Talk:Toyota C-HR

Untitled
The Toyota C-HR was launched in Japan on 14 December 2016.

Please help to develop this page!

Main images
Makizox and myself have a difference of opinion for the main images. I prefer the images from the 2016 Geneva Motor Show because they are good quality photos of the cars by themselves. Makizox has said that he prefers images that are more representative of what we see on the road. I can't see any substantial feature differences between them, so I can't see why images with cluttered backgrounds are better then images with clear backgrounds. Comments?  Stepho  talk 21:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Makizox@undefined, it is better to discuss here instead of reverting - just reverting all the time will result in an edit war, which will eventually be undone by an administrator and the article reverted back to its pre-war version, which is the version I prefer. WP:BRD covers our situation.
 * Re your comment "Photographers such as M 93 who take pictures of cars in public (mostly at dealerships) they have background such as cars and building in them. It may not be to your standard but it is still presentable to everyone else." It's not my standard. If we only had your choice of photos then I would just accept it and move on. But we have a choice of photos. Why choose the poorer photos when we have a much better choice available?
 * By the way, I do appreciate that you took the time and effect to take the photos and upload them to WP. But this may also be making you biased in favour of them.  Stepho  talk 09:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I just thought it would be better since it gives a more realistic representation on the cars we see on the road. I let the Geneva photo stay but before you undo edit again I want to see other peoples opinion about this, I don't think it should be resolved between us without seeing what others thinks. --Makizox (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * NO problem with getting more opinions. I will ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.  Stepho  talk 22:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry Stepho, I kind of prefer the street images - the shape is actually clearer without the strange lighting seen in the salon shots. Maybe they could be less tightly cropped, but that's another point.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The strangely contrasting patches of light and shade on the show cars distract from the shapes of the cars and mean that a lot of detailing of panel gaps, panel creases and windows/handles/frontal arrangements is unnecessarily lost.  That's a common problem with the lighting used at motor shows.   For my part I also find something "unnatural" about using pictures of cars in a dealer showroom or at a motor show:  it's just unrepresentative of the way the car appears "in real life" for those of us who don't spend our lives hanging around car dealers with lots of halogen lights in the showroom.   It is sometimes possible to find motor show pictures which don't have quite the level of bizarrely mixed lighting on display here.   But here I guess I prefer the "road" images.   I would prefer (I agree, for) them to slightly less savagely cropped than here, but I guess that depends on whether the background is distracting.   Can't judge that from what we see of these ones.  With a white car, as here, a darker background certainly helps.   For a more boldly coloured car I would prefer a bit of sky (or white building) in the background, but with white (and even more with the silvery-grey) cars that are currently fashionable you then tend to get the top of the car merging into the clouds in a sort of silvery grey haze which detracts from the opportunity to see the shape of the car.


 * None of these pictures is beyond criticism.  No picture of a car is ever beyond criticism.   There is indeed scope for someone to go out with a camera and get a better picture.   None of the others for this car in commons is particularly wonderful.   But from what we currently have I prefer the ones identified here as "road".


 * Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Venza
An anon-IP (various addresses such as 107.22.xxx.xxx) is claiming that the C-HR is the successor to the Venza. He says this is because the C-HR started at the same time that the Venza stopped. I don't believe this connection is strong enough. Toyota exited one sub-market (MPV) to concentrate on a different sub-market (compact SUV). The vehicles are in different sub-markets. The link needs to be stronger.  Stepho  talk 22:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Koba
Anybody know what 'Koba' means? Toyota Australia's website lists the C-HR AWD, C-HR 2WD Koba and C-HR AWD Koba, so I assume it is a trim level. What features does it have? Is it Australia only?  Stepho  talk 11:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I do. I'm from Australia. The Koba model is the range topper of the C-HR range :). I recommended checking this one because it covers your needs. Happy Xmas, sorry I didn't see your message from a few months ago -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Reference date format
and myself are in the beginnings of an edit war over the reference date format. The history is as follows:
 * 19 Dec 2022, no date format tag, majority of dates in text are dmy, majority of references are ymd: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_C-HR&oldid=1140319586
 * An hour later, MapReader added the tag to force all references to dmy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_C-HR&diff=1140332050&oldid=1140319586
 * 13 hours later I tweaked the tag to restore ymd dates for references: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_C-HR&diff=1140467728&oldid=1140332050
 * 28 Feb 2023, Fukswityu removed ymd tweak: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_C-HR&diff=1142072666&oldid=1141198681
 * 1 March 2023, Andra Febrian restored ymd tweak via rollback of crystalball data: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_C-HR&diff=1142278763&oldid=1142096856
 * 6 March, Stepho-wrs formatted some mdy reference dates to dmy (which date tag overrides): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_C-HR&diff=1143176642&oldid=1142278763
 * 6 March, MapReader removes ymd tweak: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_C-HR&diff=1143208278&oldid=1143176642
 * Followed by more edits of MapReader and myself reverting each other

From this, I see that the original format of the article had ymd reference dates. This is an allowed format for references regardless of the format used in the rest of the article. I'll go into details if you want me to, complete with links to guidelines and links to guideline discussions.

MapReader added the dmy tag. The tag is good but it changed the reference format as well, so I tweaked it to reflect the original reference format (as per WP:DATERET). The rest is edit warring. Comments?  Stepho  talk 07:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The dmy tag simply reflected the overwhelming position in the article as it was when I first visited it, the spelling from previous edits already also reflecting British English. I'm sure that ymd dates for references are 'allowed' but don't see there's any point in having references differently formatted from the article - a tag that two editors have removed - and an edit solely to change the date format of the visit date for the citations, so that they don't reflect the article, does seem a rather trivial matter on which to start an edit war. MapReader (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As stated above, the dmy tag is good and welcome and reflects the overall date format in the article text - no argument there. It just needed the extra parameter to restore the existing date format of the references. So, it's quite possible to have the dmy tag while also having ymd format in the references.
 * Glad that we agree that ymd dates are allowed. It's also policy that reference formats are not unilaterally changed without consensus and that the reference date format does not have to agree with the date format used in the article text. Which means your change of the reference date format without consensus is strictly against guidelines.
 * You say that 2 editors removed the tag (technically, they removed a parameter from the tag and left the tag itself present). But you forget that 2 editors restored that tag. And even if it was slightly more editors removing it, that's not the same thing as consensus to change.
 * Re: trivial matter to start an edit war. That argument applies both ways - you are free to bow out of the discussion any time you want.  Stepho  talk 22:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * MapReader has not responded in 5 days, so I am assuming that he has indeed bowed out. Therefore I will restore the original date format.  Stepho  talk 11:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea of the talk page is that we seek the views of others, not that you just resume the edit war by other means. I can’t get overly excited about the date format of the references, and have found your argumentation somewhat petty; if another editor subsequently feels that the format of the references should sensibly match that of the article, I suggest that they would be justified in removing your tag.  Otherwise I will leave things be. MapReader (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Petty? My point is very simple. The pre-existing reference date format was in the legitimate ymd format. You changed it in breach of WP:DATERET, nor have you found a consensus to change it.  Stepho  talk 12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)