Talk:B-segment

Reference and simplify presentation
Almost 50 images are not needed to define this category of cars. There already exit links to numerous models. Moreover, this article is not to be a complete list (past and present), every body style, etc. marketed in this category. Furthermore, it will be very difficult to keep the images up-to-date with the years of production in their descriptions. The flags do not represent the typical automobile firm's global supply chains. Cars made in one country end up being marketed in numerous international markets. Therefore, the national flags are superfluous. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maruti Dzire 2017 in Feild.jpg

Merge with subcompact and supermini
The article states that B-segment "is equivalent to the subcompact category in the United States and the Supermini category in Great Britain". Why then are there three articles? If they are regional variations of the same thing then, per WP:WORLDVIEW they should be merged. --Cornellier (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with merging the three, although I am not sure which is the best article name to merge the others into (*cue cultural wars between the brits, yanks and Euros!*) Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would hesitate to merge them all. While subcompact, supermini, and B-segment have roughly the same meaning, there is no single term which can group them all together.  Each article does a good job of keeping within its region of usage, i.e. North America, UK, and (rest of) Europe, respectively.  Also, there's the precedent of other size classes having separate articles, like compact car and C-segment, and mid-size car and D-segment.  City car was merged into A-segment, but there are hardly any in North America anyway. Car classification has a good table which compares them all.


 * Given that most other UK/GB car classes are merged with other articles, I would possibly consider merging supermini into either B-segment, or subcompact (like how large MPV was merged into minivan). --Vossanova o&lt; 23:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Article improvement proposal
A month ago, I started an overhaul of this article before a user disagreed and reverted my edits twice due to lack of discussion, and argues that B-segment is solely an European segment therefore the article should be kept that way, which i disagree (more on that on off-topic). The current article seemed too much like a gallery instead of a proper article, and a heavy focus towards B-segment sales in Europe. This article deserves a better content which prompted me to do an overhaul. I'm proposing for this article to be reverted to the 4 March 2021 version.

Any suggestions/opinions are welcome. Andra Febrian (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comments in your edit summary, i would suggest an RFC (request for comment) to attract discussion. The proposal you have come up with is pretty drastic in its effect on the whole article, and that's why it would be appropriate to get some approval from the community of editors before you simply go ahead with it without any objections or suggestions from other editors. An rfc would also allow a third party to make a judgement on this whole dispute. Given your experience on wikipedia, i'm surprised you haven't considered all this. - Cement4802 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that every drastic changes should went through approval from the community of editors, Wikipedia does not require that as per WP:BOLD. Maybe if it's controversial, but i do not consider my changes as controversial. If an editor disagreed, WP:BRD method is adequate.


 * I would like to know what is wrong with my edits because your reasoning is very unclear. "the b segment has always been europe-centric" yes, that's exactly what I wrote in the article. That doesn't mean other parts of the world don't have B-segment cars, and that is where I expanded the article. "other articles already cover more global models" which article is that? "therefore, we should only be sticking to best selling vehicles in europe" this is Wikipedia, not carsalesbase.com. "So far, you are the only editor wanting this change" so what? Doesn't mean it's unwanted. On the contrary, you are the only editor opposing this change. Your reasoning is not strong enough, it screams a refusal of change and not wanting any further advancement creating an unnecessary dispute, that is why I chose to ignore it initially.


 * Your decision to revert before discussing also grinds my gears because the current version is ridiculously poor in quality, it's like a mirror of carsalesbase.com, not to mention the repeated images. It's not that my version was perfect, but in my opinion it should be the live version during the discussion because any future changes ideally should be made on top of my edits, not before it. Say you're tasked to improve this article with the current version as the base, how would you improve the article? Andra Febrian (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that this article has evolved through various formats and versions over time, but as of more recently (at least in the last year or two), the more established, longstanding format of the article has revolved around a gallery of images, and mainly models sold in Europe. "so what? Doesn't mean it's unwanted. On the contrary, you are the only editor opposing this change". I could just as easily use this argument you're making to justify changing all of your edits back to a europe centric version. You'd be the only editor opposing it, and just because there hasn't been any support for my version, doesn't mean it's unwanted, right? Imagine the amount of edit wars if everyone used the exact same arguement you're using at the moment. The appropriate action in the context of this situation would be to start an RFC to gather different opinions on this situation, and a third party can decide which direction this article goes. You can't simply change everything to how you want it to be just because you can't be bothered to consult the community about it first - Cement4802 (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Longstanding doesn't mean anything, it is a non-argument when it comes to choosing which version is better. "You can't simply change everything to how you want it" yes you can as per WP:BOLD. There is no restrictions as far as I know.


 * That being said, RFC will start below. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, then i'd be just as entitled to constantly switch back to the current European centric version, using your argument. And that's not even an accurate summary of WP:BOLD - Cement4802 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

On a related note but somewhat off-topic, an argument that I'd like to push (with proper sources) is that the Euro Car Segment (A, B, C, D, etc.) is widely used by manufacturers all around the world to develop vehicles. The examples are announcements from manufacturers that goes like "we will produce a B-sedan in 2025 and C-SUV in 2026", platform names (Toyota B platform, Ford C2 platform), or model codes (Hyundai i20 BC3, Hyundai Elantra CN7, Kia K5 DL3). Mentioning these will result in writing an WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH due to the lack of source.

Another argument, in my opinion, this article is the only proper place for the history, characteristics, popularity, market trends etc. of B-segment cars all around the world to be written (except North America, subcompact car is more suitable). It is made possible since the A/B/C/D-segment definition rarely differs, everyone seemed to agree that the Fiesta, Polo, Yaris etc. is always a B-segment no matter where it is sold. It is not the case with "subcompact car", "compact car", "mid-size car" which means different things depending on the region and the usage in Wikipedia pretty much gravitates towards the North American definition. Andra Febrian (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLD has 3 main assertions: It is the last one that is being missed here. It's fine that an editor goes ahead and makes changes without consensus. But that same editor also has to be fine with others reverting it back. That's when we discuss and then follow the outcome of the discussion. If no consensus is found then we revert back to the original. Thick skins required all around but the alternative is edit warring. See WP:BRD for a similar explanation.  Stepho  talk 09:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Be bold'
 * 'Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it'
 * 'Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted'

RfC: Which version of the article should be used?
Which version of the article should be kept? Two options:

Andra Febrian (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A: current version
 * Option B: my proposed version


 * Option B The proposed version seems to be better organized and has more information about the topic. I also thought Option B better organized the photographs and descriptions. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Option A. Option B brings in many concepts which are good but overwhelms the basic message that the class is defined by the size of the vehicle. Too many examples. The talk about diesel engines is not really relevant to this class only. Most of the body styles mentioned are also applicable to most of the other classes. Or to put it another way, too much general talk but not much about what is specific to this class. The non-European sections are about equivalent classes in other regions - but equivalent s not the same as those regions using this class definition. Better to keep it Euro specific where the class is used. Although a small section mentioning the equivalent in other regions is fine, the specifics should not be expanded upon in this article but instead we should encourage the reader to follow the links to those equivalents. Having said that, the original article was a bit too terse and a limited part of the proposed version should be brought back in.  Stepho  talk 09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Option C: Third suggestion
A couple of questions about Option B: "my proposed version" rewritten B-segment
 * "The term also described the subcompact category widely known in North America"
 * "described"? why past tense? does it no longer describe?
 * "... the subcompact category widely known in North America". Is there another subcompact category?
 * "In 2018, the B-segment or subcompact cars (excluding SUVs) represented 12.5 percent of total car sales in the global market, a decrease from 12.7 percent in 2017"
 * the lede is supposed to be a summary. Do we need to include a one-year, 0.2% decline in sales?

Here's Option C, another "proposed version" rewrite of B-segment:

The B-segment is the second smallest of the European segments for passenger cars between the A-segment and C-segment, and commonly described as "small cars". The term also describes the category widely referred to in North America as subcompact, the A0-class in China, and the supermini category for B-segment hatchbacks in Great Britain. B-segment cars may include hatchback, sedan/saloon, station wagon, coupe/convertible, MPV, and crossover/SUV body styles.

As of 2018, the B-segment or subcompact cars (excluding SUVs) represented 12.5 percent of total car sales in the global market. --(editor is a volunteer for Feedback request service) Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Option C's "also describes" in relation to non-European markets should say that it is equivalent to, not the same as American subcompacts, Chinese A0-class cars, etc. Each market has its own definition that was derived quite separately from the others. Likewise, since B-segment cars are a European thing, not a global thing, it doesn't make sense to make any statements about the global market unless we say something like "B-segment cars and their equivalents".  Stepho  talk 23:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Global classification
We've tried WP:RFC and since that doesn't work, maybe we should to resort to another consensus-making methods such as discussion in the talk page (per WP:CONSENSUS). Your past arguments provide little guidance on how we should improve this article, and seemingly demonstrates an unwillingness to discuss because you repeatedly pushed another method of consensus-building (which we tried, and didn't seem to attract enough editors) instead of actually discussing the matter.

I want to raise the fact that your argument in the edit summary did not check out with all the reference i used. "its a european classification and it doesn't include SUVs and MPVs in its definition. Those already have their own respective classifications (M segment, J segment)." According to whom exactly? This is a misconception that I'm trying to fix. I brought tons of references from industry analysts and experts that said B-SUV  and B-MPV  does exist, in Europe. I did not made that up. In fact, recent EU documents did not mention M-segment and J-segment, they used A/B/C/D/etc or at least MPV/SUV without defining their respective segment. I even considered proposing a deletion of J-segment and M-segment articles because only one reference used in the article mentioned J and M, while other references (including 2 EU documents) used the more common SUV and MPV terms. Your unbacked argument about the segment not including SUVs and MPVs cannot just cancel all these references.

"No one else except you has agreed with this version." That is flat out wrong. I'm seeing CZmarlin tidying up my version is an approval, and Jurisdicta literally picked my version in the previous RFC.

I presented my reasoning, how about yours? Andra Febrian (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The notion that I'm supposed to provide a more compelling argument against YOUR changes or be more proactive in discussing the viability of YOUR proposals is absurd. In no way am I obliged to persuade you or participate in improving YOUR version of the article. It's the other way round rather. It's you that's trying to make dramatic changes to the status quo. Bear in mind that this article has mostly remained european small-car focused throughout its existence. If you want to change the article to a more global definition that also includes SUVs and MPVs, it is up to YOU to persuade the community. Not me - I'm simply retaining something that is well established and already agreed upon in the wikipedia community. At present, SUVs and MPVs by official definition are still in a different classification from the B segment. Just because something isn't mentioned in a particular source, or some "experts" deem some things to be the same, does not mean the actual official European classification has been changed or should be ignored. It's also for this reason why your idea that the M segment and J segment articles should be deleted or merged entirely, is also an absurd proposition. That would go against an entire official government/industry classification. But anyway, if you want persuade everyone else to agree to your dramatic changes to the status quo of this article, then I wish you all the very best luck. If a proper consensus is reached and the community agrees to your proposals, then you wouldn't even need me to argue against. - Democfest (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There was never a community-wide past consensus regarding the article's standing, so I don't think I'm entitled to persuade the community to agree with my version. WP:DRNC supported this. I did anyway, but it went stale and doing it the second time wouldn't help. So there aren't really "everyone else". Unless you can point where and when exactly did this article's standing is actually "agreed upon in the wikipedia community".


 * The way I see it, as you're the only vocal opposing party, it became a two-party dispute with the reverting party. That's why I expected input from you as the opposing party. Your reply shows that you ignored, even dismissed the points that I have presented and your reasoning with your revert just circles around status quo, retaining and long-standing. Even RFC requires a meaningful discussion first. Unless they are on the process of being resolved, Wikipedia doesn't have a bias toward the status quo (per WP:DONTREVERT) so your argument toward status quo held no weight whatsoever. Misconceptions can stand for years and years without being corrected.


 * I would like to negotiate with you by removing references of MPVs and SUVs and see how this goes. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not how it works though. You're still trying to pursue your own version which completely overturns the established definition of this segment in the industry, the European government, and hence also here on Wikipedia. Though it looks as if your recent edits are more sensible and have ditched this backwards definition. Also note that WP:DONTREVERT also applies to your edits. Just because you couldn't reach a consensus does not mean that you are free to carry on pursuing your radically different version of the article. It's on the contrary actually, you are still obliged to reach a consensus with the community in the same fashion or through some other form if you still wish to carry out your version. It is not a case of you just discussing it with me. You still have to reach a collective agreement with the community. Otherwise what's stopping me from doing whatever i want with this article too? - Democfest (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What I was doing was not a reverting an attempt, I'm trying to demonstrate a version that may alleviate your concern based on this talk page discussion, which in an event where you agreed then the BRD cycle ends. Although it turns out that you have many concerns that you didn't even mention earlier. We haven't reached a consensus, yes, but that was part of a consensus-building process.


 * I removed the sales table because apparently Wikipedia advises against pouring large statistics without any context (WP:NOTDATABASE). "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." You can't exactly explain a table this large. By changing it into Top 10, it became a summary of a database, which WP is okay with, and perfectly illustrates which popular B-segment cars are in Europe.


 * And I'm pretty sure I don't have to reach a collective agreement with the community, it's only optional. I looked around and found no rule about that, maybe point me out if there is any because I might overlook them. Unless my version contradict another past consensus, but there was no standing consensus. "It is not a case of you just discussing it with me." It is, you're the opposing party and my edits did not seem to contradict any other community consensus, policies or guidelines. "Otherwise what's stopping me from doing whatever i want with this article too?" It only takes one editor reverting your changes, not the whole community. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)