your point, but I would like to understand what do you mean.--Mariordo (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See also, Wikipedia:These are not original research. "Any relatively simple and direct mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce" is not considered WP:OR. OSX (talk • contributions)01:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be more than glad to give room to other editors if you agree to stop editing within the scope I detailed above. Nothing else until July 4 ( I will not even reply to your comments or Falcadore). Do we have an agreement?- Mariordo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to agree not to edit this article or the Hybrid part of the article at Toyota Camry (XV40) until the whole merger issue it finished (not just July 4). However, fixing spelling, grammar or reverting vandalism is fine. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your undo of my last edit talks pretty louder and by the way that is a 3RR, one more and you could be blocked. What consensus are you talking about? You ask me a question, did not wait for my answer, and reverted my edit. If you disagree then you should have opened a discussion to look for a consensus to undo my edit, since when your opinion is consensus. I opened the discussion above because you didn't. So, against my own set rules, I am reversing you again.-Mariordo (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your undo of my last edit talks louder and by the way that is a 3RR, one more and you could be blocked as well.

Actually, we could dig up at least four reverts from OSX, the primary purpose of which were to remove this table. If anyone is dancing on the edge of 3RR, it is OSX. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Off you go Ebikeguy, go ahead and look. You wont find any more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. Get your facts right, before blindly making conclusions that don't stack up. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Which part of "Dancing on the edge" are you having difficulty understanding? Ebikeguy (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Which part of, "go ahead and look [...] you wont find any more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period" are you having difficulty understanding? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo is also "Dancing on the edge" by your definition. But you didn't warn him did you? Of course not, that would make your side look bad. We couldn't have that now could we? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your language completely. It is appropriate to warn someone before he/she has violated 3RR, but when he/she seems as though his/her edits may be headed in that direction. Warnings such as this, and such as the ones you recently deleted from your talk page, let the editor know that additional reverts may result in his/her being blocked. Also, since you added the 3RR warning to Mariordo's talk page within a few minutes of my adding my 3RR warning to yours, I did not need to repeat your warning. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a four minute gap between your edit to my talk page and my edit to Mariordo's. You would have only had to to copy and paste the response, so it's clear that you had no intention to do so. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, would you mind restoring this article back, as no consensus has been reached to include it? I am happy to discuss after we finish the first discussion. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you need to get a consensus BEFORE including the table. You know how you said I need to get a consensus before I do the merge? This is the same thing. If you would like to include the table based on your definition of consensus which is "you have to get a consensus to revert the change", then I will redirect this article to the XV40 page and ask the same from you. I don't care what your "own set [of] rules" are, that's is not the way we work. I'll give you the chance to reconsider your last edit, otherwise I will take it further because you have no consensus to include the table.

"What consensus are you talking about?": the one you don't have yet to include the table, i.e. you have to get one. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when do you have to get consensus to make additions to an article? That is silliness in an extreme form. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't. But when someone reverts your edit you do. You can't just revert back without a consensus. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So far, multiple editors have undone your reverts regarding this table, yet you continue to insist on deleting it over and over again. I can see why some have suggested that you feel you have a consensus of one. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, have you not looked at the voting above (there are more votes supporting its removal that its retention? ANyway, this is actually a different table, but again you have blindly followed Mariordo as per usual. Notice how we keep describing your actions as "blind", there's a reason for it. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"What is the problem with summarizing data from EPA Green Car Guide?": a massive table like that is not a summary. Its seems quite excessive in size and detail. The simple fact that you've included the data from the 2.4 and 2.5 litre non-hybrid versions only seems to reinforce why we should merge the two articles: content duplication. Add an extra row for the 3.5 litre V6 and we would have a complete set of EPA figures for the XV40 Camry (ACV40, ASV40, AHV40, GSV40).

Mariordo, a simple mathematical equation based on cited data is not WP:OR. By your definition the simple act of selecting which information from a particular source we include is WP:OR then. Anyway, I've found a source we can use. This source states, "It's nearly 27 percent more frugal than a normal four-cylinder Camry and out-hustles it as well". That is obviously a combined EPA figure but we can use it until we can find a source that states the city and highway figures. I hope you can agree to this one. Kind Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 07:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to understand why is OK to have a detailed table with all trims with powertrain information but not if it contains fuel efficiency and emissions information (related to U.S. models in the U.S. section)? Second, you well know that different transmission types have different efficiency and therefore they produce different carbon emissions and have different fuel economy, and just in case you didn't notice, California emission standards are so stringent that there are gasoline-only models that are less pollutant than federal certified hybrids. What is the point of restricting the information? Why is bad here but OK in the Prius article?-Mariordo (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My issue is not with the tables per se, it's the content and excess. Powertrain information is okay because it is relevant everywhere. The car makes xx kilowatts in every market, and makes the same amount of power in the U.S. (except it is expressed in horsepower; we use the convert template to overcome this)—easy. Fuel economy is not so. Every medium- to large-sized market has different fuel economy tests. You can't include information about the U.S. figures and not the rest of the world. Yes the U.S. is a BIG market, but the world has 6 billion people, America has about 5 percent of this. Let me put it in perspective for you: Australia is a country of 22.5 million people and we sell over 1 million cars per year. The U.S. has a market of 10 million cars per year and a population of 310 million—the number of sales in Australia is 10 percent of those in the U.S. and that's just Australia. France and the United Kingdom both have 60 million people, Germany: 80, Japan: 120, China: 1,300. Add these all up and you have some serious numbers.

If you were to include the rest of the world and the U.S. everything becomes so long and unmanageable it seems futile to even include it at all. From memory, WP:CARS has come to the overall agreement that fuel economy data should not be included for this very reason. However, because the EPA figure is important-ish for this car I'll accept it. Also, the article is about the Camry Hybrid, so why include all Camry XV40 models? Isn't keeping these two very similar cars separate your stance? If you would like I can re-open the discussion at WP:CARS, but I'll advise you now that it wont be in your best interests and it is likely that many of the editors there will vote to have even the small EPA paragraph deleted.

I think we should quote the EPA and then state, "When released, the EPA rated the hybrid about 27 percent more economical on the combined cycle compared to the non-hybrid 2.4 liter automatic version. Independent testing has achieved mixed results, with some tests bettering the EPA figure and others not." We can use this reference and some other independent tests as references. I like it how you've moved the EPA information to the North America section—it's definitely more fitting there.

Lastly, it is my understanding that the point of hybrids is to reduce emissions more so than to save money of fuel. After all, it would take many years to re-coup the additional costs a hybrid model over a similar non-hybrid model (compare the prices of the Lexus RX 350 to the Lexus RX 400h). Not only does your table quote the EPA figure, but states how much money one would spend on fuel per year. That'll be irrelevant next year when the prices go up, so if this information were included in every article there would be a lot of updating to do each year. Could we place the reference used by EPA table in the external links section? OSX (talk • contributions) 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I forgot answer this question, "Why is bad here but OK in the Prius article?"

It's not that I find it okay there, it's just that I'm dealing with this article at the moment (i.e. it's not okay in any car article). Also, the Prius article is such a horrible mess that one look it earlier this month scared me away for life. It is full of superfluous EPA data, a list of just about every independent fuel economy test performed (again with enough U.S. bias to suggest that it is the only market for the car), and a seriously POV-suggesting awards section, but no criticisms. If I feel compelled maybe I'll edit and improve that page some day in the future as the Prius is a car that I am quite interested in. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are exaggerating. Here we are talking about the Camry Hybrid, and the U.S. is the main world market and no other country gets even close (the Prius is a different story), so the notability in the U.S. is out of the question (the only other country with a significant market is Japan, and there the Camry Hybrid is not relevant). The table is in the North American section, so there is no confusion about its relevance, and for a green vehicle it is as relevant as the powertrain info, everything into context. And by the way, your Wiki project might decide on any convention about content but Wikipedia rules supersede them, as editing is available to anyone and as long as Wiki policies are followed the application of your agreed set of conventions is relative, depends on each case.

The table has 10 rows, I do not think that is cluttered or too much info, but let's say you want to delete a couple of trims but still keep a comparison at least with one gasoline-only trim. On what objective criteria will you based that selection without incurring in OR? (and this applies to your proposed calculation of one percentage) You are going to leave out Federal or California? Do we have info about which standard sells more to decide which one is more relevant? Which gasoline trim sells more, automatic, semi or manual? Deciding on those assumption is OR and it might end up having problems with NPOV, as an editor might have his/her own bias in the selection. Also, the 2.5L engine is there because Toyota used that engine for the 2011 year model, so it was the closer one to 2.4, and as the table shows, the 2011 Camry federal standard is less cleaner than its siblings, with the worst ratings of the family (obviously I did not include the 3.5 L because that would be an evident unfair comparison). And for these reasons I decided to use a sortable table, any reader can sort the info as he wishes, and draw its own conclusions. That is precisely why Wikipedia has the sortable feature for. I do not believe all of this characteristics of a green vehicle are irrelevant. HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs are here to clean the act, but you guys at WP:CARS think it is irrelevant, only the engineering matters. I just don't get it.

