Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 27

Timeline of North American automobiles
I've created this article, and I invested some time into inputting all the relevant info, but I don't have the time or energy to complete it. I link it here in hopes that someone else will see the utility of a list like this, and will continue with the project. My vision includes the many different car companies that existed before WW2, there's a ton of them and they all has a lot of cool cars. Anyways, hopefully someone picks up the torch. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Automobile-related disambiguation pages with links.
Greetings! This month, we have a large number of links to disambiguation pages about automobiles. We at the Disambiguation pages with links project would appreciate any help you could give us in fixing ambiguous links to the following pages: Cheers! bd2412 T 05:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sedan: 63 links done
 * Chevrolet Blazer: 61 links
 * Mercedes: 52 links
 * Ford Fairlane: 50 links
 * Ford Fusion: 50 links
 * Rolls-Royce: 49 links
 * Ford Granada: 48 links done

Early motorcycles synchronization
Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorcycling.--Dbratland (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified automobiles
Think you know automoblies? Try your hand at identifying the automobiles at Unidentified automobiles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am relatively new to wikipedia, so I am not sure as to how to modify the picture's text. I added notes of make and model of some, years on a few. (Mystere485 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Thanks Uzma, this is great fun. A lot of them are European Ford Escorts... Mystère, the best way to identify is to change the category reading "unidentified automobile" to the correct category. Sometimes it will take a minute of searching to find a good one. I changed this one for you, you can see what I did for yourself in the history section. You got good eyes for old cars, btw.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for your help Mr.choppers, i'll modify the rest that i indefinitely know what they. Thank-you for the compliment, I spent a lot of school years looking at car books instead of doing homework...lol! (Mystere485 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC))

BMW/Mercedes Benz cat renaming
Give your opinions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_30#Category:BMW_platforms  and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_31#Category:Mercedes-Benz_platforms    -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 10:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lists of bestselling automobiles by manufacturer
I came across a couple of these content forks:


 * Ford bestselling models
 * Honda bestselling models

Is it worth trying to merge this content somewhere or are we better off just AfD-ing them? --Sable232 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep them but as a list, not a full article. So my vote is for a rename. Similar lists can be made for other carmakers, Toyota would be interesting for example.--Mariordo (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with either list of automobile sales by model or list of bestselling automobiles (these two lists should be merged as well). OSX (talk • contributions) 08:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Toyota Yaris Hybrid
Toyota has announced that will unveiled the Yaris HSD in the upcoming Geneva Auto Show. I will make the entry in the Toyota concept vehicles, 2010-2019, but I am really confused about which of the Yaris articles is the appropriate one to make a short entry about the hybrid version. Any guidance is welcome. See the sources here and here.--Mariordo (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Toyota Vitz. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The obvious candiates (Yaris and Toyota Yaris) are just disambiguation pages. In Japan, the Yaris Sedan is called the Toyota Belta and the Yaris hatchback is called the Toyota Vitz. Sadly, the one and only photo on the web shows only the front and no one says if it is a sedan or hatchback. I've created Toyota Yaris HSD Concept to help people typing it into the WP search box. Some news/blog sites on the web said that it was 'based on the Yaris which was called the Vitz in Japan' but that may be a generalisation by the reporter. Probably better to just wait until the Geneva Auto Show in March and then fill in lots of details.  Stepho   (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses. I agree it is better to wait until more info is available and the redirect is a good temporary solution.--Mariordo (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone identify this Hyundai car?
This image should be moved to the commons, but I'd like to rename it before moving with the type of car it is. I could probably figure this out with some sleuthing, but I guessed you guys could do this off the top of your head. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Hyundai is actually a 1997 to 2001 Ford Puma. OSX (talk • contributions) 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha oops, that ford script totally looked like the Hyundai H to me... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, this one? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a Hero Honda CBZ in front of some kind of Indian built Suzuki . 125-180ccs, hard to tell from this angle.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the second bike is actually a Bajaj, most likely a Pulsar, I mistook their logo for a Suzuki "S".  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nouvelle catégorie
Bonjour, une nouvelle catégorie pour votre projet, c'est ici.--Thesupermat (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Machine translated as...


 * Hello, a new category for your project, 110 years of automobile at the Grand Palais.  Stepho   (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Lovely photos! Can't wait to see what can be used there, already introduced one of the RR Phantom VI Landaulet photos. Incidentally, this car is listed as a '92, whilst the Rolls-Royce Phantom VI page claims that production ended in 1991. Was the Sultan of Brunei behind a brief revival of production or does anyone know more?  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For more informations --Thesupermat (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega
There are some real problems with Chevrolet Vega, not the least of which is that it appears to be currently owned by user Vegavairbob; the article doesn't reflect a cooperative effort.

As well, the article has grown exceedingly long, with a fair amount of unsourced information, unreferenced conclusions, and conflations of information. It's essentially become a fan page, with a fair amount of fancruft, trivia... and conclusions that are put forth and represent the positions of... one editor.

Currently, I've flagged the article with the issues, asking that the issues be discussed and resolved on the discussion page before removal of the flags. I can only bear up so well under the personal attacks that go along with even just flagging the article.

Thoughts? 842U (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good luck on "improving" the article! CZmarlin (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Meaning?842U (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While I can not dispute that Vegavairbob clearly considers this his (and only his) article, the lack of referencing seems less than risky. I'm only wondering about this one - seems peculiar. The fancruft is heavy, more so than the trivia, and obviously this article is longer than anyone could find necessary. I have to admit though, that while glancing at the article to see what it could use, I found myself stuck reading through much of it as I found it interesting. And 842U, the stars say you might be entering a stormy period in your life.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree, the article has genuinely interesting content; the problem is much of it is synthesized from sources that remain murky because the reader must rely on the single editor serving up their single viewpoint &mdash; without the benefit of quotes in the citations. There is real potential in the article.842U (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree on owning. There was a strong sense of it in my limited effort on the page, even with changes I wouldn't think were controversial. I've also felt he doesn't take any kind of criticism well, so corrective measures might end up having unpleasant consequences.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on past occurrences I think the only way this article will ever get fixed is if Vegavairbob is indefblocked. (Crap like this is totally unacceptable and considering his history a final warning for incivility would not be uncalled for.)


 * He's probably learned by now that if he's unpleasant enough people won't bother dealing with him. He's shown a considerable degree of contempt for the consensus-building process and getting any kind of worthwhile discussion out of him is impossible.


 * An RFC is an option but I don't see what would come of it that could be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is possible to get movement, but it takes a real willingness to fight with him. (I've usually got it, but he tests even mine, & nobody else I've ever met does.) IMO, Sable's right: block.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A long time ago I read that article thru, It was back then quite good, but its been getting longer article since then, actually I think its too long now to be intresting enough to be read thru. It seems to be never finished it will grow all the time. Also most of the citations are offline type, the article would benefit if it would have some more online sources. See also and external link sections should not be so long with this big article, which has lots of info, there is no need to these. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to


 * If only vegavairbob had any edits that did not relate to the Chevrolet Vega. I'm pretty single-minded myself, but I still manage to evade my beloved kei-cars and add content elsewhere every so often. Anyhow, who wants to be the first person to do some cropping? I'd recommend chopping out the section dealing with how they fixed the wood trim application issue. Vega-cruft indeed.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd cull the engine information, which can be moved to the individual engine articles. The "awards" and "reception" sections can also be cut down considerably (and "see also" should be deleted all together). Another potential section for pruning is "The DeLorean factor", of which 80 percent is a large block of quotation. Possibly the original print sources could be scanned, and hosted on Flickr or similar, and the juxtaposition summarised.

Do we need "Car and Driver's Showroom Stock #0"? Surely this can be dumped somewhere else away from our sight?

I am undecided on the "pricing" section. I think there is unwritten rule somewhere that discourages the inclusion of prices, but they really aren't bothering me in this instance. Maybe just delete the model year pricing table?

Other than that, most of the content seems okay. It's a long article, but this is partially due to the large amounts of information regarding the vehicle's manufacture (Lordstown Assembly, Vert-A-Pac, Fisher Body).

I just read the section that discusses the difficulties surrounding the application of the wood trim and thought, "no, leave it there, it's interesting". OSX (talk • contributions) 08:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I returned that paragraph as per your request as two are in favor (including me) and two aren't. A draw.Vegavairbob (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is WP:NOPRICES -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree on the #0 section & a lot of the "see also", but Delorean, Yenko, the H-platform, & MT CotY should stay; that's close enough related, & still important. If possible, I'd mention the proposed option of a factory aluminum SB V8 (Z23?).  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  11:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, it seems we are all Vegavairbob's greatest defenders, as everyone finds something interesting everywhere. I agree that the Car and Driver Showroom Stock piece is fairly irrelevant. For me, part of the reason for removing the wood trim part is the single source given. Maybe the reference could just be listed in a better fashion, was it a personal interview? Emails?  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have we thought of a name for our anti-Vegavairbob cabal yet? See how we carefully avoid using the article's talk page and instead talk secretively behind his back. Granted that he's not a team player but I'm sure there are far more articles requiring our attention than Chevrolet Vega.  Stepho   (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not happening behind anyone's back: Vegavairbob has been advised of this discussion. This discussion was started to bring fresh eyes onto the situation; the discussion appears productive and there's been a fair amount of positive acknowledgement for Vegavairbob. Given your interests, if Vvb took a similar interest to the Toyota Celica article, you would likely feel differently about the importance of what's happening in the Vega article.842U (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also say, since the discussion isn't just about the Vega, putting it on the Vega talk would be OT. Moreover, I applaud Vegavairbob for his passion, however misguided it got. Anybody with good sources & genuine interest, I'd hope we can reform. I just fear he's not going to bend.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  16:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OT? 842U (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "OT?" Off-topic.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be a more than slight conflict of interest issue in the article: most of the photographs are by one user, of cars he owns &mdash; whether they are relevant or not. 842U (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why, Bob's article has been acclaimed as an unbiased review! Link I think its likely some of the Vega fans view the current article as compensatory advocacy for an unjustly criticized car. Bradkay (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and pruned and re-arranged some content as well. The table of contents is far too long, so let's try and cut that down further. The sections, "Engine", "Stillborn engines", and the "122 CID DOHC-16 valves" sub-section of "Cosworth Twin-Cam" should be cut-down considerably and moved to the GM 2300 engine article. Also, we need to get the "Reception", "Awards", and "Criticisms" sections down to a manageable length. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved the section APPLYING THE FILM to the Woodie article. This is an example of the problem with the "interesting" aspects of the article Vvb created: the woodgrain applique story is essentially this: workers stop using a technique and have to be retrained.  There are probably thousands of examples of this kind of story that happen every month on assembly lines everywhere.  And the reference for the "story" is this: Little-known Vega Development stories by John Hinckley, GMAD-Lordstown Vega Launch Coordinator, essentially a book of anecdotes. A not-notable story, referenced by a not-notable author.  Interesting, certainly, but highly subjective, from an unvetted author. 842U (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the quickest and least controversial way to shorten the article is to split it into Vega/Astre, and Monza and the badge engineered Monza models. The Monza and Sunbird named Vegas could remain in the Vega article. Bradkay (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "...the article has been acclaimed as an unbiased review!" from Bradkay. This article was praised by other Users as well and several administrators. I did work on it for two years. (prior there was no interest in it for years) After the first year there were User suggestions (neutality, etc) and the article's issues were addressed as listed on the Talk page. Most User contributions were reserved for comments and suggestions of which I followed carefully. Yes, it has grown much in size and the (now recently deleted) Review section was too large but should not have been deleted entirely, but reduced in size. (many auto articles have a Reviews or Reception section..now this one doesn't)  A Gallery was added with deleted images and Origin paragraph was returned. But by conscious, I trimmed many of the sections and reduced the article's size from 86k to 78k bytes, trimming sections without deleting them to make it easier to read. However it was (is) properly sectioned and organized for selective or complete reading. The five deleted images were returned in a Gallery and a Motorsports sub-section was rolled back. Because of the car's limited Motorsports participation, It is noteworthy to include the road race the car had won for Car and Driver as it verifies the car's one true attribute..its handling capabilites. If removing complete sections was the only thing an editor chose to do I would have left the Origin section (direct info on the car) and deleted the DeLorean factor section. Finally to address ..."because the reader must rely on the single editor serving up their single viewpoint."  from 842U. There is no viewpoint from me in the article. The 100 references (now 80) used are all noteworthy, reliable sources. I had all the archives and info to draw from. That makes not a single viewpoint article but a complete referenced article. The reader gets unbiased info which is what this site calls for, unlike other sites. Facts presented are from the first-hand knowledge and experiences of automobile engineers and journalists. (The article is neutral and has been recognized as such). If other Users had the material on this subject, I'm sure they would have contributed text and info to the article. But they don't. Instead some Users label it a fan site and I'm accused of ownership. Not to mention three comprehensive and informative sections get entirely deleted. Good grief. On a positive note, I'd like to wish all a Happy New Year! Vegavairbob (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Vegavairbob, I don't see a lack of positive comments here. Its been said previously that just about everyone finds something they really like in the article and its clear you have probably an unmatched quantity of resources on the Vega.  However, my comment about the unbiased review isn't one of the positive ones.  I don't see an acclaimation its an unbiased review from a member of a fan site to carry any weight, the actual point of my comment.


 * We're talking about a car that after a few years of owership, disappointed a lot of people, and failed in the marketplace. Yes, they fixed some of the problems later, but things like not including fender liners on the original design, well fender liners were common practice in 71 and the original Vega not having them could be called negligent.


 * The engine is more sensitive to low coolant level than other cars of the era, and so the original design should have addressed customer expectations of reasonable maintenance by including an overflow tank. Customers had expectations based on their experience with contemporary cars.  If someone built a car today with points ignition, people would be outraged at the idea of tune ups every 12,000 miles.  And I'd expect you'd find a lot of those cars dead on the side of the road with burned points with consumers not buying the idea they didn't do something they were supposed to do.  Engineering that is advanced on paper but doesn't meet real world expectations isn't advanced engineering.


 * There are many good things about the article. But just about every comment on engineering ought to be asterisked with "but it didn't work" rather than blaming it not working on the owners or saying its OK because it was fixed later.  GM has never built a small car that out of the box met customer expectations, having failed with the Corvair, Vega, Citation, and Cavalier.  The Chevette was competitive for only two years, until the Omni and Horizon came out, but the Chevette started life as an Opel.


 * Its OK for people to like Vegas, for whatever reasons. I don't have a problem with that.  People like Nash Metropolitans (I was at a meet once where a quarter of the Metros had trouble leaving under their own power, which diminished the owners affection for them not a bit), late 50s and early 60s Chryslers (where they have to re-engineer the "full contact" brakes to feel halfway safe about driving them), Fiat 850s and 124s (which you dare not drive beyond the distance you can walk back from), and a lot of other kind of poor but interesting cars.  I think the Vega is interesting, and can see why people like it, but that should not extend to making the article say they are great cars and that contemporary consumers were wrong about them. Bradkay (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Critciscm section, which is the largest section in the article states engine damage was common...all the known facts are there. I never said it was a great car, in the article or otherwise. I just have all the info on it.. so I made use of it. And I did the same on all the Corvette articles as well. No complaints there...Just because the article is large doesn't say great car, it says complete article. I've talked with people that know more about this subject than anyone and have read their comments in many sources. The more someone knows about something the more reserved they are at expressing their opinions about it Ironic, isn't it? Most engineers have a neutral opinion, like this article that includes their own words. An exception is DeLorean's interview (promoting the car) and book (exposing GM mismanagement) using the Vega as one of many examples. My sources in this article include the manager of the Lordstown factory through 1975 and Chevrolet Engineers that worked on the car who don't give opinions, just facts... An informative, neutral Encyclopedic article gives the known facts without bias or speculation from which the reader can draw his own conclusion and opinion. Vegavairbob (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldnt we put this article under GA/peer review? I think its been quite good article long time. Thoughts? -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, what are your thoughts on moving most of the powertrain information to a separate article, such as GM 2300 engine? This would go a long way in reducing the length. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has been reduced a total of 50k bytes - from 128k bytes to 78k bytes. I reduced the article 8k bytes (equal to the size of the Dura-Built 140 and Aluminum engine block sections) from 86k bytes to 78k bytes trimming sections without deleting entire additional sections. Trimmed were the Design, Engine, Cosworth Twin-Cam, DeLorean and Criticism sections and the large production/changes chart was replaced with a much smaller chart. The largest section, Reception was already deleted as was the large Vega variants section, and I just deleted the Stillborn Engine section (4k bytes) including the Wankel since it was never produced, later planned for the Monza, and is (still) featured in the shorter Monza article. Engine section should remain as unlike other GM engines (excluding Corvair) the 140 engine was designed for, and associated with one car - the subject of the article, is the car's notable feature, and the Engine section (including the aluminum block development and Dura-built 140 Durabilty run) is part of the history of only this car, and balances the article's neutality with the Criticism engine subsection. If an engine is only associated with a particular car it should be encompassed in the car article, not just a mention with a link to an engine article. In such cases the seperate engine article should be considered subordinate, a reference. Vegavairbob (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Trimmed the article further by removing Cosworth Vega section and infobox (added one image of Cosworth and the engine paragraph to Engines) Chevrolet Cosworth Vega a new seperate article.Vegavairbob (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'd agree a lot of detail on it shouldn't stay in, does anyone else think at least a mention of engine proposals should stay in? IMO, something about GM's mooted direction (& a comparison to where GM actually went) merits inclusion: so, mention (if not extensive detail) of the Wankel & Z32 (? aluminum V8) deserves inclusion.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A large Wamkel section with images is in the Chevrolet Monza article as it was (in the final hour) planned for that car. It was included here as well but article was reduced from 128k bytes to 73k bytes by trimming most sections and deleting three. A paragraph on the aluminum V8 prototype is in the last section of the article. I agree on a smaller section (paragraph) on the Wankel added back. Vegavairbob (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wankel sub-section added back (a smaller version-4k bytes)Vegavairbob (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx. Not only preserving the info, I learned something: it was a 206ci. (!) :D Would that have been a hot rod Vega! (And GM didn't build it... :( : TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, and Vegavairbob I'm quite sorry if I offended you. You have clearly added a lot of valuable content to a lot of pages. While I stand by my statement that you are rather single-minded (nothing wrong with that!), I also said "it seems we are all Vegavairbob's greatest defenders, as everyone finds something interesting everywhere." I like your work, but what I like the most is your willingness to cooperate and even prune to the point that the rest of us are beginning to ask you to put stuff back in. I think splitting off the Cosworth Vega was the best way to make this page of a reasonable size (interesting in light of current merger-madness), but I don't see a lot more trimming being at all necessary. Now go help me write an article on the Talbot-Lago T150, one is sorely needed!  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is not the stubborn Vegavairbob I wrestled with, & I'm glad of it. I like this one much better. :D (I'm no angel, either, so... ;p) And moving the Wankel content to its own page IMO solves that one. I asked Bob this, & let me ask here, since there's still a problem: is there a page where the "aluminum block" section of Vega could be moved to? IMO, it's too OT to stay in, but too worthwhile to just junk.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved large Aluminum block section to GM 2300 engine. A paragraph of the section retained (same size as reduced Wankel section) for Chevrolet Vega and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega pages as per discussion. Click links to view section versions on the three pages. Also I moved large Wankel section to a new page (with additions) General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine by the recommendation of TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  who made a new smaller edit for the Chevrolet Vega page. I made a few edits as well to the smaller version. Again click on these two links to view the new GM-Wankel page and the smaller Vega page Wankel section. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it. I put back some Vega-specific detail on where it was done & where the blocks went, but otherwise, it looks good. And I'm glad it's preserved in the 2300 page. One (slightly OT) question: did that tech only apply to the Vega-family engines? If not, add it elsewhere, would you, Bob?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice final edit. This edit was moved to Chevrolet Cosworth Vega as well. Not sure if current sleeveless engine blocks have the silicone particle etching or if they are cast the same way. Something to research for sure. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I forgot the Cosworth. :( (Trust a Vega guy to remember. ;p)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The gallery section could be renamed to be more specific what is represeting, just "gallery" gives impression its just gallery of random images and randon images of galleries are not supportted in wikipedia. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 06:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gallery section title revised. Vegavairbob (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bob, may I offer some advice. Please, oh please, use the preview button. It gets real hard to compare the history of an article when there are a string of edits in a row, within minutes of each other, by a single user. Secondly, on talk pages it is more useful to add new comments or corrections at the end of the existing conversation. Going back and changing your previous comments makes it hard to read the conversation. Other editors make comments after yours but since you have changed your comment, their comments no longer makes sense. We should think of the talk page as a transcript of a dialogue in action, rather than as a final work. Thanks.  Stepho   (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The DeLorean section covers DeLorean's assessment of the car at it's introduction and after he left General Motors. The title "The DeLorean factor" has been used for well over a year. The change of the title to "Influence by John DeLorean" does not describe the contents of the section.  Although there is some mention of DeLorean's contributions, the majority of the text is his assessment of the car, and corporate vs divisional conflicts in regards to the car, in his own words. The DeLorean factor as the section title does not provoke a "fanboy" tone. The title is appropriate as DeLorean is a- person representing the business and the determinant - definitions of "factor". The section title has been rolled back.Vegavairbob (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored the Delorean paragraph just above in this discussion after Vegavairbob deleted it. Please keep the record of the previous discussion.  Stepho   (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else feel this article still has issues besides 842U. He keeps flagging the article no matter what has been done to improve it as per these discussions. (He initiated this discussion three months ago in November); the article has since been trimmed down to 78k bytes (from 128k bytes), several sections have been deleted, and three new articles I made from deletions: Chevrolet Cosworth Vega, Pontiac Astre and General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine. Today he flagged the Vega article again with the same multiple issues, after months absent from these discussions and the article revisions. [It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Please help add reliable sources about this topic. Tagged since February 2011.] There are 78 reliable references - flag not needed [It may be too long. Some content may need to be summarized or split. Tagged since February 2011.] Article reduced from 128k bytes to 78k bytes - flag not needed [It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2011.] Article was wikified by several Users- flag not needed [It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2011.] Article does not require a clean-up at this point and does meet Wikipedia quality standards - flag not needed I think it's time to move on without the multiple issue flags. Comments? Vegavairbob (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is owned by one editor, Vegavairbob. The article is too long.  By Wikipedia standards, it should be half as long as it is.  And the article is saturated with fancruft.  Albeit the article is shorter now, but these points have not been alleviated during the last months &mdash; especially the first point.  And every time the issues tag has been removed, it has been removed by the one author cited for owning the article.  Wikipedia is not the place for one fan of the Chevrolet Vega to self-publish what would be their version of the Vega story.  And that's what we have here. 842U (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the last time I'm addressing your silly accusations. I have contributed to auto edits here for two years on many auto articles, spending most of my time here adding referenced text (17,000 edits) and quality images (700) to articles that were low quality for a site such as this. The Corvette articles for example were quite poor. I spent many months adding text and images to all seven of them. As I did for the Vega article and many others. I have the referenced archives on the car and I used them. Obviously no one else does, that's why I'm the User that did it. That doesn't mean I think I own it - I have followed Users suggestions and have not reverted anyone's contributions including yours. It has been determined (way before your appearance) that the article is neutral and the material used does not constitute a fan site. Many other articles are longer than this one, and longer articles need to be organized. Nobody complains a page is too comprehensive if it's neatly organized and easy to read. Many Users and readers including some Users here found it interesting to read, and that's what it's all about. By the way, I shouldn't have to mention this but I guess you don't get it. Users that actually contribute text and images usually do so to pages that they have referenced material for, so I doubt anyone substantially adds to a page they're not interested in. This discussion you initiated has lasted three months; the article was trimmed and improved where needed as per the suggestions in these discussions, and as mentioned above, I created three new articles from trimmed or deleted sections with a suggestion of one from a User in this discussion. Further more - suggestions have always been followed from many Users as shown in the article's discussion page. Sorry to say, your perception of other User contributions in regards to the article is clouded and your opinion of my contribution is biased...I should change my Username huh? Maybe Barnstarbob. (I enjoy giving 'em.) Vegavairbob (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are imaginative Users on Wikipedia. I found an interesting (reverted) edit from two years ago. Who said truth is stranger than fiction? - the '09 edit: The Car was named after a Puerto Rican engineer in brooklyn by the name of William Vega, His team of 4 came up with the idea to use catalytic converter in cars to minimize pollution almost 17 yrs before this model was introduced. Barnstarbob (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The concerns that have been raised repeatedly go to the heart of Wikipedia guidelines. 86% of the article's edits have been made by one user, who has been identified as having WP:OWN issues with the article &mdash; including egregious attacks on other users. The point of view of the article, its length, and it's fancruft tone can be adjusted &mdash; but if they are not to be corrected, then it's only fair to the reader that the article be flagged accordingly.  I will replace the flags on the article until the discussion here brings a concensus. 842U (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it up. Your wasting everyone's time. Do not flag again until there is a response they are still needed after three months of discussions and changes. Yes, Let's get down to the heart of it - I'm identifying you with WP:OWN issues of everything you touch and it is you who have made the attacks. You brought this discussion on and now you're discounting it as you're obviously not happy with the result. Everyone here offered their suggestions, and changes were made in your absence. If the Users from this discussion respond the multiple issue flag is still needed it will be reinserted. Barnstarbob (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * However, Bob could probably use a chill pill... easy there, you're somewhat undermining your position.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr. Choppers. Thanks for stepping in here. Barnstarbob (talk)


 * Bob, just because you delete the personal attacks after you make them doesn't negate that they were posted in the first place. And to that end, STOP making constant edits to this after you post things. It creates edit conflicts and makes it extremely difficult for anyone else to edit this page or follow the conversation. You've been asked to stop that behavior countless times (on both talk and article pages), so consider this your last warning. If the personal attacks, deletion of others' comments, or the endless stream of piecemeal edits to your comments after you make them continue, I will be reporting you to AN/I and you will be risking a block.


 * As for the article, I strongly recommend either an RFF or a peer review to get objective opinions from outside this field. --Sable232 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll put in for an RFF. The more eyes on the article the better. 842U (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)\
 * Section Vega vs competitors and image for Origin section deleted by 842U reverted. No valid reason for these deletions. Comments? also - he keeps rewording the lead on a regular basis, deleting text. The lead should summarize the article. His edits not only DON'T summarize the article but in rewording the remaining sentences I have to correct errors. ie Monza is not a rebadged Vega varient - (only the Astre is) just makes extra work having to go over it on a regular basis. I informed him to bring up in discussion first before deleting sections or images at this point. He continues to delete without discussion (be initiated)Vegavairbob (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a great example of why Ownership of an article by a single editor does not work: the editor peppers the article with their own photo's of their own special cars, photo's that add little informational value to the plethora of photos in the article, all placed there by the same editor. So along comes another editor and removes the "prized possession" photos.  The editor who owns the article then wants discussion.  To protect their conflict of interest?  And by what esoteric measure is the Monza not a re-badged variant of the Vega; it shares the same platform, wheelbase, engine... it differs by... it's styling. 842U (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 842U deletes the photo of the first Vega built (for Origin section) then adds a Gremlin image in place of an image showing the Vega with competitors (in a much shorter review section)...the only free image taken of these three cars (Vega-Pinto-Gremlin) together since 1972! The text also has a review of these three particular cars in that photograph. WHY must this historic image from the Motor Trend photoshoot (whether I took it or not) and the text, be deleted and a factory print image of a Gremlin by itself be substitued that is already used in the Gremlin article infobox?? Clearly again, 842U doesn't think my photos should be used, why I have no clue, but he thinks AMC's promotional brochure photo is better for the Vega article...also the Vega Variant section and photos (previously deleted) I did not add back but any further deletions should be discussed first. 1st Vega built photo added back for the second time (no valid reason it should not be in the article) and the competitor group shot from the MT 2010 comparison test which I took (historic and no copyright problem) so really, what is the problem with this image? I took it.. that's the problem? ..it's been added back replacing the Gremlin brochure photo. Vegavairbob (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ♠"it differs by... it's styling" Which demonstrates, in this instance, Bob's right. That doesn't meet the definition of badge engineering, which is "new badges on essentially the same styling" (new grille, taillights, & trim don't count). It also describes the Astre (or Nova, Apollo, Omega, & Ventura) accurately. Monza replaced Vega. They share a platform, like the X-bodies.
 * ♠On the Gremlin pic, I'd again agree with Bob. It wasn't the only, or even the biggest, competition for the Vega. The Pinto was, if anything. Deleting a pic of all three just because Bob took it strikes me as too personal. If I took it, would it stay in?
 * ♠As for Bob's adding his own pix, I don't see the beef. I added mine to custom car because there weren't any. If there are better ones (not just different ones...), replace them.
 * ♠That said, I think the '72 Kammback pic (the promo pic is better, & there's no real need for 2) & 2 of the 3 coupé pix could be removed. (Leave the Cosworth.) I'd delete both of the Awards sections pix, & the gallery, as purely decorative. Swap the SoA pic for one of the coupé pix, if you really feel it's distinctive enough. I've never been happy with the "4-cornered" arrangement of the model selection pix, but deleting the sedan & hatchback strikes me as odd, especially when they'd have been the much more common. (Or did they just get moved & I missed it?)
 * ♠Finally, let me agree with others who've asked Vegavairbob to use the Preview fuction, first. You're the most common thing on my watchlist...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging "Chrysler 200" with "Chrysler Sebring"
Should "Chrysler 200" be merged with "Chrysler Sebring"? The 200 is just a mid-cycle update to the Sebring. Exterior-wise, the front-end is different and the boot (trunk) lid is re-designed (with rear quarter panels carrying over). OSX (talk • contributions) 09:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right in as much as the 200 is only a facelift, but it is also the start of a new era and model range? SImilar issue to the Ford Five Hundred and Ford Taurus articles, though I don't think it works very well either. Warren (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing as well, I am just not sure if we should merge now (due to size) and then split again in a few years time when the next generation is announced. The Ford Five Hundred contents could be merged with Ford Taurus (fifth generation) without any drama, thoughts? OSX (talk • contributions) 08:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Because they have different names I would not merge them -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Typ932 that it should be a separate article. When people begin searching on the 'net for Chrysler 200, they should get the 200, not an article on the Chrysler Sebring. The article should state that the 200 replaced the Sebring. (Regushee (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC))


 * I also agree with Regushee and Typ932 that it would be best to keep them in separate articles. The names are different. The Chrysler 200 article should state that the Sebring was its predecessor, while the Sebring article describes the 200 as its replacement. A similar historical example were the name changes that AMC gave to its line of cars that began as innovative compacts that later became classified as intermediates and ended production as full-sized - although each was directly related with some being only changes in name and trim. This was the case of the initial Rambler Six and V8 that became the Rambler Classic then later changed to AMC Rebel and finally named the AMC Matador. In this case, putting all of these similar models into one (1956 to 1978 AMC - first compact to later full-size - cars) article would make it very hard to search for information about each model and the resulting article would only confuse readers. CZmarlin (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

CZmarlin, you have made a good point. It will probably be best to leave the 200 as is, but merge in a few years if the next generation car is not called "Chrysler 200". It is likely that the 200 will continue on with a second generation.

The Ford Five Hundred on the other hand could be comfortably merged with the Ford Taurus (fifth generation) article, which would outline the Five Hundred first, and then discuss the rebranding under the "Taurus" name. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Volvo 200 - series
A turbo fan has been introducing low quality copyvio photos into the Volvo 200 article, which have of course been reversed. So as to have his own space for this nonsense, he then created a completely unnecessary new article titled Volvo 200 Series - Turbo Intercooler. Please join in the merger discussion here: Talk:Volvo 200 Series. I placed the conversation there in the hopes of maybe being able to begin a conversation with the user, who most likely wont find this page.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rear wheel drive vehicles and its cousins
What are the use of these categories? I would like to nominate them all for deletion as they are not a useful grouping. They categorise vehicles which have no meaningful common characteristics (e.g. more pertinent things like manufacturer, market segment, etc). For example, of what use is it to know that any particular Honda, Triumph or Ford vehicle share the same drive wheels as each other (and as thousands of other vehicles in the world)? Let's discuss. Zunaid 09:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The same goes for categories like "sedans", "hatchbacks", "2000s automobiles", et cetera—these divisions are too broad to be of any use. Delete the lot of them. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. They serve little (or no) purpose and should be deleted.  Stepho   (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think all mentioned except "2000s automobiles" should be deleted, those decade cats are good to find same aged cars.  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. It may be occasional, but there may be cases where somebody's looking for only RWD or FWD vehicles. To take an example, if I'm looking for things comparable to the Traction Avant in the '30s, how else do I find it, if I don't already know about the L-29? (I know, I'm relying on the uncommon; nevertheless, IMO, the principle holds.) Obvious usefulness doesn't exclude possible usefulness.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you propose to find the L-29? Through a category (RWD vehicles) containing 1000 articles, 900+ of which are not relevant to the vehicle that forms your starting point? How would you know that, out of all 1000 vehicles in that category, the L-29 is the one that's "comparable to" the Traction Avant? This is my argument. You are more likely to find relevant "comparable" vehicles through an age category (1930s vehicles) or perhaps in the article itself than through the RWD vehicles category. Zunaid 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I had in mind a double search: cars by decade & RWD cars. (Actually, in this case, FWD cars, which makes it much easier, I admit.... Unless I've had a brain fade, & the L-29 isn't in fact the FWD Cord I recall it is. :. I don't say it's of enormous utility, but if it's of some, why delete it? Is there some compelling reason?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have first said "delete the lot of these", but would it be possible to combine two listings? I don't think Trekphiler's imagined double search is currently possible, but if it was, then these categories would become incredibly useful - I know jack about computers, but maybe such a project is being mooted somewhere? I do think that we should make the category links at the bottom of the page invisible, though.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Typ932, "vehicles introduced in 2006" (and other years) have essentially replaced "2000s automobiles. If every vehicle ever produced in the 2000s decade was included in this category, it would be massive (and that's saying a lot as it a big category as it stands). OSX (talk • contributions) 10:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I was about to say about this, but it isnt enough, because US vehicles tends to use model years as these, also if the motor show introduction has been earlier than production started this causes so much problems, that using decade cats is best to catch all about same age cars -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't possible to combine cats searches now (AFAIK), except by opening separate tabs & comparing (which I had in mind). If it was, IMO, it would make the cats even more useful. Even separate tabs has been useful in other areas (frex, "crime films" & "1950s films").  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  11:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, having categories for "sedans" and "2000s automobiles" are about as useful as categories like "brick buildings", "people with blue eyes", and "suburbs with McDonald's outlets". OSX (talk • contributions) 12:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be useful if there was an agreed list of categories to use for car articles as there appear to be quite a significant number, and many of dubious use or help as noted above. I'm reminded of Overcategorization. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We cant remove all cats, soon its impossible to make nay comparisons/ search similar vehicles in anyway. But I agree there is lots of silly ones that could be removed -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: What we are doing is using categories as a substitute for metadata. These super-broad categories will possibly become useful when (and only when) WP:Category intersection becomes a reality, which may be indefinitely far away. I like one of the suggestions above to make them hidden categories. What do you guys think of that idea? We'll have to agree on which categories should be hidden, then it's just a matter of adding the necessary template to those categories to hide them. Zunaid 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I am glad that there is work ongoing. Until these are a reality, however, hiding seems like a good option.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories to hide
So, which categories can we nominate to hide? And is everyone in favour of this idea? I would nominate: Zunaid 09:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All subcats of Category:Automobile layouts
 * All subcats of Category:Car body styles


 * Support - there are probably others as well.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - with quick look couldnt find any other cats -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Festival automobile international 2011 auctions
Encore une nouvelle catégorie de complétée--Thesupermat (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Machine translated as...
 * Another new category completed - Sales by auction  Stepho   (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuously Variable Transmission
I've seen CVT on some articles flip-flop back and forth between being a 1-speed automatic transmission, manual or something in its own right. I'll list the various points as I know them and let the rest of the project comment - and it also lets me play both sides :) Note that in a classical gearbox, one gear = one ratio. This is not necessarily true in a CVT. Comments?  Stepho   (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) not an automatic because it doesn't have gears
 * 2) *Each ratio is often formed by friction between continuously varying sized cones and/or discs instead of classical, teethed gears
 * 3) its an automatic but it has only one gear (ie 1-speed auto)
 * 4) *the continuous part of its name implies it has infinitely many ratios - not just one ratio.
 * 5) Its not really an auto or a manual but should just be listed as CVT
 * 6) *It selects a ratio automatically
 * 7) *people drive it just like an auto - select D and press the accelerator.
 * 8) *The CVT mechanism could just as easily be set up as a manual gearbox. Ie a lever which selects a particular ratio possibly from a small set or possibly a continuous selection (like a volume knob). Note: a typical encyclical automatic gearbox can also be 'manualised' to remove the automatic part of its nature.




 * I consider CVTs to be automatics as they are offered in lieu of conventional multi-gear automatics and manufacturers often refer to them as such. The issue may be one of terminology; an automatic transmission does not necessarily have to select "gears". Substitute "gears" for "ratios" and CVTs fit the definition of an automatic; that is, a transmission that uses a computer to select the most appropriate ratio for a given situation. DSGs are the same in my opinion: the computer does the work, yet they are paradoxically considered to be "automated manuals" because they have a clutch.


 * Technology changes and definitions need to be updated to reflect this. If the DSG in a VW Golf is shifting gears automatically, then how is it a manual? Its technical function may be closer to that of a true manual than a conventional automatic, but it is still an automated function.


 * A standard multi-gear bicycle may, for example, have seven gears on the rear wheel hub. Each gear cog will be of different diameters, ordered from smallest to largest, thus forming the shape of a cone (see image). Let's assume this bicycle was engineered with automatic gearing. In this process, the basic mechanicals of the bicycle did not change, but a separate system making use of the existing gears was appended to automate the gear changing process. Now let's assume the developers of this automatic wanted to go beyond the seven set gears to an infinite cycle, similar in concept to a CVT. The cone-shaped gear hub concept could be retained and modified so that the gear teeth spiral around the cone. Now obviously this is a very simplistic view, but does having infinite ratios over a set number change the fact that the gearing is automated or not? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The term automatic transmission described a transmission in which the driver did not have to act to select the gear ratio. The device did it for the driver.  CVTs qualify as automatics under this description.  CVTs are a type of automatic transmissions, not a separate type.  Bradkay (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note however that the term automatic gearbox has almost exclusively referred to those with a planetary gearset and, most importantly, a torque converter. Technology changes of course, but I don't think the terminology has kept pace. Not everyone would consider a DSG or CVT an "automatic" even though they change ratios for the driver. The term "automatic gearbox" itself needs to be redefined, but we can't OR the issue, it remains to be referenced through a preponderance of reliable sources. Zunaid 16:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that it should be considered a form of automatic transmission (automatic=driver doesn't have to do the shifting), but this doesn't make the CVT any less its own form of transmission. Just writing CVT in the infobox should suffice. I would consider it an automatic in terms of where to group it, though.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In all cases I can think of (from Volvo 340 to Ford Fiesta), CVT has been marketed as automatic, as the driver does not need to select a gear. Depends how pedantic one wants to be on the technical definition, but I would suggest that most people would consider CVT to be a version of automatic transmission, as suggested by Bradkey above. Same debate I suppose for automated manuals... is any automatic transmission one that does the job for the driver? It is the same debate I suspect for dual clutch (though Audi's DSG and Porsche's PDK are always sold as automatics as far as I know). <B>Warren</B> (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be agreement the CVTs are automatics. But they are not really 1-speed devices (effectively having an infinite number of ratios). May I suggest that CVTs are listed as 'CVT automatic', so a typical selection of gearboxes for a given vehicles could be 6-speed manual, 5-speed automatic and CVT automatic.  Stepho   (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

2012-2016 CAFE standards
This is to call the attention of any interested editors to contribute in updating the Corporate Average Fuel Economy article. Please see my comment here. The article needs some major work to remove a lot of outdated material, merge the content in the two future section, and add the content of the new 2012-2016 standards (which is nicely summarized here).--Mariordo (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Help starting a page for a new engine technology
I am the developer of The Gadgetman Groove, a modification that is proving to reduce emissions and increase gasoline engine efficiency, and would like to get a page started on Wiki on this technology.

However, being so close to the project, it is insanely difficult to produce an article that does not sound "spammy".

Would you guys help me design a page that is technically accurate and scientific in its presentation of the available data? Mostly, this consists of video reports, now numbering over 1000 citing the value to my clients.

I can't figure out how to present it without sounding like an ad!!! Can you help me?

An illustration of what I'm doing and the science behind it can be found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/GadgetmanGlobal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GadgetmanPrime (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "data" does indeed sound "spammy". I don't think I can do much about that though.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If it gets coverage in the press and journals, than an article on wikipedia will no doubt follow. You can't use wikipedia to promote a new idea without reputable sources and references as by definition it won't be notable. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Monthly sales figures
See Talk:Honda Insight.

Past discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive_21

I feel that breaking down sales figures by month is an excessive level of intricate detail that has little encyclopedic value and doesn't do much more than clutter the article. I removed it based on the past discussion, yet another editor insists on reinserting it and can only seem to accept past discussions where monthly numbers weren't actually the subject of the debate so he can claim "no consensus." Hence, a new project-wide discussion. --Sable232 (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Monthly and market-specific sales numbers are much too narrow for any article, unless there is a spectacularly good reason to include them.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no need for monthly figures. What next - sales by town and city? <B>Warren</B> (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep no need for such detailed info -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Do we go next for daily production, or production by trim level? (Yes, some people will want it.)  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  20:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Months should not be included unless a particular month is outstanding in some way. For example, if sales tripled one month and returned to their former level the subsequent month. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That merits a mention of the increase, but not a specific figure IMO. It should be in context with the cause, not just thrown in for its own sake.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  23:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sales figures belong only if they're very high, very low (espcially if below expectations) or if they change drastically. I'd expect to see sales figures in articles on cars such as the Model T and Beetle since they sold so well.  And on something like the Edsel or Chrysler TC by Maserati, since they were so low but especially since they were so low versus expectations.  And on cars where sales collapsed, like the Chevrolet Citation.  Bradkay (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand you, you mean total (or annual) sales. On that, I'd agree, if they're notable on their own. The T & Type 1, yes; the typical Ferrari, yes (especially since Enzo reportedly said, "Build one less than the demand."); the Edsel, yes; the '53 Corvette, yes (especially since it later climbed into tens of thousands); the '55 T-bird, yes (since it beat the 'vette so badly); the '58 T-bird, yes (since the new 4-seater dramatically outsold the 2-seater). On the Citation or Fiero, "fell from a peak of foo to less than half", or something, maybe, but that's annual anyhow. Otherwise, they aren't remarkable. If it's, say, Roller or Moggie, maybe...but then, it'd have to be a monthly record, never achieved again, not just a routine increase.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's a single month that's abnormally low or high, I don't think it's the number that's notable so much as why it's unusual.


 * That aside, it appears as though we have a consensus to avoid general sales figures by month, correct? --Sable232 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No doubt.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese tsunami and the auto industry
We have an article Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry, should there also be one for the Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the auto industry ? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's too early to tell what the long term (ie historical) effects will be and Wikipedia is not a news blog.  Stepho   (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

PROD of Tank cap
I have put a PROD notice on Tank cap. Perhaps some members of this project might feel the current very badly written article is worthy of rescue. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's one sorry little article. A tank cap is just another name for a radiator cap. Radiator cap unfortunately redirects to Radiator but would be better redirected to somewhere in Radiator (engine cooling) - Radiator (engine cooling) seems to cover the overflow valve aspect closest but possibly a new sub section would do it better. Tank cap should likewise be a redirect to somewhere in Radiator (engine cooling).  Stepho   (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tank cap is too generic - it depends what tank the cap is attached to (fuel, radiator etc), and suggest it is indeed ripe for deletion. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that two people here and another via my talk page think the article can't stand alone means that I've used WP:BRD to delete/redirect to Radiator (engine cooling). Obviously if you think I'm wrong then revert and we can discuss further. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tank cap sounds like something you could wear on your head. Malcolma (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin of "Hot hatch" phrase
I am looking for references to the origin of the phrase hot hatch. Please see Talk:Hot hatch/Archive 1 with any further info as I can't find anything prior to 1984! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Flame me
This may sound odd, but can somebody break the redirect at flame job? This is a topic important enough in itself to warrant a page, but if it's redirecting, the redlink won't be open. (And I can't find the mag where I saw a brief history of the topic, or I'd just write the blasted article... :.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  22:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Whenever you need to change a redirect, click on the link where it says "redirected from" at the top of the page below the article title and edit that page. IFCAR (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not editing the redirect that's the problem, it's deleting it so the link comes back as a redlink that I'm after. As I said, if I had the info, I'd just open the redirect & reuse the pagename.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Automobile-related disambiguation pages with links.
Greetings! We have a new report of the most linked disambiguation pages, including three that are about automobiles. The members of the Disambiguation pages with links project would appreciate your help in fixing ambiguous links to: Cheers! bd2412 T 18:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ford Escort: 253 links
 * Ford Falcon: 48 links
 * Ford Fusion: 48 links

Warm hatch - proposed merging
Due to the shortness of the warm hatch article, and the duplication of much of the list, I am proposing merging it into hot hatch. Any thoughts? If so add them at Talk:Warm hatch. Thanks <B>Warren</B> (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. JFDI! --Biker Biker (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, excessive boldness in "big" things like merging that are painful to revert is probably not advised. But I agree with the merge. SteveBaker (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deed is done. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Scope
Does this WP just cover cars? Would a managing director of a car manufacturer fall under this WP or not? Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Anything related to cars is covered by us - eg cars, engines, tyres, car manufacturers and people significant in the industry. But some of these will also overlap with other projects - eg country specific projects, biographies.  Stepho   (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, the article I have in mind is Frank Searle (businessman). He designed two types on London buses, and was also involved with Daimler and Rover. Will leave it to you guys to decide whether or not he falls under this WP. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass article merger
Hi all! Yesterday I was discussing with OSX about further implementing the merges of hybrid articles with their non hybrid counterparts (original discussion,yesterday's discussion and came to the conclusion that they, and pages for high-performance versions of cars, should be merged with their relative page. There is currently no standard for this, and we think that one should be introduced. We also discussed electric cars counterparts, which I think is a topic more open to discussion.

The cars in question that I can think of are:
 * Honda Civic Hybrid
 * Honda Accord Hybrid
 * Ford Fusion Hybrid
 * Ford Escape Hybrid
 * Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid
 * Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid
 * BYD F3DM


 * Subaru Impreza WRX STI
 * Mitsubishi Lancer Evo
 * Dodge Ram SRT-10
 * Proton Satria R3


 * Ford Ranger EV
 * Chevrolet S-10 EV
 * Ford Focus BEV
 * Toyota RAV4 EV
 * Mitsubishi i MiEV

Any thoughts? -- Pineapple Fez 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We should made list of all those pages, which would be candidates for merging, I would merge all performance versions articles and hybrdi versions, if articles arent too long for merging. We have here lots of these article which could be merged....
 * Mazdaspeed3
 * Mazdaspeed6
 * Renault 5 Turbo
 * Renault 5 Alpine Turbo
 * Renault 5 Turbo
 * Volkswagen Polo G40
 * Audi S3
 * -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 21:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've created a list below but categorized them because I feel that they may be treated differently. -- Pineapple Fez 03:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would just like to clarify, that an article such as Audi S3 will not be completely merged into the Audi A3 article. Instead, the Audi A3 article would be split into two sub-articles (one for each generation), and the S3 content would be moved to appropriate location. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Please see noticeboard incident here.--Mariordo (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a simple resolution to this. Add merger tags to each article, but link them to the page where the mass merger discussion is taking place. Like this:
 * . That way discussion remains centralized but anyone watching any of the articles will be informed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose to mass mergers. Nowadays, some (hybrid) electric vehicles are more notable and important than their pure petroleum counterparts. Also proposes an Electric Vehicle Tasksforce within this Wikiproject to improve the articles and sections about electric vehicles (some important ones are not in Wikipedia and other non-notable pure petroleum vehicles still appear).--Diamondland (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do which one is more important than other, this is just pure article tidying, its far easier to find all models about same car in same page, we dont need own page for every versions, of course if articles are very long there might be idea to have separate article. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 12:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

List
The following list covers the articles in question. If there is anything missing, please contribute. * Hybrid/Performance/Electric/Fuel Cell/Other refers to a version of a car, e.g the Honda Civic Hybrid is a hybrid-electric version of the Honda Civic

Register your view

 * Support: per my talk page and the earlier discussion at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: as per above -- Pineapple Fez 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Greglocock (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Provisional support. No problem with User:Pineapple Fez' list. But Typ932's add-ons not completely sold with specific reference to the Mazdaspeed models.
 * In using this a a broad trend: there will have to be some case-by-case here. Commonname for example would strongly suggest that Audi S3 be maintained as a separate article, although not necessairly in its present form. The general public, which has always been the target audience of Wikipedia, generally will struggle with a generational shift if the public names for the vehicles are not respected. This is one of the long standing problems with how we present BMW articles. While it makes sense from an industry perspective to separate vehicle the way we have done, Wikipedia is not an industry encyclopedia. We would never advocate the deleting of BMW M3 back into its generation compenents would we? Additionally where some vehicles have made an impact beyond that of the rest of the vehicle, for example Subaru Impreza WRX, still need maintenance.
 * Further: vehicles prepared for market by sub-contract firms - for example the Mazdaspeed models mentioned above, perhaps deserve separate consideration. We aren't going to merge Lexus models back into respective Toyota originators are we? If not these, then why models built by Holden Special Vehicles? Or Mazdaspeed? Of course this then depends on the degree of separation the sports or luxury or in some case budget label has from the main stream manufacturer. --Falcadore (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just about anyone who is aware of the BMW M3 or Audi S3 would know that these are simply high-performance variants of the 3 Series and A3 ranges. There is nothing wrong with having the "Audi S3" article setup like this and having separate "S3" sections on the main A3 article. Redirects, hatnotes and sound article structure will overcome any issues, just like what has occurred with the Camry. "Toyota Camry Hybrid" now redirects to "Toyota Camry (XV40)".


 * Regarding the Lexus versus Toyota example, this has been settled by the article title naming convention, which outlines that one article shall exist under the international "Lexus" name, for example, "Lexus IS", for which "Toyota Altezza" redirects to.


 * If one was in favour of retaining the Audi S3 article because it is marketed separately, then where would you draw the line? Should we supplement the Mazda Familia article with Mazda 323, Mazda Protegé, Mazda GLC, Mazda Allegro, Mazda Étude, Mazda Genki, Ford Activa, and Ford Tonic so not to confuse readers? I would certainly hope not. The use of redirects, the infobox "aka" field, and bold markup of these alternative names in the lead is more than sufficient to overcome this problem. The same goes for body styles. The Holden Sportswagon is just a station wagon version of the Commodore (sedan). Should this also be separated?


 * Marketing terms used to differentiate otherwise very identical products are not something that we should fall victim to. If Audi called their S3 model "Audi A3 S3", then I would wager that it would not currently have its own article. There is less potential for ambiguity in having the A3 and S3 merged (same brand) than by having "Mazda Familia" and "Ford Activa" located within the same article. As stated above though, there is no ambiguity if the mergers are executed adequately. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly opposed: First, the main criteria for the existence of an article in Wikipedia is WP:Notability, so this batch merging is a blatant violation of this policy as each case should be discussed one by one and on the corresponding article page, where regular editors have a chance to participate (see an example here on how policies are changed, with broad participation, not with the opinion of a dozen pals). If your intention is to do a batch merging, the same procedure as illustrated should be followed. Second, Wikiprojects can only provide guidelines, you cannot dictate policy, reinforcing my argument that each case should be discussed individually. Third, in the particular case of electric cars, plug-in hybrids, and conventional hybrids there are economic, social and environmental aspects that are mainstream and not so relevant for a regular gasoline or diesel, and that this wikiproject has been disregarding due to its clear biased toward the automotive technology aspect. My proposal is to suspend this discussion, and check first what the proper procedure is and the limitations of Wikiprojects guidelines before continuing this discussion. Let's consult with several admins first-Mariordo (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you just oppose the hybrid and EV mergers, or all of them? Although you make note of the economic, social and environmental aspects of hybrids, you have yet to back this up with much in the way of facts. Sometimes you list the government tax incentives, but as far as I am aware, not one of the articles that you have edited outlines the social and environmental aspects (and nor do they need to). The hybrid electric vehicle exists for a reason: to discuss these concerns. For the same reason, every article about an individual SUV model does not need to explain that everyone who drives one is an eco villain, because sport utility vehicle makes note of this criticism.


 * All that separates these hybrid articles from non-hybrid models is unencyclopaedic information such as excessive fuel economy lists like this or comparison charts such as this. Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide, nor are we a repository for non-notable fuel economy tests. Remove this drivel from articles, and keep a nice and simple EPA figure, and the length of these articles becomes significantly smaller. Case in point: the Ford Escape Hybrid article is filled with non-notable information such as this fuel economy and environmental performance chart. It lists subjective information such as "annual fuel cost", "carbon footprint (Ton/year of )" and "Annual Petroleum Use (barrel)". Also listed is the fleet of 20 Escape Hybrids used by lifeguards in Los Angeles. This should really be deleted without discussion, as it is not encyclopaedic. An EPA figure along with a comparison with the non-hybrid Escape conveys the message of frugality far more succinctly and is far more understandable to the average reader. For example, "The Ford Escape Hybrid is rated at XX mpg (combined), which is XX percent better than the non-hybrid." A (highly-subjective) table listing how many grams of is used per year is really quite useless to the average reader. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe proper policies and procedures should be resolved first, so I will not engage in the discussion of any particular article, at least while they are treaty in batch (I might even agree to some of the mergers individually). And to set the record straight, I am not the only author of these articles, several of them have existed for years even before I began editing in Wikipedia, just check the history of each of them.-Mariordo (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't wish to participate in this discussion, then that is your choice. We are simply having a community discussion at a relevant hub (this WikiProject deals with automobiles, so it makes sense to do it here, and not at the Arkansas WikiProject). To discuss individually would be an extremely difficult and years-long process (hence why you suggested it). Plenty of page moves Wikipedia-wide have been discussed at the relevant WikiProjects. In fact, Merging makes no mention of where the discussion has to take place, so no gross policy violation has been committed. All that is required for a controversial merger is a consensus. If there is no consensus, then nothing will happen. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be so kind to point us to the policy or the section in the Merging policy that this proposal for a massive merge is based on.--Mariordo (talk)


 * Please be so kind to point us to the policy or the section in the Merging policy that this proposal violates. The policy is ambiguous for a reason—there is no particular talk page that multi-mergers must be held on, so long as the location is relevant. The Automobiles WikiProject covers these articles, so this page is perfectly suitable. All editors who voted in the Camry discussion have been notified via their talk page. Please stop arguing over trivialities just to prove a point and to waste my time. This is where the discussion is being held. If you don't like it, please go elsewhere to obtain your consensus prohibiting mass-mergers from being held at the talk page of the relevant WikiProject. To the best of my knowledge, as it currently stands, no such policy exists. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read Help:Merging which says:
 * Create one discussion section, typically on the destination article's Discussion page (also known as the talk page). This should include a list of the affected articles and a merger rationale.
 * Tag each article with the appropriate merger tag. All tag Discuss links should be specified to point at the new discussion section.
 * Clearly, is one tag and one discussion for each merge. Again, please point me to the "mass merger" section? Otherwise, please stop this discussion and follow the established procedure for merging articles.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not proposing to merge the Civic, Escape, and Accord Hybrids all into one article, which is what the above guideline applies to. There does not seem to be any guideline outlining a topic-wide merger, so Pineapple fez chose the most appropriate location. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly opposed per Mariordo. We must consider notability and the social and environmental aspects of cars, not just the mechanical engineering. And a "mass merge" like this is just not on and this discussion should be suspended. Johnfos (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Partial oppose - Perhaps in some of these cases I would support a merge, but others I would not. In the case of, say, Ford Ranger EV and Chevrolet S-10 EV, those articles have quite a bit of unique content and if they were merged they would overwhelm the level of content of the main articles. Ford Focus BEV, however, looks like it could be suitably merged into the article for that generation of Focus. Generally, I'd feel that something where the main article has already been split up by generation would be a candidate for merging, other cases probably not. Add Ford Taurus SHO to the list, there was a merge proposal here recently and I think I'd support that. Unfortunately, I don't think this is something that can be done on anything other than a case-by-case basis. --Sable232 (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with what you are saying. Some of the candidate articles, especially the fuel cell ones, should be definitely merged, the others, would overwhelm the main article so I think that if they are to be merged, generation-specific articles should be created, as they do conform to guidelines. -- Pineapple Fez 04:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also feel free to add to the list yourself! -- Pineapple Fez 04:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, if the article actually has notable content that would be too excessive if crammed in with its parent article, then by all means split. However, with these ICE-derived hybrids, this is never the case. Once the unencyclopaedic/non-notable drivel is removed, all of these articles would be about half their current size. Also, being verifiable does not make something notable (like the fleet of 20 Escape Hybrids used by lifeguards in Los Angeles). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong support – The fact that a particular model is available in various guises or alternative power versions does not change the basic vehicle. There seems to have been no notability established for the different versions of a particular model or alternative power or energy source compared to the basic or traditional versions other than the typical range of puffery and other Boastful Superlatives (BS) from the automakers marketing departments. Information about the different versions of particular models should be in the article about that model, not in separate articles. One other benefit of the merged articles is that it makes comparisons between the different models targeting particular market segments, as well as various technologies and drive systems much simpler. The standard, high-performance, electric, diesel, hybrid, etc. versions of a particular model should be together. There would be no need to jump back and forth between two separate articles to evaluate the specifications, efficiency, features, etc. between the different models, or types of fuel or power. In fact, a merged article could highlight the social and environmental aspects of certain versions of the cars much better when all the versions are together in an easy to compare format. Moreover, a merged description would also help to reduce the amount of potential Boastful Superlatives that are often added to articles describing automobiles by their enthusiasts. CZmarlin (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice acronymization.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support or Strong Oppose - on a case-by-case basis. In general, if there is huge overlap between two short articles that differ only in powertrain options - and if the resulting merged article wouldn't become gigantic and unwieldy - then this is obviously a good idea and I support it.  However, in the case of articles that are already pretty huge, Wikipedia policy is to split the article up into more manageable parts.  In such cases, using the hybrid/non-hybrid or sport/non-sport versions as the dividing line makes a lot of sense - and merging two articles on the basis of an utterly generic decision like this one...only to have a gigantic article that then immediately needs to be split again - makes no sense whatever, and I strongly oppose it. SteveBaker (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The intention is exactly that. There is no plan to merge articles that have genuinely too much content. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - Engineering is much more important than marketing, which shouldn't be enough to give a car its own article. We already have a rule that a badge-engineered car's content belongs on the original page, how is the Audi S3 (for instance) exempt from this rule? One of the few exceptions I could imagine is Mitsubishi's Evolution series, which has developed somewhat of an independent existence. Personally, I have always been arguing in favor of this sort of thinking, on topics from the Suzuki Cultus Crescent to the Rover 200/400/25/45 and various MG iterations. Anyhow, support, but allowing for the occasional exception.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Even for the Lancer Evolution, a set index article like the one used at Ford Ranger would work in pointing readers to the correct article. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, I'm just saying that the case could be made. Sometimes a sub-version does develop a life all its' own; whether the Evo is there yet or not is another argumetn entirely.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's take this on a case-by-case basis. I would hesitate to merge halo cars such as the Nissan Skyline GT-R, BMW M3 etc. into their base models as they have a particular - for want of a better word - "legacy". On the other hand cars such as the VW Golf GTI, Ford Focus ST or Renault Clio V6 ("hot hatchbacks" and similar) could be kept at their base model articles. Cars such as the Renault Clio Sport or any other "warm" version of a production car should be kept at their base model article. I would include hybrid, EV and biofuel versions of production cars in this category as they are merely another power-train option and don't have a "legacy" in their own right. Zunaid 13:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly opposed: Per others above, these need to be considered on a case-by-case. Creating a "rule" that forces articles on all hybrid vehicles to be merged creates limitations where none should exist.  Ebikeguy (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose any hard rule about trim levels or variants. Some of the examples clearly should be merged.  While others offer large amounts of valid encyclopedic content that simply would not fit if merged into a parent article.  This is not a paper encyclopedia, if someone wants to write a detailed and encyclopedic article about a trim level or power-train option I don't see why that should be a problem. --Leivick (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose any "one size fits all" rule or "guideline" for (most of) the reasons given already by others.  Individual cases can be decided on their individual merits, but my starting position is that there are already a lot of entries which could benefit from being split because in the unsplit form they have become over long, formless and unwieldy.   A start has been made especially in German wiki of giving models with several generations BOTH a relatively brief overview entry AND more detailed and considered individual entries for each generation of it.   EG VW Golf (where the same pattern is now followed by English wiki) or Opel Rekord (where there is still a single rather long entry in English wiki covering all the generations).   Of course, splitting out the generations in this way does require a lot of time and care, and it's most likely not worth doing until there is a good quantity of good information already entered in the article to be split.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the proposal. The way the Toyota Prius was recently split is a good example, though, a case by case analysis would be required for the articles listed for this discussion.-Mariordo (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what the proposal has been all along. The Audi S3 example that was given on individual talk pages suggested that Audi A3 would be split by generation (i.e. Audi A3 (8P) and Audi A3 (8L), and the Audi S3 content would be merged into the relevant A3 generation article). There is no proposal to merge an article like Ford Escape Hybrid into the actual Ford Escape article. The plan would be to have Ford Escape (first generation) and Ford Escape (second generation) articles, and the hybrid contents could be merged into these generation-specific articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Each particular case would have to be discussed individually, case by case. I would not agree with the example you just gave. Any hybrid, EV or PHEV that has enough notability should have its own article, and so, the discussion should be case by case, not as a batch as proposed here.-Mariordo (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This needs to be done case by case, but first we need to find all those articles which could be candidates for this then we could add vote for every case. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Motions of order

 * 1) I believe there is no rush to go ahead with these mergers, so in the spirit of a broad participation, I suggest we put on hold these discussion until after the holidays, let's say January 10, 2011, to make sure almost everybody is back in business. Please state below your support or opposition to this proposal.

Opinions/Discussion (1):
 * Support hold until 01/10/11.-Mariordo (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support hold until 01/10/11. Let's wait until the primarily involved editors are all back on line before making decisions like this.  Ebikeguy (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support hold until 01/10/11. Johnfos (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I don't know who these involved editors are, but Wikipedia doesn't take a break for holidays. In my opinion this is a perfect time to discuss these issues.  Personally I have much more time to devote to Wikipedia when I don't have school work to deal with. --Leivick (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring the discussion! --Mariordo (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: Wikipedia does revolve around Mariordo's vacation period. You are more than welcome to oppose mergers, but do not inconvenience other editors because January 10 does not necessarily suit others. This is clearly a distraction to terminate a discussion that you disagree with and know will take a lot of effort to defend. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * User:OSX, before removing again this discussion section and my comments, please read the Talk page guidelines under the section regarding "Behavior that is unacceptable". As explained here "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission." There was an ongoing voting and you do not have my permission to remove the discussion or my comments. I am just requesting a courtesy, which editors have the right to grant or deny, but you blanked the discussion when the motion was 3 in favor and 1 against (you) which clearly is unacceptable behavior. Just let other editor express their opinion and read WP:Assume Good Faith, I am not the only one on vacation.-Mariordo (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, Wikipedia does not revolve around the Christmas holidays. People take holidays all throughout the year, and there is no single period that suits all editors. You seem to find the time on your busy vacation to reply to all these discussions anyway, so it is clearly a distraction/excuse to end the merger discussion. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring this discussion that OSX improperly removed from this talk page simply because he disagrees, and reproducing the transcription of the message he left in my talk page:


 * Hi, there is no policy that says discussions cannot take place during the Christmas period, just like we don't make special provisions for other religious events, such as Ramadan. If you are available to discuss then you are welcome to participate, but please don't inconvience other editors because of this. Regards, OSX (talk •contributions) 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I stroked out the issues that have been resolved, but #1 is still pending. Besides WP:Civility and WP:Good faith, I request a hold on the discussion at least regarding hybrids (particularly the Civic Hybrid) so we can concentrate in the arguments, particularly WP:Notability. I do not see the rush to do the mergers, plus what I am requesting is just a courtesy, so I have time to develop the arguments once I am back from the holiday break. Please express your views below regarding my proposal.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)



Opinions/Discussion (2):
 * Support one by one discussion.-Mariordo (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support one by one discussion. Weighing the merits of the highly-successful, currently-produced Honda Civic Hybrid in the same discussion as the unsuccessful, relatively short-lived Accord Hybrid does not make sense.  These are two entirely different cases, and the "pros and cons" of merging the associated articles should be considered separately.  Ebikeguy (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support one by one discussion. Johnfos (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)



Case by Case
As it appeard that the group concensus is to do a 'case by case' merger, I think we should begin. I would also like to add that I think it would be more appropriate to group certain vehicles into cases, e.g. Mazdaspeed3 and Mazdaspeed6, becvause they are similar both as vehicles and as articles. -- Pineapple Fez 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Scrap the whole 'grouping' thing. -- Pineapple Fez 23:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Honda Civic Hybrid
Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, it looks like the Honda Civic Hybrid page has been redirected to the main Honda Civic page and there is no longer even a hybrid section on the main Honda Civic page. I was referred to the Wikiprojects Automobiles on the Talk page for the Honda Civic Hybrid redirect, but the only discussion I can find on the topic seems to have ended in 2011 with "No consensus, keep existing practice" - I am having trouble understanding what happened - ? I would prefer a separate page for the Honda Civic Hybrid or at least a separate section for the Honda Civic Hybrid on the main Honda Civic page. Thank you.
 * User:OSX, User:Mariordo, User:Johnfos, User:Ebikeguy, User:Leivick, User:Pineapple Fez Wikikweli (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The proposition:
 * Honda Civic Hybrid > Honda Civic (seventh generation) and Honda Civic (eighth generation)

Opinions/Discussion:
 * Support: The Civic Hybrid is simply a relatively minor modification of the Civic that incorporates a hybrid-electric powertrain. It is otherwise the same car. As such, there is a hybrid of the 7th-gen Civic, of the 8th-gen Civic, etc. Making a separate article for the hybrid would be like making a separate article for the Civic HX (which uses compressed natural gas) or making separate articles for diesel versions of cars such as the VW Golf TDI vs regular Golf. Neither of those are done because powertrain modifications do not warrant separate articles. This reeks of hybrid elitism. CGameProgrammer (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Both articles could comfortably merged into their respective counterparts. -- Pineapple Fez 01:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: per above and precedent set by Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Turning the Honda Civic Hybrid article into a set index page (similar to Ford Ranger) may be a good idea to assist in pointing readers to the correct articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support to me it is largely a size issue. I don't want to lose encyclopedic information, but I don't want to make articles too long to navigate.  These articles could be merged without making the target page too long. --Leivick (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed Strongly Opposed as per all my arguments above. Each article has different merits, so I still believe a case-by-case is more appropriate. I believe that the Civic Hybrid has enough notability to deserve its own article. In the US, the largest market for hybrids in the world, the Civic Hybrid is second in sales after the Prius (see here) and one of the most fuel efficient models in the market today. Furthermore, we have to remember that this encyclopedia is for the benefit of our readers not the editors. During the last months this article has had more than 10,000 visits per month, which shows there is demand for the specific article about this hybrid. And by the way, length is not a good criteria, but length there will be no stubs in Wikipedia, you might find always some article it could belong to. WP:CARS has plenty of stubs, or am I wrong? If the request for a hold on this discussion gains consensus (see my proposal above) I would like an opportunity to expand the article to reflect the social and environmental and other aspects of this particular powertrain that will reinforce its notability and merits to have its own article.-Mariordo (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging this article does not effect your ability to expand the content on the Civic Hybrid. If what you add makes it too long, I see no reason it can't be split later. --Leivick (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal is not only about merging/redirecting, it's about pruning information about the hybrid model to fit it into another article. That means significant info. will be lost and much time wasted even if it is split later.---North wiki (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No pruning is required for the Honda Civic Hybrid article, as the article seems mostly free of fancruft. I will double check this after I save this reply. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If my understanding is correct, CZmarlin suggests: "Just as in the Toyota situation, the technical aspects of the hybrid system could be in a separate article (see: Hybrid Synergy Drive) and would be of help as Honda improves and implements their system in its other vehicles". I don't see any objection to that suggestion.---North wiki (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Opposed - These are entirely different cases and should be considered separately. The Honda Civic Hybrid was and is one of the most successful hybrid models to date.  The Accord Hybrid was an unsuccessful venture into the "performance hybrid" realm that never caught on with the car-buying public.  Separate these discussions, tag the corresponding articles, and please let's wait until after the holidays so that all interested parties can have a chance to take part in the discussion.  Thanks.  Ebikeguy (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Opposed - Now that the Accord and Civic discussions have been separated, we can look at the merits of each case. The Civic Hybrid was and is a landmark vehicle.  It was the first commonly available hybrid based on an established platform.  It received immense amounts of media coverage separate from other Civic models.  It is clearly notable above and beyond the Civic product line as a whole.  There is no reason we cannot have a paragraph on the Civic hybrid in the main Civic articles, with a "Main article here" link to the separate Civic hybrid article.  This is common Wikipedia practice that should be observed in this case.  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While first, the Civic Hybrid remains a version of the existing Civic with a different engine and transmission. The norm is to treat versions of cars in the main article, with divisions by generation taking precedence. Splitting off to a separate article is done as a solution only if an article is otherwise too long, but it's not the norm. The Citroën GS Birotor, for instance, doesn't need its own page, even though it was highly notable and possibly more distinct from the GS on which it was based in terms of engineering than is the Civic Hybrid.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Opposed per Mariordo and Ebikeguy Johnfos (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - short article, easier to find the needed info from normal Civic article and nowadays hybrid is just like any other engine option... -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – Just because the Civic is available in conventional or in a hybrid power version does not change the basic vehicle. The platform is similar in both of the generations (up to this point in time) regardless of the type of motive power available in these cars. It is also easier for an uninvoloved reader to compare and contrast the differences between the two power versions when they are presented in one succinct article. Just as in the Toyota situation, the technical aspects of the hybrid system could be in a separate article (see: Hybrid Synergy Drive) and would be of help as Honda improves and implements their system in its other vehicles. CZmarlin (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Honda's equivalent to Hybrid Synergy Drive is Integrated Motor Assist, and it is used by several Honda vehicles other than the Civic, such as the Insight, CR-Z, and Accord Hybrid. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - There is little information in the article and it would be better-presented and more neutrally presented in the generational Civic articles. --Sable232 (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - No length issues, not enough difference to warrant a separate article.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - For exactly the same reasons thrashed out in Toyota Camry Hybrid. The differences in the two cases are not significant to alter my opinion for this car. --Falcadore (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Like Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid I see no reason why this should have its own article when it can easily have its own section in the generation articles. Bidgee (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly Opposed By splitting the Civic hybrid into different articles (7th gen. and 8th gen.), I think it'll make comparison across generations unduly and unnecessarily cumbersome.---North wiki (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)  Furthermore, the next generation of Civic hybrid will debut within a couple of months and there'll be some changes in its technology, I guess, and possibly a split of models between markets (USDM vs. JDM/EUDM). If that's true, merging the articles and referring all its hybrid details to a separate IMA article may complicate the situation - especially to novice readers unfamiliar with the subject, those who come here looking for info. What applies to previous generations or other hybrids may not be applicable to the latest generation.---North wiki (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, how is a change in technology going to complicate things? Information on the first generation Civic Hybrid would be moved to Honda Civic (seventh generation), and information on the second generation Civic Hybrid would be moved to Honda Civic (eighth generation). Transforming "Honda Civic Hybrid" into a set index article like Ford Ranger would solve any grievances from "novice readers". OSX (talk • contributions) 01:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Today expires the request I made for extending this discussion. Since we are 8 9 for and 4 against, my interpretation of the result is: consensus was not reached and the article should be kept. Despite the majority supporting the merger, WP policy states that "few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy." (see Polling is not a substitute for discussion). Aware of my personal bias, and that of most of the participants, I proposed we follow the neutral procedure recommended in Merging section IV:
 * Closing procedure
 * In more unclear, controversial cases, this determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally done by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard.

Other suggestions are welcome.--Mariordo (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I count nine supports and four opposed. Seems fairly close to a consensus to me? Also, all issues raised by the opposing editors have been adressed by OSX and others and haven't been brought up again. But I am happy to await an administrator if it seems necessary.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Addressing the issues to try to reach consensus is one thing, rebutting arguments based on IMO is different. There has been no communication back and forth, just one-side rebuttals. Just see my more detailed argumentation below, instead of engaging the notability or any of the issues raised, just the same arguments kept being repeated.--Mariordo (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is unfair and improper to respond to 'opposing' editors and to state "all issues raised by the opposing editors have been adressed by OSX and others and haven't been brought up again" at exactly the same time. It is only fair to ,at least, notify the other party that a respond is posted and allow sufficient time for the other party to respond.---North wiki (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that OSX has addressed the issues presented by the 'opposing' editors in a manner which supports merging this article. While OSX has responded to opposing editors, his responses have in no way invalidated the information and concerns brought up by opposing editors.  There is clearly no consensus on this issue, so the merger must not be allowed to occur.  Ebikeguy (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a very close call. If this was an AfD, I'm not sure how I would close it (I am much to involved to see it objectively anway).  It is no surprise that the supports see consensus and the opposes don't. We really should get the opinion of an uninvolved experienced editor who can determine whether there is consensus or not.  Any suggestions as to who it could be or where we should ask? --Leivick (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So wait, how it that the minority group of four opposing votes takes precedence over nine supporting votes? That's twice as many in favour plus one more. When 70 percent of the votes are in favour of the merge, I think that satisfies WP:Consensus. However, to alleviate any fears of bias from the opposing editors, let's get an outside party to make the call. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have requested the help of an administrator outside the WP:CARS realm for assistance. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that: this is "not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." ---North wiki (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, the arguments for opposition are in bold, and I have rebutted each:


 * The Civic Hybrid is second in hybrid sales after the Prius: sales do not increase the standing of a vehicle. In that sense, the Toyota Corolla would have separate articles just for the "LE" and "XLE" trim levels, because these cars sell in far greater numbers than the much more expensive Rolls-Royce Phantom. The Corolla LE is still much the same car as the Corolla XLE; the Civic Hybrid is much the same car as the regular Civic. On the other hand, the Rolls-Royce Phantom is a very different car to the Rolls-Royce Ghost.


 * It received immense amounts of media coverage: many individual trim levels or powertrain variants of one car receive a lot of media coverage. For example, the Mercedes-Benz C 63 AMG is widely lauded by reviewers, and is a very different car to drive than the basic Mercedes-Benz C-Class, but a separate article is not warranted because the core vehicle does not change. The powertrain (which is the part of the Civic Hybrid that differs from the rest of the range) already has its own articles, so we do not need to repeat this on every individual model page. The hybrid system used by the Civic is largely identical to the one used by all other Honda hybrids, so this would result in unnecessary content duplication.


 * It is one of the most fuel efficient models in the market today: this again resorts to peacock terms to justify separation. Being more fuel efficient than the non-hybrid is not a reasonable means to separate. How much space does it take to say, "The Civic Hybrid is xx percent more fuel efficient than the 1.8-litre automatic variant according to the EPA... it uses xx miles per gallon in the city and xx miles per gallon on the highway."? The basic Mercedes-Benz C 180 is a lot more fuel efficient (and slower) than the high-performance C 63 AMG version, but they happily coexist within the same article.


 * This encyclopaedia is for the benefit of our readers not the editors: exactly, and the current setup makes it difficult for readers to make comparisons to the regular Civic because they have to flick back-and-forwards between two articles.


 * Length is not a good criteria: if two articles on essentially the same topic can comfortably be merged, then they should be. The individual Civic generational articles are relatively short at the moment. The Civic Hybrid contents would barely add two paragraphs to each article. The Civic Hybrid is the same basic car as the regular Civic. The only difference is the addition of an electric motor and battery pack (which are outlined at the Integrated Motor Assist article), a change in the alloy wheels fitted, and the placement of "Hybrid" badging.


 * WP:CARS has plenty of stubs: correct, but many of these are about cars that have no relation with any other. If they are just a powertrain option, trim level, or a rebadged version of another car, then they should be merged as well, which is exactly what these discussions are seeking to do.


 * Merging will make comparison across hybrid generations cumbersome: not at all. The Integrated Motor Assist article explains the evolution of this technology, not the individual model articles. Also, the Honda Civic (eighth generation) article should explain how that generation differs from the Honda Civic (seventh generation), and the hybrid is no exception.

My final point is an extension to the consistent use of the argument, "but the hybrid version of [insert model here] is extremely notable and has received a profusion of press coverage." I will reiterate for the tenth, eleventh or twelfth time now that just because a topic with a slight variation from another receives press coverage does not instantly mean we must give it a special article all of its own. If you take a look at the vast majority of car articles on Wikipedia, they exist as a single article outlining multiple generations, despite each generation most likely being subject to a plethora of press coverage. Each generation shares little or no engineering with the others, yet they coexist—happily and without dispute as well. Case in point: Toyota RAV4, contains information on three unrelated generations because there is not enough content to separate. I can assure you that the first and second generation RAV4s share significantly less engineering than any generation of Civic Hybrid does with its non-hybrid counterpart. The list of articles that are set out like the RAV4 page would run into the thousands: Subaru Forester, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Mazda Familia, Toyota Previa, Toyota Vitz, Honda Odyssey, Toyota Celica, Toyota Avalon, Hyundai Santa Fe, Opel Vectra, et cetera... the list is endless. Only when, and when only, these articles become too long do we start to consider splitting these up. And it would be absurd to do so by powertrain, i.e. "Subaru Forester 2.5-liter", "Opel Vectra V6 petrol", and "Toyota Previa four-cylinder". If these articles become too big, then without a doubt, they would be broken up by generation; hybrid, electric, and performance variants are no exception. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of the arguments is only based your IMO. There are policies in Wikpedia that override any guidelines set by a WikiProject. Please read carefully WP:CONLIMITED: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."
 * Therefore, WP:NOTABILITY as stated by policy depends on the subject having received significant coverage and this is what determines if an article should exist, not WP:AUTO guidelines. Measured through google hits (6.4 million using " ") and well-known facts about the Honda Civic Hybrid is what determines if there is merit for a stand-alone article, that has existed for years (since 2004) with a respectable number of visitors, varying between 5,000 to 10,000 a month during the last three years. Also remember that as per wiki policies if the notability of an article/subject changes over time this is not reason for deleting or merging the article. The notability of the Civic Hybrid was much greater back then when it was recently launched in the market, and even today continues to be the second most fuel efficient car after the Toyota Prius.
 * Article size: Despite being used repeatedly in the hybrids merger discussion as an argument, article size is irrelevant for deciding if the article should be merge as the minimal content criteria does not apply for the reasons explained in detailed below, in the Fusion Hybrid and Prius PHEV merger discussion, using WP:AUTOS GA rated articles as a reference. Also consider that there is plenty of room for improvement and expansion, particularly of environmental performance information, if several of the WP:AUTOS editors allow.
 * