Talk:Honda Ridgeline (second generation)

Advert template
In the past week, two editors have added "This article is written like an advertisement" templates which were removed without discussion. ,, : Let's talk about it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, progress has been made in replacing Honda press releases with independent sources, but promotionally-written material still remains. The first two paragraphs of the "Differences from Gen1 Ridgeline" section are based entirely on Honda sources and are not neutrally-written: "Honda celebrates their Gen2 Ridgeline for its road performance, interior space, flat bed, dual-action tailgate, and in–bed trunk."; "Additionally, Honda highlights the Gen2 Ridgeline's improvements over the Gen1, specifically its greater use of technology and electronic driver's aids." We should be highlighting what independent sources say about the changes, not what Honda wants to promote. –dlthewave ☎ 17:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I am happy to work to improve the article and work through language that is suggested to be more appropriate, as you have just done. What I find inappropriate is having those aforementioned editors slapping a negative template on the article with no justification statement or providing any evidence or examples of what sounds like an advertisement to them (i.e. What is wrong that needs fixing?).  That is no way to address an issue/concern and is lazy editing.  I know it's not the same, but is not far off from putting a "this sucks" template on a page, walking away, and you are not allowed to remove it until it's debated with someone who has no interest in debating it.  If an editor highlights the problem(s) and then puts a warning on the article, now we have something to work with and makes sense to do.


 * As we've discussed before, credible sources is what we should always be using and using the manufacturer's own information on what, where, when, and why is very appropriate for automotive journalists are going to just quote the manufacture on those things. To say that a third-party quote--which has the change to be a miss-quote, as has happened with the first-generation of this vehicle—is somehow more accurate or trustworthy than from the source itself is the opposite of credible.  Using the manufacturer's information on the appropriate things and properly caviated (i.e. "According to Honda...", "Honda states that...") is a very appropriate way to do this.


 * Your specific point that you make above is well made and I agree. From a writing perspective, there still needs to be a summary style paragraph introducing the section; so I will work in that.  If you have other suggestions for language changes, let's please continue to conversation vs doing what the aforementioned editors are doing. --McChizzle (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The recent rewrite is a bit of an improvement, but the sourcing has not changed and it's still just repeating Honda's press releases and other promotional material. I'm not sure if you're aware but Honda Pro Jason is a "Honda brand advocate".
 * Even when the manufacturer's claims are technically accurate, we rely on independent sources to provide a more balanced and less promotional viewpoint. Fuel economy is a prime example: Honda (and our article) claim "best in class", but Car and Driver points out that the "class" omits 4-cylinder versions of similar trucks that actually have better mileage numbers. –dlthewave ☎ 21:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Good edit, thank you! I had captured that difference with the V6—when the new Ford Ranger came out—a while back but it must have gotten lost through other revisions ("my bad").


 * Every journalist has a vehicle/brand they favor and yes Honda Pro Jason is an independent Honda advocate; that does not mean the interviews he conducted equals those individuals lying on camera. —If this was a technical comparison between a Honda and a Ford, then the Honda source and Honda Pro Jason's interviews would not be a very credible source to use independently (note how the "Comparisons" section is written).—  Since this is comparing a Honda to a Honda, I struggle to find significant credibility issues for who else but the manufacturer knows the technical difference of their two vehicles best.  If you know of another credible source that walks through the technical differences between the generations (comparing Honda-to-Honda), please let me know.


 * One thing about the Ridgeline is that it's not a popular vehicle; so there is not a lot of detailed technical articles about it from journalists. This often means that most journalists will just be regurgitating the manufacturer's published technical information; so why take the risk of a misquote—noting the MPG was a comparison statement of their competition and thus should not be used, as you correctly stated.  Regardless, when we find something wrong we need to find a better credible source to correct it or we have no evidence (other than our opinion) that it is somehow wrong.  Please note the beginning of the paragraph where it states, "Honda's press release for it's Gen2 Ridgeline focused on the improvements the automaker made over their Gen1..."  This is telling the reader this information comes from Honda and there is nothing wrong with that.  Even in the US legal system would a court allow a second-hand document referencing another document be allowed; they would require the original document that was being referenced to make certain things were not being misconstrued/misrepresented. --McChizzle (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Descriptions of features
It seems unnecessary to include descriptions of common features such as antilock brakes, electronic brakeforce distribution and emergency brake assist. Part of the beauty of Wikipedia is that when a reader is unfamiliar with a term, they can click on it to learn more. It's common practice to leave these descriptions out of the automotive feature list and I think it makes sense to trim here as well. –dlthewave ☎ 12:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvements. Your recent edits make sense to me and I see the logic in them, particularly your removal of sentences I added to try and address one of your previous complaints.