I added a note explaining the assumptions made by EPA which uses US DoE prices (click on any year model and then below click the hyperlink " price of fuel "). The values in the table correspond to the default values used by the RS. These guys update the default prices periodically, and if you follow the link you will see that you can personalize the assumptions, so each visitor can use their local gasoline prices, miles driven per year and split between city/highway. Also remember that you pay a premium for the hybrid power train and that is what makes savings related to fuel consumption relevant, as it takes several years to pay-off the price premium. On the other hand, that info that you consider irrelevant is posted on the window of every new car in the US (hybrid or not), so buyers can be aware of the car's fuel economy, emissions, global warming and pollution ratings, and annual fuel costs, etc. just like the energy savings stickers in electro-domestics used in many countries. And again, this is very relevant in the U.S., the main Camry Hybrid market, where average fuel economy last year was just 20 mpg. This is where the notability of this particular hybrid resides.

I agree it is a mess, and it is typical of articles with heavy traffic of editors which makes very difficult to improve it. I conclude by your comment that you truly do not believe that environmental info is important, but fuel economy and emissions are key to all HEVs as I explained above. I think they handle pretty well the fuel economy info separating it by country, and actually a table with wide columns by the countries reported would make that info easier on the reader.

Finally, I do not expect you to reply, there is not much to gain with this back and forth between you and I. Now that the difference between the two tables is clear, let's take a break (this discussion) and open room for others to jump in.-Mariordo (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not exaggerating at all. Maybe you should check for yourself rather than relying on your own ignorance—those figures are correct. As we have already established, sales figures usually aren't what we use to ascertain notability. That would be like saying we can't have an article of Tuvalu becuase it is a tiny island nation of 10,000 people, but an article on China is fine because they have 1.3 billion. The U.S. is not the only market in the world. The Camry Hybrid is sold elsewhere and you cannot disregard these markets. 90 percent, 50 percent, 1 percent: it doesn't matter. Your figures also don't take into account that the car is now made in Australia and Toyota are expecting 10,000 sales this year (in 2009 only 22,887 Camry Hybrids were sold in the U.S.). There goes the 90 percent argument.

My argument (and of several of us here) is that the Camry Hybrid is notable in the U.S. (quite indeed), and if it is not in your country or any other, that is a different story, and particularly, not a valid argument for merging the article or deleting US info. You are making a quite weird interpretation of WP's global view, there are articles that simply are country oriented, you can not ask for globalization when there is none. Finally, even though I believe it was unnecessary, the relevant US-only info is in the North America section in response to your complaints.-Mariordo (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You're just shooting yourself in the foot by saying, "obviously I did not include the 3.5 L because that would be an evident unfair comparison". Isn't that bias? By your reasoning, you've incorporated WP:OR and POV into the table and that's unacceptable. Anyway, since you have had no consensus to include that table originally I am going to remove it again, but I'll wait for a reply from you first. If you include it again without consensus, I will take this to an administrator as that would be considered a disruptive edit. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again, please point me to the WP rule that says any editor needs consensus to include new info never before discussed in the Talk page. On the other hand, bringing info directly from US EPA, a widely recognized reliable source, without adding anything other than what is presented in the US Green Car Guide is OR and lack of NPOV? The discussion above is for a different table (you already recognized that fact above and it seems you reversed it because did not realize it was a different content), so if you want to play edit war again go ahead, you know what will happen. The reasonale thing to do is to wait for OTHERS editors to give their opinion to try to reach consensus in any direction. And you wonder why we called one-man consensus (read again all the discussion, you have been until today the only one explicitly against the table). Calm down and please, respect other editors comments, it would be very nice if you stop moving our comments around at your will. This and your other unnecessary insults not only are not nice but also demonstrate lack of WP:Civility. Concentrate in the arguments, not in attacking the persons. And please if you decide to begin another pointless edit war, then why not bring the admins at once?.-Mariordo (talk)

Managed to read most of this. To me, gas mileage is more relevant than usual in an article about a Hybrid, but is waaay too market specific and subjective to give too much space. To me the best solution, and one which allows the table to remain, seems to be to put a paragraph in the text (Camry Hybrid saves 54% bla bla) and make the table collapsed for those who are interested to see. See here for an example of what I mean.
I still find the embattled table somewhat problematic, because Wikipedia is not really a buyers guide and this reads like one. Those "annual fuel cost" numbers are obviously just another (and thus redundant) way of expressing MPG. And who wants to keep updating the fuel costs as gas prices change? Not I. Also, the table does not do a good job at showing the information. One has to read very carefully to notice things which could be much better brought across in prose. Lastly, the article's US-centric focus (while explainable in terms of sales) is really a bit grating, but until someone with a non-US perspective decides that the Camry Hybrid is of interest I guess this will have to stand. Now, I'm going to the beach.  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the table is unwiedly and contains too much information. I think we should include the EPA for this hybrid version and the magazine reviews. I'm not from California, so why is that state being included as if it's a separate country? Most of the California-only information is the same as the USA information. ZacJ71 (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Restoring this article

An editor decided to delete this article without consulting with anyone and merge it into a couple of paragraphs in the respective Camry article. I reverse this merge/deletion first, because he/she did not follow proper procedure for doing so (no consultation), second, he/she did it all wrong: left the history here, just blanketed this article and included a redirect. Furthermore, we can discuss it here the merit of such proposal, but there is no doubt that the Camry Hybrid is notorious enough to have its own article, just as the Honda Civic Hybrid, Ford Escape Hybrid and the Ford Fusion Hybrid have them, and with content similar to Toyota Prius and Honda Insight. Other not so notorious HEVs just have a section in the article corresponding to the main model they branched from.--Mariordo (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there is absolutely no need to have separate pages for hybrid cars based on regular petrol/diesel-engined vehicles. We do not have separate pages for petrol and diesel, so why do we have them for hybrids? Let me analogise this with diesel:

• Hybrids are the same essentially as the petrol versions except they use petrol/electricity as a fuel and have a battery.
• Diesels are the same essentially as the petrol versions except they use diesel as a fuel and (usually) have a turbocharger.

The visual differences from the "regular" versions tend to be limited to revised grilles, head- and tail-lamp lenses, interior gauges, badging, and other minor trimmings. Not enough to warrant a separate article; it is no different to the different trim levels in ICE-only vehicles.

The hybrid-specific information should be located at Hybrid Synergy Drive, just like engine-specific information belongs on the dedicated engine articles. Articles here tend to name the engine (for example, Toyota AZ engine), quote the power/torque figures and sometimes even the engine speeds that these figures are attainable at. Hybrid articles should do nothing differently.

You stated that, "you CAN NOT [sic] merge the article without consulting other editors first". Well I did: here and here. I counted four supporting votes (Falcadore, OSX, Stepho-wrs, and Zunaid), two weak neutral votes (IFCAR and Vossanova). Now I guess we've got one opposing vote as well (Mariordo).

Here is the rationale for merging from Wikipedia:Merging:

• Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.

The hybrid and non-hybrid versions are essentially identical in all ways sans the powertrain. The article is about the car, not the powertrain. This information belongs at the separate and specific engine and transmission articles, or in this case Hybrid Synergy Drive.

• Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe.

Because only the powertrain and minor trimmings differ, everything else is going to overlap with the non-hybrid version article.

• Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT.

Hybrid versions require no more background context than non-hybrid articles. We have the internal combustion engine, gasoline engine and diesel engine articles for the same reason as we have an article on the hybrid vehicle.

OSX (talk • contributions) 07:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Proper procedure See here an example of how it is properly discussed to rename, merge, etc, an article. The target article must be tagged as such, with a link to the discussion (here in this page), so editors vote to support or oppose, provide their arguments regarding this specific proposal, and there is a minimum seven day wait for the voting. Your discussion did not followed this procedure (the links you pointed to me are part of a bigger discussion without following this format, and this is important, because your discussion was made within a broader context, in another page, and without the tags, so for practical purposes it was hidden from the hybrid page regulars. The discussion must take place here, not in the generic article.

Second, merging is not done through blanking the page, you did not rescue the content, you threw it away, and you did not preserve the history, it has to move too. The summary in the general model does not include content specific found in this page.

