Talk:Toyota bZ4X

Misunderstanding regarding this being Toyota's "first electric vehicle"
Please don't edit this page to promulgate the falsehood that this is Toyota's first electric vehicle. Toyota has been producing electric vehicles since the 1990s.
 * It appears that user Andra Febrian objects to the characterization of 2021 as being "subsequent" to 2014. But I'll leave that to him to explain.

Bill Woodcock (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Andra Febrian and Bill Woodcock
 * In Germany the online news channel ntv.de recently published that the 'Solterra' is SUBARU's first electric car.
 * 2A01:C23:7DB0:5700:F5CB:2284:19AD:48A2 (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

'X-MODE'
'X-MODE' in Toyota bZ4X / 2nd paragraph / last sentence.

The article says:


 * On AWD models, the 'X-MODE' system is borrowed from the Subaru Forester.

but it is not clear, what this 'X-MODE' is or does.

An "X" appears in various applications:
 * X-Mas,
 * X-roads,
 * X-over SUV or Crossover (disambiguation),
 * XOVER.

Readers should not be left wondering, what words/terms mean.

Therefore I consider it mandatory to:
 * first explicitly say that it is an AWD technology from Subaru, and
 * only after this to say that it is "borrowed" from the Subaru 'Forester'.

OLD: On AWD models, the 'X-MODE' system is borrowed from the Subaru Forester.

NEW: On AWD models, the 'X-MODE' AWD-system from Subaru is "borrowed" from the Subaru Forester.

2A01:C23:7DB0:5700:F5CB:2284:19AD:48A2 (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Adding "AWD" makes it slightly better but I am still left wondering what it actually does. At Subaru Forester it mentions things like "Hill Descent Control" and "for driving on uneven or slippery road conditions". Is it some type of traction control system?  Stepho  talk 21:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Subaru redesign images

 * For easier understanding:
 * I have replaced this "box with two images"
 * by "TWO boxes with FOUR images":


 * This REPEATS the two images from the Toyota, which are already at the TOP of this article, in a chapter further below. But this repetition makes it possible to EASILY COMPARE the DIFFERENCES.
 * 2A01:C23:7DB0:5700:F5CB:2284:19AD:48A2 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@ Andra Febrian In the chapter about the Subaru version there is mentioned a minor exterior redesign. For the readers to understand what this 'redesign' means and to be able to do a comparison by themselves, it is absolutely necessary to have BOTH images in ONE view. If the images are so far away from each other that one has to SCROLL, then each reader would have to scroll up and down 20-30 or more times until they have finally managed to find the differences; or they would have to completely memorize one image. Only very very few people can memorize a photo in all details, that is: have an eidetic memory ( almost the same as a photographic memory ). Therefore this repetition of the Toyota images is a great improvement and service to those readers who want to see MOST EASILY what this redesign means and what the differences are. 2A01:C23:7DB0:5700:F5CB:2284:19AD:48A2 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * We don't usually arrange images to make a comparison, that is not the purpose of images in articles and such usage is not mentioned in our conventions at WP:CARS or Wikipedia-wide conventions. Maybe you can request a WP:RFC or gain consensus in the talk page. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Andra Febrian
 * In which rule does it say, that putting two images side by side to make a comparison possible and EASY, MUST NOT be done?
 * If you can't serve this rule, then this rule does not exist and you have to accept my changes!
 * Just because "we usually don't do" and because "it is not mentioned" is NO reason to NOT do it HERE and THIS TIME.
 * Rules usually FORBID things.
 * It is a general principle that "Everything which is NOT forbidden, is ALLOWED.".
 * The purpose of this wikipedia and of images is to make facts MORE EASILY visible.
 * This usage of two images is completely IN-DEPENDANT of the TOPIC (like: cars).
 * So it does not HAVE to be allowed in the "cars"-rules.
 * Who gets HARMED by this repetition?
 * Compare the USE to the DAMAGE !!
 * By the way: I am an editor to this wikipedia myself for several years.
 * And less than 0.01 % of my edits got reverted.
 * So: I must have quite a good judgement.
 * 2A01:C23:7DB0:5700:F5CB:2284:19AD:48A2 (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Compare the USE to the DAMAGE !!
 * By the way: I am an editor to this wikipedia myself for several years.
 * And less than 0.01 % of my edits got reverted.
 * So: I must have quite a good judgement.
 * 2A01:C23:7DB0:5700:F5CB:2284:19AD:48A2 (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2A01:C23:7DB0:5700:F5CB:2284:19AD:48A2 (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Andra Febrian
 * I have placed a request Third opinion
 * 2A01:C23:7DB0:5700:F5CB:2284:19AD:48A2 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Car images are controlled by WP:CARPIX, per consensus of the automobile project. Comparing 2 variations of a car has never been a consideration before. Perhaps it would be better to raise such a concern at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions or the more widely watched Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.
 * There is no rule to say that comparing images is allowed, nor disallowed. To jump from silence in the rules to "you have to accept my changes" is a logical fallacy. When the rules are silent then we either ask the project to clarify the rules or we look at it on an article by article basis.
 * Claiming authority based on years of work and low rejection rate means very little. Were your edits substantial or just spelling corrections? Your WP history shows a mere 2 days with most of it on this article with multiple reverts. We have no way of checking your real history under other IP addresses. Whereas Andra Febrian has a long history since 2011 of substantial edits and is much respected in the WP car community. My own history is since 2006. So, claims of authority have no merit here. We'll discuss the claim on its on own merits.
 * Pros and cons:
 * Allows readers to compare 2 variations without scrolling. Do many readers want that? What percentage of readers? Goes a bit against WP:NOTCATALOG.
 * In WP:CARPIX, the emphasis is on images that are representative. Comparison is not a consideration. Of course, you can bring this up on the talk pages I listed above to see if comparison should be a consideration.
 * In the infobox it could be useful to show the 2 main variations. This could be useful in letting the reader know that the vehicle has been released by 2 separate companies. In similar cases on other articles we have gone for visual simplicity by showing a single image of the dominant company - usually by whichever company controlled the project. For the bZ4X, it seems like Toyota was the majority contributor, with Subaru's contribution being mostly the the 4WD system, plus some minor aesthetic detailing of their branded version.::::*Clutters up the page for readers not comparing.
 * Repeated images clutter up the page. I don't think there is an explicit rule for not repeating images but there is long standing precedent for infobox and/or intro section images not being duplicated elsewhere in the article. Look in the history of many, many car articles for this long standing tradition.
 * All-in-all, my opinion is that comparison images don't offer anything to the majority of readers, only offers a small bit of helpfulness to a small number of readers and clutters up the page for the majority. Of course, others may have a different opinion.
 * I have put an invitation to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles.  Stepho  talk 22:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Stepho, for answering, and thank you for placing the second request.