 * The removal of content you mentioned above does not make sense. According to Wikipedia's MoS, very few readers select wiki-links in an article; I see no good reason why a single short sentence providing a short description of what the named system does—as many of the other bulletized items in the list do—is a good thing, particularly when the wiki-link does not cover the specific information provided in the short one sentence description that is relevant to the Gen2 Ridgeline (e.g. the VTM-4 sub-article does not cover I-VTM4 specifics but the short sentence you removed did).  If the reader wants to learn more, they can select the appropriate wiki-link, as you described.  Your reason for deleting the information, "No need to describe common features," does not work for non-automotive enthusiasts do not know what VSM, I-VTM4, ABS, EBD, brake assist, or VSA is or do (e.g. I'm continually surprised by those that do not know what ABS simply does). --McChizzle (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The I-VTM4 article previously had a through description, however the information had to be removed due to a copyright issue. This should be retargeted to the Honda section of Torque vectoring. As for the other terms, we don't typically include a full explanation in automotive articles. I appreciate the concerns about users not clicking on Wikilinks, however the MOS page you linked specifically refers to unnecessary/unhelpful links. "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from" - In this case the answer is a resounding "yes", this is a situation where wikilinks are quite helpful. –dlthewave ☎ 02:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you are saying, but you are changing the subject. You and I both agree that the wiki-links to more detailed descriptions of these systems should stay.  A shot partial sentence to a short sentence (just a few words) describing the named system in this bulletined list of systems could ultimately entice the reader to learn more by letting them know what it is or stands for.  I argue it is this type of editing that leads readers to dismiss it and move on, as Wikipedia's cited article suggests, leaving the reader ignorant.  By using only a few words to describe a named system in a bulletined list of systems would entice the reader to learn more or impart some definition or short description to them before they move on, as they are reportedly doing now.  Plus, your recent deletion of content describing these systems from the wiki-linked articles provides even more and stronger justification for having a few words describing what the named system is/does.  There is no harm nor rule against doing this to help readers—just because others don't consider doing this within a bulletined list does not make it a rule.  Ignoring what Wikipedia itself as highlighted and demanding that the only way readers are allowed to learn what an acronym stands for or what a named system does is by leaving the article entirely to start anew is just poor article creation. --McChizzle (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Update to the functionality of ivtm4. The second generation ridgeline does not have a locking rear differential. The rear wheels are free to move independently. This is apparent in video youtu.be/FEr9JSYdCnU?t=332 (at the 5:33 mark, when one wheel spins in the dirt). You can see one wheel spins as the other does not move. In vehicles with locking rear differentials, the wheels move at the same time. There is no documentation from HONDA which states there is a rear locking differential. hondanews.com/en-US/honda-automobiles/releases/honda-i-vtm4-all-wheel-drive

Image cleanup
, let me explain further some reasons why I removed several of your images:
 * 1) "Honda's intelligent traction management parameters" - This is a level of detail not really covered in any other car model article, and may be of interest to a very limited audience.  It can be summarized in one or two sentences.  It also comes off as promotional/advertising.
 * 2) Comparisons to previous generation Ridgeline (e.g. in-bed trunk design) - The page should focus on its subject, i.e. the second generation.
 * 3) Comparisons to other vehicles (e.g. sales figures) - Again, the page should focus on the second-generation Ridgeline only.  It should not be used as a comparison guide.
 * 4) Others are of very specific items in the Ridgeline, which again may be of limited interest, and come off as promotion/advertising of the specific features.

Overall, the page needs to be edited down in size, particularly the long lists of features (see WP:IINFO), so that it is easier to read by a wide audience and not a narrow group of fans/enthusiasts. None of the images or content are "necessary". Also, please be more willing to let others make edits and suggestions, as you do not WP:OWN the page, no matter your expertise or interest in the subject matter. Thanks, --Vossanova o&lt; 14:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)