The article you blanked has more than 4000 visitors a month for several months, so clearly it has its own notability despite what you think. I am restoring the article again and please follow the proper procedure to open a discussion here (you must provide the rationale for your proposal) to decide if the article must go.--Mariordo (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that blanking is not the same than merging in a section of other main article. The solution comes by itself, using the proper procedure. If the text and particularities of the hybrid version are too long, it needs a proper article. I think it need its own article to allow a redeable and not too long main article.--Nudecline (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A WikiProject talk page is an entirely valid discussion point. Per Help:Merging, discussions are "typically [held] on the destination article's Discussion page". That means it's not the only place it can occur, but one of them, if not the most prominent. I believe this page and the non-hybrid page were tagged for months, and no editors voted here. I took the liberty to take this to the WP:CARS talk page and received a consensus there. You're right, there is a "minimum seven day wait for the voting" and that was fulfilled—the discussion took place months ago.

"Second, merging is not done through blanking the page": well then how do you usually merge content then? Merging involves the removal of content from one page, and its placement onto another. That involves blanking a page.

"you did not rescue the content, you threw it away": I think that if you bothered to read the non-hybrid page, you would have found that the market-specific information has been moved to the market-specific sections. It is quite clear that you haven't even gone through the content.

"and you did not preserve the history, it has to move too.": per Help:Merging, "Afterwards, DO NOT ask for a history merger between the two articles." You don't merge the history of merged articles, you note the source of the content in the edit summary. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You write, "I took the liberty to take this to the WP:CARS talk page and received a consensus there." This is clearly not the case. There were roughly equal numbers of comments for and against. You concluded the discussion by saying, "Okay, we've got some mixed opinions." Hardly consensus. On the Toyota Camry (XV40) discussion page, the only two comments on this matter oppose the merger. These comments came in response to a proposed merger tag on the hybrid Camry page. On this page, there is a strong majority of editors in favor of keeping this article separate. You do not have, nor have you ever had, anything approaching consensus for the merger, and thus far input from interested editors who have commented in various locations is trending strongly toward not merging. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "need" and what is "optimal" for wikipedia. We don't need to do a lot of things but we do them anyways because it is better. Many people are only interested in a hybrid and don't want to be bothered with non-hybrid info. There is enough information on the hybrid version that warrants a separate article. A summary in the main article is find also. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what is so important about the hybrid drivetrain that is not duplicative of Hybrid Synergy Drive? Also please explain the importance of the LED lights, a new grille and special gauges and badging?

"Many people are only interested in a hybrid and don't want to be bothered with non-hybrid info." Oh, and you know this do you? You've done a survey to find that out? If these people only want to know about the Hybrid, then they can go to the appropriately labelled "Camry Hybrid" section. What about people who don't care about the four-cylinder Camry and only want information about the V6? Should we cater for them too?

"A summary in the main article is find also.", maybe for the blind and those that can't use a table of contents. That's just a ridiculous notion. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Register your view

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested merger. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merge request was to merge. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

---

• Oppose merge/redirect. Topic is notable enough to have its own article and the article is quite well developed. Johnfos (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge/redirect. The Camry Hybrid is notable enough to merit its own article and to move the content from here to the main article will bloat that article unnecessarily, that is precisely why we have branched articles in the first place. Furthermore, the way the so called merge was done actually deleted most of the content, it was almost a deletion without the proper AfD.-Mariordo (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Mild opposition to merge/redirect. I understand the point of doing so, but doing so eliminates useful information. This is not a situation where the hybrid article is really only a couple paragraphs and would be completely duplicative. --Nlu (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge/redirect. There is clear precedent for automobile model sub-types having their own articles when they differ substantially from the other sub-types within that model line. See Subaru Impreza WRX STI (which is a sub-sub-type of the Impreza model first and the WRX sub-type second), Honda Civic Type R and Ford Super Duty as examples. Due to the technological significance of its hybrid drive train, the Toyota Camry Hybrid is notable beyond the notability of the Camry line in general. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge/redirect. The Camry Hybrid is really just a Camry with a special drive train and trim. It still shares the bulk of the car with the rest of the Camry range. But while the first generation is still out it should redirect to the hybrid section in the Toyota Camry (XV40) article, not the general Camry article. While there is only a single hybrid generation it is not too confusing to have a Camry hybrid article. But in a few years all Camry's are likely to be hybrids, which means the hybrid article will have to handle multiple generations while the main Camry article peters out. The main Camry article already handles multiple generations well. Much better to let the main Camry article hold quick overviews of each generation and then put generational details in separate articles (eg Toyota Camry (XV40) - including petrol, diesel and hybrid versions of that generation). Or to put it another way, the Camry Hybrid can be thought of as an XV40 Camry with a Hybrid Synergy Drive as engine/transmission. The XV40 Camry already has its own article (which now has info on the hybrid) and the Hybrid Synergy Drive also has its own article. So yet another article covering the union (ie the XV40 Camry Hybrid) is only covering ground that has already been covered.  Stepho  (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If all Camrys become hybrid you would have a good argument, but in the meantime they are not and the article has been around since 2006 and with a good amount of visits, so let's wait until Toyota only produces Camry Hybrids as you are predicting. All articles keep evolving so what is the rush to anticipate uncertain events.-Mariordo (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The age of the article is irrelevant. Also, you have still failed to answer why the hybrid-related drivetrain that is essentially identical in all other Toyota hybrids (some slight variations for the AWD versions) cannot be adequately discussed in ONE central location at Hybrid Synergy Drive (HSD). Toyota has stated that they plan to "have a hybrid version of every model ... by the 2020s". So under your strategy, we will have two articles for every Toyota vehicle, with each one independently explaining the background behind HSD. That just makes heaps of sense doesn't it?

I can already predict your next reply: "If all Toyotas offer a hybrid option you would have a good argument, but in the meantime they are not and the article has been around since 2006 and with a good amount of visits, so let's wait until Toyota produces a hybrid version of every car as you are predicting [quoting from Toyota directly]." OSX (talk • contributions) 09:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I agree, the Camry hybrid should be merged with the general Camry line. Other cars like the Accord, Altima, and more who all have hybrid versions does not have their Wikipedia articles separated. A hybrid should just be treated like another trim option. As more generations come for the Camry most likely they will have a hybrid version. Wfrmsf (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Merge. Agree with Wfrmsf, "hybrid" is just another engine derivative, much like "diesel" would be. We don't create separate articles for every different engine, drivetrain, gearbox variant and hybrid is no different. Zunaid 09:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: per my above rationale. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I support the merge as per Wfrmsf and OSX. -- de Facto (talk). 12:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per my previous comments. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Despite the hype, all the hybrid Camry represents is a different engine option within the Toyota Camry range. While the hybrid engine technology represents a notable shift for the Camry it's not new technology as its adaptation of work done in the Prius. The above example related to diesel engines is spot on. We don't create additional articles whether a car is diesel/petrol engined, or turbo/super charged models. Wankel Rotaries though have mainly because Mazda applied specific nameplates to rotary powered models where they shared platforms in the 1960s/70s. Not the case here as the car is clearly labelled a Camry. If the Camry Hybrid turns into a multi-generational vehicle, which is probably unlikely given that Hybrid Synergy Drive appears to be interim technology, a transitional point between petrol and true electric only cars, then perhaps an individual article might be justified in the manner that the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo has a separated article tracking the multi-generation history of the high performance modification of the Mitsubishi Lancer. But we are a long way from that point. There is a strong flavour of WP:Recentism in the creation of a separate Camry Hybrid article. --Falcadore (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

OSX states, "Archived merger discussion, has now been 8 days. Mariordo stated that voting would end after 7 days."

Did someone die and leave Mariordo in charge when I was not looking? Does an off-hand comment he made on someone's user page constitute gospel somehow? No, it does not? Is there some Wikipedia rule that states how long these discussions MUST go on? If so, point me to it. If not, we will end this discussion when a consensus of editors agree that it should be ended. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Does that invalidate any of the opinions expressed? According to an edit summary of yours on another page timing apparently affects the validaitity of an edittors opinion. I'd like to know where it says that is a valid statement. --Falcadore (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, timing was a perfectly valid "rule" when it supported you due to Mariordo's unfairly canvassed votes. It's funny how you guys contradict yourself now that the tide has changed. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy#DEMOCRACY. In my experience when there is a close vote the result is "NO CONSENUS" and the article is kept. That is the way it is done in AfD discussions. One or two votes majority out of around ten is not enough for calling consensus. Furthermore, the user who close it was involved in the discussion, like in AfDs, it would be better for a third party to interpret the result and decide the course of action (more discussion is my guess, and focus on the notability not on what any editor believes). Because I am also an involved party, I already requested an admin to drop by. And finally, what was the rush? as Ebikeguy suggested, a civilized follow-up would be more discussion. The article was not a piece of OR, or violates NPOV, nor is lacking RS.-Mariordo (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

For someone with soooooo much knowledge of all the rules and regulations here, I find it interesting that you are unaware of this one: Wikipedia:Consensus#Improper consensus-building. Take a look at the four users that support you in retaining the article—you personally contacted all of them and unfairly canvassed votes via their user talk pages: [1], [2], [3],[4], [5].

So, if you were to keep the voting fair, this would be the result:

• Oppose: Mariordo.
• Support: DeFacto OSX, Stepho-wrs, and Wfrmsf.

That's 4 to 1: a clear consensus. So, revert! OSX (talk • contributions) 07:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, it really seems as though OSX is trying to "game the system" to remove an article he does not like. Mariordo did nothing that constituted improper consensus building. He contacted editors who were interested in the article and explained what was happening in a neutral manner. Wikipedia:Consensus#Improper consensus-building states, "It is normal to invite more people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments." Generally, the editors Mariordo invited contributed well-thought-out, rational input. They were knowledgeable on the subject matter and had made substantial contributions to this article and/or other articles related to hybrid and electric vehicles.

OSX, please stop searching for the right Wikitrick that will allow you to force your will onto a situation in which there is clearly no consensus. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You already know my preference for how the page should be but this fighting is getting us nowhere. May I suggest we take two days off where none of the main protagnists edit the article, edit the talk page or put comments on someone's talk page (good or bad). Let both sides have a good think about whether we are improving WP, pushing our own point of view or are merely splitting hairs (ie both sides could be right but we can only choose one). Otherwise we may wind up with unhappy editors for no real benefit. It also lets quieter voices get heard.  Stepho  (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Stepho's proposal, let's cool down. I will refrain from editing about this article or discussion for a couple of days as you suggested.-Mariordo (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Unless the article is merged, or other egregious action is taken, I will refrain from editing this article or talk page for two days as well. I request input from a few neutral editors who seem to have a good understanding of the rules involved in this debate. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here as a neutral party familiar with policy. There are no hard and fast rules about merging, so let's not get bogged down debating the details of what has been done so far and just focus on whether or not the two articles should be merged. Looking at the closed discussion above, I do not see a clear consensus in one direction or another. Valid arguments are made both in support and opposition to the merger. I think Stepho's suggestion to take a break from this debate for a few days is an excellent one, it's always a good idea to get a little distance from a subject and then revisit it with a fresh perspective. Seeing as there does not seem to be consensus at this time once it's been a few days it may be a good idea to move onto to some form of dispute resolution such as a request for comment. This will invite a broader range of users to comment here so that a broader consensus can be sought. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge camry hybrid and main camry- support - my reasoning is that there is no new tech for toyota in the camry hybrid. I think there is a reasonable argument that innovative hybrid variants deserve their own articles, but hohum conversions like this are really just another powertrain option. Very soon many cars will have hybrid options, are we really going to duplicate every car article just because of a tax-driven fad? Greglocock (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My Post Cool-Down Thoughts - It is clear that there is no consensus as to whether this article should be merged. OSX accuses Mariordo of canvassing, but a quick review of OSX's recent contributions shows that he was recruiting editors sympathetic to his cause as well. Tempers have flared. Angry words have been said. What is the bottom line?

To me, the bottom line is that the Camry Hybrid unquestionably meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, independent of other Camry models. There have been plenty of published articles written specifically about the hybrid Camry by major publications. Media coverage has demonstrated conclusively that this model is significant in-and-of itself.

I do not understand the merge proponent's zeal in insisting that this article be merged. I truly believe they are attempting to edit in good faith and make Wikipedia better, but what harm is this article doing? There are clearly editors who feel that it is important to keep an independent article for the hybrid Camry. What is wrong with mentioning the hybrid in the main article, and providing a link to this article? If you do not like this article, ignore it, but why do you feel so driven to eliminate it? Especially since it clearly meets Wikipedia's requirements for an independent article.

Finally, I ask that those who wish to continue debate on this matter remain civil. There is no need for name-calling or inflammatory words. These tactics hurt your argument; they do not help it. If anyone feels that I am guilty of either of these tactics, please accept my apologies. Thanks for listening. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ebikeguy, this cool down period has been a good thing as everything was getting out of hand. Yes, I did ask Falcadore and Zunaid to re-vote (they had voted at the WP:CARS talk page earlier) simply to even-out the voting a little? How was Stepho and myself supposed to compete when Mariordo asked five other users? Two wrongs do not make a right, and I do regret doing so to a degree. Hence, to make it fair I excluded the canvassed votes. Our independent third party and administrator Beeblebrox even verified that the canvassed votes were unfair ("I see that, and you are correct that it violated WP:CANVASS"). Even if you include those votes, the total is 7 support vs. 4.5 oppose (4 oppose + 1 mild oppose)—a full 2.5 votes ahead—or at least 2 if you want to consider a "mild opposition" a full vote. Exclude the canvassed votes and the results are even clearer. I am having difficulty in seeing how that is not a consensus.

Ebikeguy, in your above post you state that you do not understand our "zeal" to merge this article. As has been mentioned above, a hybrid drivetrain is just a powertrain option, and we have the Hybrid Synergy Drive article to cover that information just like all the other engines fitted to the XV40 have their own article. In previous years, we only had a Toyota Camry article, without the sub-articles (like Toyota Camry (XV40)). At that time, having articles about the Hybrid could be somewhat justified. However, WP:CARS in general has now shifted towards splitting up articles by generation rather than trim level. At the moment, we now have four very similar articles: Toyota Camry (and the XV40 section), the Toyota Camry (XV40) sub-article, Toyota Aurion (the "prestige" version of the XV40 Camry), and this article. And as I said above, Toyota has stated that they plan to "have a hybrid version of every model ... by the 2020s". So under the current strategy, we will have two articles for every Toyota vehicle, with each one independently explaining the background behind HSD. This does not make very much sense to me at all. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OSX, Merriam-Webster defines consensus as:

"1 a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey>

b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief"

By two out of three elements within this definition, a 7 to 4.5 vote is clearly not a consensus. Nor would we get a consensus if we continued voting. Some people would feel passionately that the Camry hybrid deserves a free article; others would feel passionately that it did not. I will address your assertion that "a hybrid drivetrain is just a powertrain option" in my response to Greglocock, below. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ebikeguy - your impassioned post ignores the reasoning in my previous post. Doesn't seem much point in me posting if that is what you are going to do. Greglocock (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Greglocock, you make me blush! To suggest that there would be no point in posting if I, one single Wikipedia editor, choose to leave your previous post unanswered... Surely you understand that I asked you to contribute to this discussion because I knew that anything you had to say would be very useful in defining the parameters of the debate. Yes, I suspected that you might come out in favor of the merge, but I recognized that if you did, you would have very good, rational reasons for doing so.

And you did! You and OSX both point out that, from a technological perspective, the Camry Hybrid offers little in the way of groundbreaking development. I agree. However, allow me to suggest that this vehicle's noteworthiness lies not in its technological accomplishments, but rather in its social implications. For Toyota to make a hybrid version of its best-selling automobile is a groundbreaking decision on their part. For the car-buying public to purchase thousands of these vehicles is another significant social development. This is the car that, more than any other car, brought the notion of the "hybrid" into the mainstream. Sure, sure... the Highlander Hybrid and the RX400h took steps in that direction, but they failed to sell because they missed the point. They tried to be "high performance" hybrids, and no one wants those. The Camry Hybrid is the first available hybrid that gives consumers a chance to buy a low-profile, highly comfortable commuter that gets great gas mileage and allows people to believe that they are making a break from the gas-guzzling automobiles of the past. It does not scream "Look at me!" the way a Prius does, and there are lots and lots of consumers that want that kind of anonymity. That is why the Camry Hybrid has been a success. That is why it deserves its own article.

These are my thoughts, my opinions. Intelligent minds may disagree. Thanks, again, for listening. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As Honda already make a hybrid version of their standard Honda Civic it is only groundbreaking within Toyota's own culture, rather than the industry at large. And comparison's with diesels remain. For example the Ford Fiesta Econetic represents a shift in the construction and marketting of small diesels in Ford's model range, in creating a car more economical than the majority of mainstream hybrids. The ECOnetic also has allowed Ford to market its diesel powered Fiesta in markets where traditionally diesel sales have been neglible. --Falcadore (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Falcadore, there is nothing particularly groundbreaking about the Camry Hybrid. Not only did Honda have the Civic Hybrid first, but they also introduced the Accord Hybrid (direct competitor to the Camry) two full years before the Camry version as well. Thusly, the Accord is more fitting of the description, "the first available hybrid that gives consumers a chance to buy a low-profile, highly comfortable commuter that gets great gas mileage and allows people to believe that they are making a break from the gas-guzzling automobiles of the past." In fact the Civic Hybrid could be defined as such, and it was introduced five years before the Camry Hybrid in 2001. In other words, nothing groundbreaking here.

