Template talk:Holden Special Vehicles

Holden Commodore SS Group A SV
The template currently lists “Commodore SS Group A SV” as an HSV model nameplate. This is misleading as the “Commodore SS Group A SV” models were produced by Holden Special Vehicles under contract to Holden, and were marketed as Holdens, not as HSVs. They were also homologated by the FIA and by CAMS for Group A/Group 3A Touring Car racing as Holdens. I propose to amend the template by moving the entry to a third section headed "Models built under contract" or similar. GTHO (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It lists the SS Group A SV as a model nameplate connected to HSV. It does not define it. The SS Group A SV is a very important model in HSVs history and it is entirely appropriate to include it in the template. It is a model very strongly associated with HSVs history. The detail of how the car was sold as a Holden is a level of detail that can be carried by the articles themselves. The purpose of templates is the link associated topics of connected interest. To exclude it would be to remove a very improtant topic from the template that most readers would naturally associated with the topc heading. Pedantry should not get in the way of readability. --Falcadore (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I concede that there is a place for the "Commodore SS Group A SV" on the template although my proposal above did not in fact call for its deletion. And yes readability is important but it should not be at the expense of accuracy. A reader with limited knowledge of the subject, seeing "Commodore SS Group A SV" listed under "Model nameplates" in a Holden Special Vehicles template would no doubt assume that said model was an HSV nameplate. If they don't go to the trouble of checking out the linked article they leave with the wrong idea. We should be doing whatever we can to avoid that scenario. Perhaps what we need is a change of template headings to HSV Model nameplates, Holden Model namesplates and HSV Model series. GTHO (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not important for templates to carry that level of detail. They are burried at the bottom of its article and are never going to be a first point of information. The important articles on the subject, HSV and SS Group A SV have that information written on it well before anyone gets to the tables. Templates are a linking mechanism only, information of detail should be carried by the articles.
 * This template merely lists "Model nameplates" under a heading of Holden Special Vehicles. As the line is not labeled "HSV Model nameplates" there is no incorrect information displayed. I do not believe the template needs to be changed. Disambiguating between HSV and Holden is completely unneccessary at this level. You're debating as if this template is the only article relating to the subject people will read on wikipedia and use it as some form of reference. --Falcadore (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that most readers would not view the template without following one or more links, but we cannot predict what every reader will do. The template should at least inform the reader of the make name(s) of the models listed. Holden Special Vehicles is the company name but not a make name, so we have an automotive "manufacturer" template with model nameplates but no make name(s). This and the ambiguity that exists re the "Commodore SS Group A SV" entry can be resolved simply by adding "HSV" to the exiting model nameplate row and moving the "Commodore SS Group A SV" link to a second "Holden model namplate" row. I do not consider this to be a level of detail too great for a template. GTHO (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That level of explanation is for articles and is beyond the scope of a template whose function is to link articles together, not explain them. It's unneccessary detail. --Falcadore (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I'd tend to agree with GTHO here. While yes, detailed information in templates navboxes is generally outside their scope, I don't really see the harm in just adding a third row here, as I believe GTHO suggested. The way the template is certainly suggests to me that it's an HSV model nameplate, and I don't see any reason why we should let the "scope" of templates navboxes force us to keep something that's misleading, even if it's technically not what the template says. I'd say just add a third row that is labelled "others" or something like that; no need to get any more specific than that, I think. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except, it isn't misleading. All it does is list model names. It just says SS Group A SV, it does not say say HSV SS Group A SV. A new line for just one model (there would not be any others) is unneccesary. There is an element of anticipating that people will draw a wrong conclusions when it drawing conclusions from navboxes is not really part of their functionality. Do we need to add additional lines for six cylinder HSVs in case readers draw the conclusion that the XU6 is a V8? Do we add a line for the Grange and VXR models because they were based on Statesman and Astra models in case readers assume from this navbox they are Commodore based models? Do we need a seperate line for each model because the 1980s era SV88 has virtually nothing in common with the late 2000s W427 and should not be considered on the same line. Let's just stack everything vertically and be done with it.
 * At what point do we step back and say, that's article content and is not relevant to the purposes of navigating from one article to another? --Falcadore (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When it's reasonable to say so. The whole point of IAR is to avoid slippery slopes like the one you're talking about.  Just because we change the navbox for this reason doesn't mean we have to change it for any other reason that someone happens to come up with; we're not setting any binding precedents here.  And keep in mind that the rules are made to serve the readers of the encyclopedia; the readers are not made to serve the rules.  I mean, do you have any objection to this specific instance, other than that it's supposedly out of scope for navboxes in general?


 * The point is, when you have a thing titled Holden Special Vehicles, and there's a subgroup that's called "model nameplates", people are going to assume that the elements of the subgroup are model nameplates of Holden Special Vehicles. GTHO says that the statement "Commodore SS Group A SV is a model nameplate of HSV" is incorrect.  Do you think that the navbox could not be reasonably read to imply this statement, or do you think that this statement is true?  If you're not approaching this with either (or both) of those points, then I'm not sure I follow your argument.


 * And by the way, an equally attractive compromise could be to rename the subgroup from "model nameplates" to something else. What, I don't know, but there's probably something that would make the relationship between the models (or lack thereof) more evident.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think Vehicles or Models works just as well as Model Nameplates. I have no problem with renaming model nameplates to something else. I just have a problem seprating one from the heard for any reason really. If it the SS Group A was a forklift, ot an aircraft or a water pump, then sure place it on a seperate line, but they are all performance muscles cars. I personally do not believe that the Model nameplates specifically implies that they are all HSV model nameplates. If it said HSV Model Nameplates I'd agree.
 * The SS Group A SV was designed (re-designed) and built by HSV. The reasons for it being sold as a Holden are essentially for marketting purposes, as Holden wanted the vehicle that was to represent them in motor racing to carry their name rather than the after-market tuning firm that built it. Otherwise it is indistinguishable from other HSV models except by specification and badges. HSV has always claimed it as one of their own creations, the historical documents have detailed this, something which GTHO himself brought to my attention previously.
 * If there was more than one model with such a distinction I might think differently. You've indicated that a case can be made to make this seperate from any other form of distinguishing vehicles created by HSV, I disagree. A navbox as I understand it is a linking mechanism, not a content mechanism. The purpose of this navbox is to link all the topics associated with HSV. I personally find the nature of the badges on the cars an unimportant distinction for the purposes of a navbox.
 * To boil it down, the SS Group A SV was a model nameplate produced by HSV. Everything beyond that is to my mind unneccessary complication. --Falcadore (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the inclusion of the make/makes on a automotive template could be considered an "unnecessary complication". I certainly consider it an important inclusion and I doubt that there are many such templates which reference models without also referencing the makes or makes. I accept that at least one reader does not care about the make, but I don't believe that those that do should be deprived of this fundamental automotive identifier on the template. GTHO (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * GTHO, what do you think about renaming the group to something more generic, which wouldn't imply that it's a model nameplate of HSV (something like "cars" or "vehicles", rather than "model nameplates")? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say yes to break this deadlock, but I don't think that the change alone would solve the issue of readers assuming that all cars are HSVs. I would however be happy if we made the suggested change and added a footnote along the lines of "all models listed were marketed as HSVs except for the Commodore SS Group A SV, which was marketed as a Holden" I would also like to see "SS Group A SV" changed to the more accurate "Commodore SS Group A SV". GTHO (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the assumption of "it's a HSV car" is problematic (or at least as problematic) compared to "it's a model nameplate of HSV". "Model nameplate" implies the marketing aspect of it, which would be plainly wrong; they were marketed as Holdens, not HSVs. But just a simple "car" doesn't have the same marketing angle, so it doesn't have the same effect.  I still have nothing against separating the one from the rest, so if the compromise is not satisfactory, I'm not going to push for it, but I think it'll help.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, as a compromise position, I propose to rename "Model nameplates" to "Models" and "SS Group A SV" to "Commodore SS Group A SV". GTHO (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it's necessary to add Commodore as there is not a rival vehicle to the terminology and as an abbreviation it is in widespread common usage, but I don't care "that" much on the point. As said above, this is a linking mechanism first. --Falcadore (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make it so! I'm gonna leave the "Commodore" out for now; I know that it's the proper name for the car, but after looking at it in edit preview, it makes the link just obnoxiously long. At this point, as long as it's uniquely identified, I think we should leave well enough alone. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)