I would be happy if the four images would be in the info box, just in the way I have suggested i.e. in two groups: front by front and rear by rear.

If these 4 images were in the info box, I would happily agree to not have the images in the "Subaru" chapter; this way avoiding a repetition of images.

Thank you for answering my question whether a rule forbids a comparison. But if something is not forbidden, it is tolerable to do --- in most cases.

This case is special because the two versions DO differ, not only in the badge of the company. To me there is a great difference between the two versions: the complete front below the hood/bonnet is different:
 * the area above the head lights,
 * the area and beam below the head lights,
 * the upper and lower air intakes (which are the biggest difference) and
 * the bottom fog lights.

I do agree with you: personal merits should not matter, only the arguments should.

As I already said: comparison is INDEPENDENT of the topic. There could be chairs, watches, bicycles or what ever, under two different brand names. And if there would be a difference at all, then the wikipedia should make it EASY to see these differences. The question of comparing images of two things under different badges is a much more general question, and does not only concern cars.

Even if there were no differences at all, besides the badge(s), I would support comparing images "side by side" just so that readers can SEE for themselves (most easily) that there ARE NO differences.

Why do you care, in this case, for majority? In e.g. the case of several topics with the same name, I agree to care for majority e.g. re. what to place at the top of a disambiguation page and which topic to use as the "main" page.

But within one article it should not be of any concern how many readers might be interested in something. If there is a fact which might at least interest one reader, this fact should be placed.

There are so many articles which are only read once a year. But they are there; and it is good that they are there. And even if someone undertook to improve an article which is only read every ten years, they are allowed to do so. The wp does not have the fundamental task to censor content of an article --- only in special cases.

So: if we all agree, to place the FOUR images in the info box, we all can be happy and go on to other work.

2A01:C23:7DB0:5700:F5CB:2284:19AD:48A2 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The images should always be representative of the title of the article or section they are in. If the article is called "Toyota bZ4X", the main infobox image should be of a Toyota bZ4X only.  In the section "Subaru Solterra", the images should be of a Subaru Solterra only.  Thus, if you were to have images of a bZ4X and Solterra right next to each other, you would only do so in a section discussing them both. For example, you could add a "Toyota/Subaru collaboration" section, showing how the two companies collaborated.  I would advise against a "Comparison" section, since it's open to WP:OR and non-WP:NPOV.  Alternatively, if there were consensus to rename the article to "Toyota bZ4X/Subaru Solterra", and discuss both in the first paragraph, then a side-by-side image pair would make more sense.  Otherwise, as I see the page now, there is potentially room for a couple more Solterra images in its section, just make them a horizontal gallery rather than vertically stacked, so you don't add too much blank page space. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "If something is not forbidden then it is tolerable" - but not always wise. Unfortunately, saying that if one reader wants something then it should be added is a 1-dimensional type of thinking often leads to doom. Everything has a cost. In this case, shifting the images around makes it harder for readers interested in only the single brand (or at least interested in only one at a time). In which case, your desired changes make it worse for those readers. So we weight up the pros and cons. If there are great advantages for very little disadvantages then we do it. If there are great disadvantages for very little advantage then we don't do it. I see arranging the images for easy comparison as disrupting the average user too much, so I would advise to not do it. After all, it is not that onerous for the handful of comparing users to scroll.  Stepho  talk 06:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit late, but I generally feel that anything more than a single image in the infobox is best avoided. However, placing these near each other in a gallery somewhere in the article appears to make sense and I feel that I typically see that for most Japanese OEM renamings. IP, consider getting an account so that we may actually communicate with you, rather than ever changing ip addresses. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)