Ebikeguy, you state that the Camry Hybrid, "more than any other car, brought the notion of the "hybrid" into the mainstream". I would say that the Prius was actually that very vehicle—the Prius has become mainstream—it is near the top of national U.S. automobile sales—it is the number one selling car in Japan. Introduced in its second generation form in 2003, the Prius continued to outsell the Camry Hybrid despite being an older design. In the U.S., Toyota sold 181,221 Priuses in 2007, compared to 54,477 Camry Hybrids (2007 was the Camry Hybrid's first full year of sales). The Camry's discrete profile is actually a reason to merge, not to separate. The pre-facelift versions are barely identifiable from the non-hybrid versions (different tail lamp lenses, identical grille (albeit painted silver), "HSD" and "Hybrid" badges); even the wheels are the same. The sports-oriented Camry SE is more distinguishable than the Hybrid.

And what's this about every mid-size car before the Camry Hybrid being a "gas-guzzler"? First there’s the Accord Hybrid (introduced 2 years earlier), then there's the Volkswagen Passat TDI, which has a similar level of economy (without electric propulsion) and it along with other European diesels have been around for several years now. In fact, the Passat gets noticeably better mileage on the highway than the Camry. In the city cycle, the Toyota has a clear advantage.

Now back to the assertion of "no consensus". A consensus is not a unanimous decision: when you have 56 percent more votes (2.5 ÷ 4.5 × 100 = 56%), then that is a clear consensus. The percentage is even higher when the canvassed votes are not included. Could this be any clearer? OSX (talk • contributions) 04:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OSX states, "when you have 56 percent more votes (2.5 ÷ 4.5 × 100 = 56%), then that is a clear consensus." Unfortunately, you are simply wrong in this case. See my definition for "consensus," from the dictionary, quoted about. One of the synonyms listed for "consensus" is "unanimity." 56% is not a consensus. What you are describing is a "majority." That is a very different thing. According to Wikipedia:What is consensus?, "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority."

Generally speaking, most EV folks dismiss the Honda Civic hybrid as a halfhearted attempt at hybridization. It has failed in the market place because it does not give people what they want. The Camry Hybrid succeeds, and is notable, because it does. Yet, despite its low sales numbers, the Honda Civic Hybrid merits its own Wikipedia article. But we get distracted again. Due to significant, specific media coverage, the Camry Hybrid meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability and merits its own article according to Wikipedia rules. Ebikeguy (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, most EV folks dismiss the Honda Civic hybrid as a halfhearted attempt at hybridization, well, that's an opinion and it isn't Wikipedia's place to offer opinions. It is not Wikipedia's role to provide value judgements or favouritism. That the Civil and Accord hybrids don't sell as well as the Camry (which as noted also does not sell well compared to the Prius) is irrelevant to claims to Camry Hybrid being first at anything. Sales success is not a criteria for separation of article either. Media coverage alone is not enough, there are dozens of individual models, and I draw again comparisons to Ford Fiesta Econetic, which does not have its own article. There is nothing 'first' about Camry Hybrid unless you apply so many criteria that it invalidates any claim of 'firsthood' notability. It is a successful adaptation of existing technologies and methods. If it was a multi-generational vehicle then sure go ahead but at the moment... --Falcadore (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your conveniently supportive dictionary definition has no weighting here. In that same guideline, it also states, consensus is "not unanimity"—therefore contradicting your dictionary definition. I am pretty sure we follow policy guidelines here, not the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

"Generally speaking, most EV folks dismiss the Honda Civic hybrid as a halfhearted attempt at hybridization", who's most and who are these people? If you're referring to "halfhearted" in the sense that it doesn't have the "I'm saving the planet" stigma stamped all over it like the Prius and Insight, then yes, I agree, and the Camry fits that definition of "halfhearted" just as well. You and I both know that most people buy a Prius for its "green" image, not efficiency. A Prius makes a social statement; the Civic and Camry Hybrids do not. The fact that the Camry is manufactured in the United States also helps its cause—governments favour locally produced automobiles.

Now you also state that the Civic Hybrid has "low sales numbers". In the first nine months of 2008, Toyota sold ~131,000 Priuses, ~39,000 Camry Hybrids and ~28,000 Civic Hybrids in the U.S.—hardly a "low" figure given that the U.S. market traditionally sells noticeably more mid-sizers compared to compacts like the Civic. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be centring around two main points of view:

• From an engineering point of view, it's just an Camry with a different drive-train and trim, barely distinguishable to any other Camry from the outside.
• The social aspect of a low emissions, mass market car that will convert the world.

Having a day job that involves organising massive amounts of information (computer programmer), I naturally follow the engineering principle of reducing duplicity and reducing complexity by grouping things that are common. On the other hand, marketing people and enthusiasts want to make everything a special case so they can show their product or pet project to other people in the best possible light. As always, the truth is in the middle. The engineering reason is pretty clear cut because we can enumerate the parts involved (this engine, that gearbox, these brakes, etc) but personally I have trouble seeing the social aspects of this car. I see that the world is (very) slowly moving towards non oil based fuels but in Australia the Camry Hybrid is doing badly in sales. Compare to the petrol guzzling versions, it is expensive (AU$45,000), has poor range and looks the same (so owners don't even get the satisfaction of looking like eco-warriors like Prius owners do). The technology used in the Camry hybrid is just a minor development of the technology that was used in the Prius for years, so its not very noticeable there either. The Prius introduced the technology at the small car end of the market (expensive but still appealing to eco-friendly owners). The Lexus hybrids did it at the top end of the market (making an eco statement while still having a super nice vehicle and don't care about the expense). But the Camry has to appeal to appeal to Mr Average who is neither an eco-freak, nor made of money. I bought a new car 2 months ago but even though I have a decent job I found the Camry Hybrid was double my budget. My interest in hybrids and electric vehicles was not enough to overcome basic economics. In short, I don't believe the Camry Hybrid will make much difference in turning the masses over to hybrids or electrics. I hope the tide will turn soon but it ain't happening yet.

On a few other matters:

• As far as WP is concerned, consensus is when practically all editors have accepted a common viewpoint (possibly grudgingly). With only about 10 of us, we are still statistically close to undecided.
• No matter which side wins this particular argument, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over this. Talk calmly and enjoy seeing a different point of view.  Stepho  (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen, brother Stepho! Especially with regards to your last point. I could go on about why the Camry Hybrid is an important milestone, but I've made my point already. And you've made excellent counterpoints. Thank you for keeping this discussion on track. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have argued that separate articles for each generation of the Camry would be the best way to deal with this, as the Germans have done here. We could still even have a separate Camry Hybrid page, but mainly because there is waaaayy too much boring and cluttery information on what I think is rightly classified as a "C" article. I think that the focus should be less on including as much stuff as possible and more on writing an informative and legible article. Here is another example of "information" which passes Wikipedia requirements but makes for a bad encyclopedia entry nonetheless.
 ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC prep

I was asked to comment a few days ago by Ebikeguy (talk · contribs) on this disagreement. I won't add anything in the way of a pro/con opinion on the merger, but merely a pair of suggestions on future discussion directions.

1. If canvassing and counter-canvassing has occured (and I haven't any made any attempt to determine the veracity of these claims), a good-faith consensus is more problematic to determine. I would strongly recommend, for this discussion should it be re-started and for future disputes of this magnitude, that requests for comments be utilized. RFCs can function as a fair and organized way to have the respective sides make clear cases and encourage fresh opinions to participate. I'd be willing to help facilitate a neutral RFC if anyone is interested in my help.
2. Please don't get hung up on defining "consensus" on-Wiki. The term is deliberately fuzzy in its definition and implementation on this site precisely to avoid the problems associated with localized disputes on subjective valuations producing outcomes counter to the community-at-large's general views. An admin closing a discussion isn't tasked merely to count sides but to weight policy- and guideline-based arguments appropriately; even if "a 7 to 4.5 vote" is an accurate descriptor of a pure tally, it can only be viewed through the lens of community-level norms.

Hopefully my interjection here hasn't been unwelcome, nosy prattle. Please let me know if I can be of any use in the future... — Scientizzle 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. A lot of the above, and I'm not immune to this, has degenerated into almost personal levels of back-and-forth from which an edit-war would appear to be the natural outcome of this discussion contuining. While starting again, and not for the first time, is frustrating, it is obvious that some are no longer reading what is being discussed and are merely re-stating. --Falcadore (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Falcadore writes, "it is obvious that some are no longer reading what is being discussed and are merely re-stating." Yes, that is obvious, isn't it? I know that such behavior has been frustrating me over the course of this discussion. Scientizzle, any help you could provide in facilitating a neutral RFC would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It was not intended to be a personal criticism of any one edittor, but a broader observation. --Falcadore (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help. Hopefully everyone that has commented will participate. Step one: both sides should offer their most concise and neutrally-worded case for their particular opinion. By concise, keep it under, say, 150 words (not a hard cap, but a good goal). I'd suggest starting a subsection below this for each opinion (e.g., ===Argument supporting/opposing merger===), which can be collaboratively edited over a day or two. When everyone's comfortable with the result, let me know: I'll get the ball rolling with an RFC. — Scientizzle 23:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added the "support" section. Could other editors please make any changes they feel are relevant. Currently 130 words. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: the opposing side makes some good points about the importance of the environmental aspects such as fuel economy. However, it is my understanding here at Wikipedia that we don't split up articles because they satisfy the notability criteria, we split up articles that are too large AND/OR substantially unrelated. Let me explain: we have an article on the Toyota Vitz that covers both generations. This article is what I would classify as "medium length", but is still well within size limitations so we keep the contents of the Vitz (Yaris) all on one page. In the future, if the article was to get larger, then splitting the article into individual generations would make sense. A more relevant article for this argument would be Toyota Camry Solara. Both cars are completely unrelated with new engines AND new platforms/body shells. It could be argued that there is a case to split the articles up (unrelated except by name), but based on the lack of page length, there is no compelling reason to do so.

As I said above, I have always thought that to split an article up, the parent article has to have become too large. In this case, the Toyota Camry (XV40) (which admittedly has ALL the Camry Hybrid information there already) is well within the limits. Policy guidelines here state that pages above 100 KB of "readable prose" should "almost certainly be divided", and pages above 60 KB of "readable prose" should "probably be divided". The current length of readable prose of the Toyota Camry (XV40) article is currently 25 KB (remember, including ALL the hybrid information). Since both subjects are heavily related (more so than the Vitz and Camry Solara examples given above), then I see no reasonable case to keep the pages separate. The environmental performance information is more than welcome to be included at the XV40 page. WP:Notability is not a ticket to a separate article, just inclusion into the encyclopaedia. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many valid reasons to split articles, including size. However, the only hard and fast "rule" about when & how to split topics is would a separation allow for superior organization and presentation of encyclopedic information? The same question should be asked of any merge. — Scientizzle 11:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ready to go

I've set up the RFC, which should be posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture & Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology shortly. These seemed to be reasonable venues. I will post a notice of the RFC Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles as well.

I'd like to ask those that previously registered an opinion regarding the merger to please provide a short statement (a couple sentences, max) in the "involved" editors section to concisely indicate your opinion, try to avoid too many threaded comments (to avoid tl;dr territory in the early going), and limit yourself to the involved section. Since the goal is to gather wider responses and weigh a community cross-section of opinions, we don't want to drown out new voices. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative arguments supporting/opposing merger

The arguments below have been edited collaboratively.

Support: the hybrid is just another powertrain option for the Camry (like petrol and diesel, V6 and four-cylinder). Having a separate article results in excessive content duplication/overlap and there is a strong flavour of WP:Recentism in doing so. Toyota is planning on introducing a hybrid version of every single one of their cars this decade (currently 80 different models on sale). That would mean double the number of articles when a simple section would be ample; it would also be duplicating the same hybrid-technology related information over-and-over again, when we have a Hybrid Synergy Drive article to do exactly that. This is the same as how we don't describe individual engines and transmissions on every single car article; we have separate articles for those components because they are used in multiple vehicles.

Reply from oppsoing side: from the automotive/engineering POV we agree that it doesn't make sense to have a separate article for cars that are the HEV version of another. But from the environmental POV (policy/economics/sustainability) it does for those HEVs with enough notability, such as the only 4 existing exceptions: Fusion Hybrid, Civic Hybrid, Escape Hybrid and the Camry. The typical content of the branched HEV article is quite different from the content of the main version, and emphasizes the environmental aspects such as fuel economy, emissions, awards, special features, sales, etc., and there is enough material to exceed 1 or 2 paragraphs in the main article, so it branches out on its own merits. The Camry Hybrid had a lot of press coverage when first launched, has won green awards, and up to date is still used by other specialized journals and carmakers in the US as a benchmark to compare the performance of new mid-size HEVs. The Camry HEV article can be improved significantly, there is plenty of material available from the green vehicle perspective from RSs.

Oppose: the powertrain is very important in vehicles. What is more important, the shell? This is not just a V6 versus four-cylinder discussion; the hybrid powertrain has many implications such as helping clean up our cities substantially. Additionally, a review of media coverage on this vehicle reveals that its importance is not merely due to the technology present in its hybrid drivetrain. The economic and social importance of Toyota creating a highly successful hybrid version of its most popular automobile has not been overlooked by journalists. The article is clearly important and far exceeds the requirements put forth in WP:Note. Toyota has said things in the past about hybridizing many of their drive trains in 2010 which haven't been true. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we will decide things based on information available today. There is lots of material in this article that is not available elsewhere. Merging it into the Camry article will make that article long and a disservice for readers of this article which number 4 thousand views a month.

Reply from supporting side: powertrain is very import, and that's why we have separate articles for powertrains for almost every car. We shouldn't emphasise one powertrain over another, as that is biased (WP:POV). In fact, just about every other car article here discusses the car and the implementation of the powertrain (i.e power output in that application). The common powertrain information is relegated to separate articles to avoid duplication.

While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when future plans are released by the company itself, it at least has some weighting. Even if one was to disregard Toyota's statement, the same hybrid drivetrain is currently utilised in thirteen vehicles (see list), so that's a lot of potential duplication already. In regards to, "[m]erging it into the Camry article will make that article long", all the contents from the dedicated hybrid article article have already been merged to Toyota Camry (XV40) and length is definitely within our size limits by a long margin with just 25 KB of readable prose. Policy guidelines here state that pages above 60 KB of "readable prose" should "probably be divided".

Since both subjects are heavily related, then there is no compelling case to keep the pages separate. WP:Notability is not a ticket to a separate article, just inclusion into the encyclopaedia in general. Instead, we split up articles that are too large AND/OR substantially unrelated. For example, we have an article on the Toyota Camry Solara that covers both generations. Both models are completely unrelated with new engines AND new body shells. It could be argued that there is a case to split the article up, but based on the lack of page length, there is no compelling reason to do so.

RFC: Merge Toyota Camry Hybrid with Toyota Camry (XV40)?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Toyota Camry Hybrid be merged with Toyota Camry (XV40)? Previous discussions have been somewhat contentious and wider input is being sought. — Scientizzle 17:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The arguments below have been edited collaboratively to present the clearest Pro and Con cases

Support merger: the hybrid is just another powertrain option for the Camry (like petrol and diesel, V6 and four-cylinder). Having a separate article results in excessive content duplication/overlap and there is a strong flavour of WP:Recentism in doing so. Toyota is planning on introducing a hybrid version of every single one of their cars this decade (currently 80 different models on sale). That would mean double the number of articles when a simple section would be ample; it would also be duplicating the same hybrid-technology related information over-and-over again, when we have a Hybrid Synergy Drive article to do exactly that. This is the same as how we don't describe individual engines and transmissions on every single car article; we have separate articles for those components because they are used in multiple vehicles.

Reply from opposing side: from the automotive/engineering POV we agree that it doesn't make sense to have a separate article for cars that are the HEV version of another. But from the environmental POV (policy/economics/sustainability) it does for those HEVs with enough notability, such as the only 4 existing exceptions: Fusion Hybrid, Civic Hybrid, Escape Hybrid and the Camry. The typical content of the branched HEV article is quite different from the content of the main version, and emphasizes the environmental aspects such as fuel economy, emissions, awards, special features, sales, etc., and there is enough material to exceed 1 or 2 paragraphs in the main article, so it branches out on its own merits. The Camry Hybrid had a lot of press coverage when first launched, has won green awards, and up to date is still used by other specialized journals and carmakers in the US as a benchmark to compare the performance of new mid-size HEVs. The Camry HEV article can be improved significantly, there is plenty of material available from the green vehicle perspective from RSs.

Oppose merger: the powertrain is very important in vehicles. What is more important, the shell? This is not just a V6 versus four-cylinder discussion; the hybrid powertrain has many implications such as helping clean up our cities substantially. Additionally, a review of media coverage on this vehicle reveals that its importance is not merely due to the technology present in its hybrid drivetrain. The economic and social importance of Toyota creating a highly successful hybrid version of its most popular automobile has not been overlooked by journalists. The article is clearly important and far exceeds the requirements put forth in WP:Note. Toyota has said things in the past about hybridizing many of their drive trains in 2010 which haven't been true. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we will decide things based on information available today. There is lots of material in this article that is not available elsewhere. Merging it into the Camry article will make that article long and a disservice for readers of this article which number 4 thousand views a month.

Reply from supporting side: powertrain is very import, and that's why we have separate articles for powertrains for almost every car. We shouldn't emphasise one powertrain over another, as that is biased (WP:POV). In fact, just about every other car article here discusses the car and the implementation of the powertrain (i.e power output in that application). The common powertrain information is relegated to separate articles to avoid duplication.

While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when future plans are released by the company itself, it at least has some weighting. Even if one was to disregard Toyota's statement, the same hybrid drivetrain is currently utilised in thirteen vehicles (see list), so that's a lot of potential duplication already. In regards to, "[m]erging it into the Camry article will make that article long", all the contents from the dedicated hybrid article have already been merged to Toyota Camry (XV40) and length is definitely within our size limits by a long margin with just 25 KB of readable prose. Policy guidelines here state that pages above 60 KB of "readable prose" should "probably be divided".

Since both subjects are heavily related, then there is no compelling case to keep the pages separate. WP:Notability is not a ticket to a separate article, just inclusion into the encyclopaedia in general. Instead, we split up articles that are too large AND/OR substantially unrelated. For example, we have an article on the Toyota Camry Solara that covers both generations. Both models are completely unrelated with new engines AND new body shells. It could be argued that there is a case to split the article up, but based on the lack of page length, there is no compelling reason to do so.

Responses from uninvolved editors

* Oppose Merging these two articles, whether it's logical or not, would produce an article that would be excessively long. A shortened section at Toyota Camry referring to the main article here seems more appropriate. siafu (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The two articles have already been merged at Toyota Camry (XV40) (same contents as Toyota Camry Hybrid) and total length is ~25 KB. Plese take a look at the length of Toyota Camry (XV40). OSX (talk • contributions) 23:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a mistake in the RfC request (now corrected). This discussion has been based on merging the contents with Toyota Camry (XV40) and NOT Toyota Camry. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 23:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, my sole opinion is quite inoperative. siafu (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies for being a touch sloppy in the details above. Thanks, OSX (talk · contribs), for fixing my mistake. — Scientizzle 13:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - So wait, correct me if I am wrong. The oppose argument here is that two articles should remain separate because one has a different powertrain? Quite frankly, I see what point is trying to be made (that the different powertrain is notable because it saves energy and whatnot), but I really do not see merit enough to need its own article. I mean, most of the content in the hybrid article is actually in the main article already. Furthermore, one of the arguments made is that merging would make the articles too long for readers to handle. Put simply, this article is nowhere near long enough to confuse readers. In fact, I think readers would be more confused by having to navigate to a separate page when they could just click on a section link in the TOC, which takes many seconds less to navigate than another pageload. And I also agree with the point made in the support argument how a separate article is made to handle the parts of the car (transmissions, powertrains, etc.) separate of its implementation in the car itself. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that your main argument is that both pieces look the same, I think you might have been misled by the fact that during these two weeks of discussion here, OSX has been moving little by little a good deal of the original content of this article to the new article Toyota Camry (XV40) and yesterday he trimmed it so now they both look the same. Just check the history in that article beginning June 12 to confirm.-Mariordo (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo, this merger was not done "little by little": it was done all at once. The problem was is that you guys kept saying "all the contents not there yet", when it was. I had originally placed the market-specific information in the "Market" section. Because you guys kept claiming "its missing", I moved it up into the hybrid section. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed checked the history and see what you are saying. However, my opinion supporting the merge remains strong for the other points above. (Oh, and Mariordo, I do not mean to sound mean or anything but one of my pet peeves is when people send me messages on my talk page about a discussion taking place somewhere else. It's just the idea of everything going different places and getting messy. Rest assured this page is on my watchlist and any replies you make here I will see. Again, it's nothing personal, it's just one of those things, you know.) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response and sorry about that.-Mariordo (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think you're a great editor if you can be passionate enough about an argument to go and make sure the opposition knows all the details, but then still be able to remain cool when that same editor comes back about something. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: not notable --Typ932 ^T·C 17:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your definition of not notable? I ask because it clearly meets wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Notability is not a ticket for separate articles. The car is not notably different from the non-hybrid (just a powertrain which has its own article). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a definition on what notability means and it meets that definition. You are obviously using a different vocabulary and I suggest you use the same vocabulary that most everyone else uses on wikipedia. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - for now, but open to being persuaded (although this issue seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill). To begin with, the hybrid model is not "just another powertrain" like the I4 or V6. The 'full hybrid' Camry design consists of more than simply bolting a different engine block. Aside from the engine choices, there are the electric motors/inverters, regenerative brakes, CVT transmission, onboard software, etc. In this manner the differences are more akin to a performance variant (such as Audi RS4/A4), but for efficiency purposes. Adding to that, unique performance characteristics: emissions/fuel efficiency profile, highway efficiency vs. city, air pollution scores, etc. which an encyclopedia article can easily go into detail about. Plus government classification/incentive information (some of which is already in this article), marketing, and pricing info that particular media articles and research have focused on. These details, such as the fuel efficiency chart, marketing & sales data, etc. seem best kept on this article, with a summary at the XV40 article. Encyclopedia coverage of the Camry Hybrid can easily cover 5 or 6 sections without overlap. Such detail is probably disproportionate at the Camry XV40 article, especially it may end up overtaking the info on other Camry models, and comparable info on the regular Camry is not available. If merged, added sources would likely cause article split yet again. Information specific to readers wanting to know about the Camry Hybrid, is best maintained separately; even Consumer Reports gives the A) Camry I4/V6/SE and the B) Camry Hybrid separate articles in their evaluations and guides. This is different from other 'mild hybrid' models for which a single subsection would do.
  

• Having read the Camry Hybrid article before and now again recently, it also seems that there have been a lot of moves, deletions, and changes which make it difficult to easily know the full extent of contributions to this article. If material is being deleted to make this article look like a copy of the sections on the XV40 article, that makes it harder to make a fair judgment. Maybe the article has been whittled down? There are many sources and particular info on the Camry Hybrid, with which this article could be expanded even further without overlap. It is also unlikely that all 80 Toyota car models will get a separate hybrid article, especially as some of them will (probably) become hybrid-only, avoiding this merge issue. Many of them will also lack the marketing, government incentives, significant sales and popularity, and other info to have their own article. The main article(s) and HSD article will be able to cover them in general, but not in particular. The Camry Hybrid has a great deal of particular sources to draw from for expanding this article without overlap. Also, the coming second-generation Camry Hybrid can be discussed in a single article, with comparisons made for the hybrid system application, rather than jumping between different generation articles. However, if a way can be found to keep the detailed sources on the hybrid model better organized, it's possible that another solution can be found. MTan355 (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge Not notable for its own article, powertrain is as stated by the Support merger argument (at the top of the RFC: Merge Toyota Camry Hybrid with Toyota Camry (XV40)?) and the Toyota Camry Hybrid is basically the Toyota Camry (XV40). Bidgee (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge – The fact that a particular model is available in a hybrid power version does not change the basic vehicle. Furthermore, Toyota has made an effort to make the Camry models similar regardless of the type of motive power (This is not the case with the Prius that features only the hybrid powertrain wrapped in a separate body design not shared with other models). The notability of the Camry’s available power plant is already established in the Hybrid Synergy Drive article. This article is devoted to the technology and contains links to the vehicles that use it. There seems to have been no notability established for the hybrid version of the Camry compared to the traditional version, nor the other Toyota platforms that are available as a hybrid. Information about the hybrid versions of particular models should be in the article about that model. Examples include: Nissan Altima#Hybrid, Toyota Highlander#Hybrid, Toyota Auris#Auris HSD Full Hybrid .282010.E2.80.93.29, as well as Saturn Vue#Green Line and 2-Mode Hybrid models. The Toyota Camry Hybrid (as well as other special articles about the hybrid version of a vehicle, such as Ford Escape Hybrid) are unnecessarily redundant. In fact, all separate "hybrid model" articles should be merged into their base vehicle articles, with a link to an article about the powerplants they may share. There is no need to discuss the differences in "mid", "mild", "full" or other types of hybrid type of power in the individual automobile model articles. As technology evolves, there will me even more changes. However, the basic vehicle models will remain. In summary, there is no need to replicate the power drive information in each model’s article. CZmarlin (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

One other benefit of the merged (standard and hybrid) articles is that it makes comparisons between the different drive systems much simpler. The presentation typically includes a standard format for the information on each power-type version. There would be no need to jump back and forth between two separate articles to evaluate the specifications, efficiency, features, etc. between the different types of power. 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. For example, information on government incentives does not need to be discussed in a separate "hybrid Camry" article because such programs not unique to Toyota cars ... or even the Camry model. CZmarlin (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To emphasise the fact that Hybrid Synergy Drive contains all the relevant information, we could place a hatnote at the top of the "Camry Hybrid" section at the Toyota Camry (XV40) page (and all other Toyota hybrids) that states:

For a complete explaination of Toyota's hybrid drivetrain, see: Hybrid Synergy Drive.

OSX (talk • contributions) 23:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless the same standard is applied across the board to other comparable derivative hybrid models (say Ford Fusion hybrid vs. Fusion) in Wiki and agreed by a consensus of majority editors in other articles. Readers need clarity and expect similar standard is applied, otherwise, it'll only cause confusion. Information in Wiki has to be easily accessible and a common (or similar) navigation path is one way to help users unfamiliar with Wiki find what they're looking for.North wiki (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose it's an environmentally-friendly car, that helps reduce greenhouse gases. It deserves its own article. ZacJ71 (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've read the for and against cases above (the red and green sections) and I would like to change my vote from 'oppose'. I think it makes more sense that way as the article about the hybrid synergy drive should contain this hybrid information. ZacJ71 (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support other articles that use alternative energy do not usually have a page all for themselves. Some of the information here relates to tax-related information, but I was under the impression that many hybrids in the USA receive these benefits. If the tax is widespread, could the tax information be moved to a hybrid tax article? NichlausRN (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct NichlausRN. The U.S. Federal tax credits are applicable to hybrid cars from all the automakers making them, as well as "Clean Diesel" models. Moreover, Toyota and Honda hybrids no longer qualify at all for tax credits - see: here. Your idea of one article focusing on the various incentives makes is great. There is no point in repeating the incentives (much less trying to keep the information up to date) in every separate "hybrid" version model. Furthermore, all this talk about the so-called - 'full hybrid' Camry design' - seems out of place because the technology is used in Toyota's other models and is even sold to competitor automakers. Similarly, all the powertrain information belongs in the Hybrid Synergy Drive, rather than being replicated in each separate "hybrid" version. CZmarlin (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we add to Hybrid electric vehicles in the United States or should an article titled, "Government incentives for hybrid electric vehicles in the United States" be created? The article should include incentives in general; this terminology would allow the inclusion of non-tax incentives such as the carpool lane privileges. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can get away from calling everything "fuel efficient" a hybrid car. "Incentives for fuel efficient cars" is more generic! Please review the U.S. Department of Energy's "tax center" site (here) to see how many options there are beyond the current crop of hybrid models. As I mentioned before, there are several diesels and alternative fuel vehicle (AFVs) that already can receive tax credits. The U.S. IRS also has a list of business tax credit eligible "2010 Advanced Lean-Burn Vehicles" (see here). So why limit the discussion to "hybrids"? Moreover, the Department of Energy has its site prepared for upcoming electric and plug in hybrids. And returning to the subject of the proposal to merge the two Toyota Camry articles: just imagine a separate WP article for every version of powerplant/fuel/propulsion that will be available on a particular model in the near future (for example Toyota Wizbang gasoline, Toyota Wizbang hybrid, Toyota Wizbang electric, Toyota Wizbang diesel, Toyota Wizbang compressed gas, Toyota Wizbang no-burn,as well as the all important ... the Toyota Wizbang hot air - an old fashioned steamer!) just because each is "notable"!! They should all be in one Toyota Wizbang article! CZmarlin (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, "Government incentives for fuel efficient vehicles in the United States" sounds good to me. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Before duplicating existing articles please check first Tax Incentives for Fuel Efficient Vehicles (U.S.) (which needs updating and quite an improvement), Hybrid tax credit (which does not have a global view and could be merge with the latter), and Plug-in_electric_vehicle#Tax_incentives_for_PEVs_by_country (which covers BEVs and PHEVs), plus there are several sections in other articles dealing with such incentives.-Mariordo (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mariordo, "Tax Incentives for Fuel Efficient Vehicles (U.S.)" has been merged with "hybrid tax credit" (now renamed to government incentives for fuel efficient vehicles in the United States to reflect its U.S.-only stance). I then recreated hybrid tax credit as the main article that can be used to include tax credits available for hybrids in other countries. Maybe the hybrid tax credit page should be renamed "government incentives for fuel efficient vehicles"? OSX (talk • contributions) 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the merge/re-organizing, again you should have tag those pages with a merge tag first, to open a discussion there (not here) to give an opportunity to the involved editors to give an opinion. And no, I do not agree with renaming hybrid tax credit, but tag it and open a discussion there. I do not think this section was intended for this kind of discussions.-Mariordo (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - for the same reason we shouldn't have a separate page for a special edition, a four-wheel drive, or a convertible version of an existing car. If there was a separate article for the VW Jetta TDI, I would merge that too. Plus, if Camry (Hybrid) gets its own page, we'd really have to rename the Camry page something like Toyota Camry (traditional powertrain). Not notable enough to warrant its own article, and I also believe that anyone who personally owns a Camry Hybrid should be barred from commenting on this issue.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Responses from involved editors

• Oppose merge The Camry Hybrid deserves its own article due to notability in several areas. Journalists have written many articles on this specific hybrid model due to its technological, social and economic importance. See the "References" section of the article for examples. Separation of this article allows for superior organization and presentation of encyclopedic information because it allows for an in-depth, relatively long article specific to the hybrid Camry without burdening the article Toyota Camry (XV40) with excessive information that may be of interest only to readers researching electric or hybrid vehicles. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per Ebikeguy. Camry Hybrid is notable in its own right. Johnfos (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge due to its notability, particularly in the U.S. market, and due to its length, the Camry Hybrid deserves a separate article. The content in this article is about the environmental, economic and social consequences of the hybrid version, not on the automotive engineering, so there is no duplication.-Mariordo (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Would be a disservice to the 4 thousand views per month and above arguments. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support notability has not been established. Newspaper articles are written about cars with pinstripes, new seat covers and wider wheels. As such they prove nothing (the deal is actually if I lend you a car then you write about it, otherwise I won't lend you one again). Greglocock (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

By that reasoning, there would be almost no new vehicles that were notable. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Greglocock's reasoning confirms why we don't have separate articles for every single level of trim and powertrain available (à la Ford Fiesta Econetic). Just because something is notable does not mean we require and article for its. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You write, "Just because something is notable does not mean we require and article for its." That is a completely different point from Greglocock's. My comment remains valid. Also, notability is only one of the reasons the Hybrid Camry deserves its own article. See various arguments, above. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So what is the bar for notability then? How do you determine notable versus not notable? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge just in case anyone is counting this (again). Technically I'm not an involved editor on this article (I came over from WP:CARS) but I have made my point several times before. We do not have separate articles for Toyota Camry (diesel), Toyota Camry (petrol) etc., and hybrid is no different. It's just another engine choice in an ordinary car. Zunaid 14:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on my Oppose above, there's a difference between fuel source (diesel/petrol) and different drivetrain (fuel/gas-electric) entirely. It can be misleading to say diesel and full hybrid are equivalent (aside from mpg comparos). From the electric motors to regenerative braking, CVT transmissions etc., a full hybrid can be much more mechanically complex. The complexity of a full hybrid system dwarfs that of most petrol/diesel/mild hybrid, with the exception perhaps of clean diesel (Bluetec etc.). There's a reason why no Camry (petrol) and Camry (diesel) or Camry (natural gas) exists, but Camry (hybrid) does, which besides drivetrain, design, also includes other info (see above); the question goes to how well it should be maintained. MTan355 (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we have the Hybrid Synergy Drive article to explain all the technical details behind the electric motors, regenerative braking and CVT transmissions (also stop-start, regenerative braking and CVTs are found in non-hybrids cars too, like the Audi A4 TDIe, which incidentally does not have its own article). OSX (talk • contributions) 08:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: per my above reasons. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC closed

While the responses from previously-involved editors were essentially deadlocked as before, the additional input was heavily in favor of the merge option.

What now? Editors here should merge any and all useful content to Toyota Camry (XV40) and leave a redirect in place here. Please let me know if I can provide any further guidance. Thanks for everyone's cooperation! — Scientizzle 13:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Available in Japan?

"The Toyota Camry Hybrid was introduced in Japan and North America in early 2006 ..." According to this press release from Toyota (via Autoblog Green), Camry hybrid is only available outside Japan.--North wiki (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Curious. According to the 2009 Toyota press release on that link, the Camry Hybrid was only manufacturered in the US and Thailand (and recently joined by Australia in 2010). I went to the Toyota Japan web sites http://toyota.jp/ecocar/index.html and http://toyota.jp/service/carlineup/dc/carnamelist and the Camry Hybrid is not listed. The only hybrid models advertise in Japan are the Sai (Echo), Prius, Estimate Hybrid, Crown Hybrid and Harrier Hybrid. I also tried looking for a Lexus equivalent and came up empty.  Stepho  (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I did the same thing and this page at Toyota.co.jp lists only the normally aspirated 2.4 litre version. However, I did "discover" an all-wheel drive version of the current XV40 series Camry (and also the previous XV30) that I was not aware of previously. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1