Talk:Traffic-sign recognition

The article now states "Introduced on the 2009 BMW 7-Series.". Though I came from the Opel Insigna page, that tells you it already has this now. One of both articles not up to date?

The reference number 5 says page not found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.188.29 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think nowadays listing the vehicles with traffic sign recognition is pointless. Maybe it would be interesting to name the first 10 vehicles chronological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.113.3.13 (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Vehicles using traffic-sign recognition
I know a lot of work has gone into the generation of this section, but the presentation is very poor, with large amounts of blank space, accessibility issues due to non-compliant use of colour, a weird grouping by parent company rather than vehicle marque, and no way of sorting the data for easy analysis and comparison. Also, the way technology is going, and the recent announcement from the EU requiring this sort of technology on all new vehicles, it seems that we will end up with a list containing every car model from every manufacturer before too long. Is this really a necessay addition to this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The presentation by owner helps to highlight technology transfer in general, and the performance and capabilities of these systems is not homogeneous at all.
 * Even if the EU makes this technology mandatory, it should not even contain all cars from European brands, as not all cars are sold in the EU.
 * The table allows finding cars with this technology easier until it is mandatory everywhere.
 * If someone wants to make small icons for each propulsion technology the presentation with colors could be replaced, this will take up more space but will be more accessible.
 * The section already existed, it became a long unstructured list, so this presentation is already saving space.
 * A restructuring should be thought about when this section is expanded to detail the capabilities of each system, which is not so easy to collect and would be useful even with a regulation active.
 * This is encyclopedic information that I don't think you will find summarized anywhere else. -- 217.162.112.133 (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restructured the tables. -- 217.162.112.133 (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the "Vehicles using traffic-sign recognition" section
I removed it (diff) first and foremost because it was literally breaking the article. Prior to removal, this article had a "Post-expand include size" of more than 2MB, causing the templates near the end of the page to NOT expand. This meant the references were broken as well, as they rely on reflist. For technical details, see the text at the top of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.

I considered just patching the problem, but I saw the discussion above and I agree, the existing presentation was a mess and most of the information is not needed. For exmple, the type of engine the cars that have a sign recognition system is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm not saying it isn't encyclopedic, only that it does not belong in this article.

At most, all we need in a sectoin with this title is a bulleted list of vehicles and model years, and maybe a comment saying "select versions only" or "only a, b, and c versions". Personally, I think the page is fine without this section at all.

If the content IS restored, it should ONLY be restored if it does not break the page and if the resulting presentaiton is reasonably intelligible and not "ugly." Half-filled tables tend to be ugly. Brands with zero entries shouldn't even be in the table at all. The "V" section was particularly ugly-looking, with one itty-bitty table for ABVOLVO and VinFast and one large one for Volkswagon. Removing ABVOLVO and VinFast altogether would solve the aesthetics problem.

If it is restored I highly recommend that the fuel-type icons be removed as being irrelevant to this topic. This is an encylopedia, not an automobile-specialty magazine. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  07:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)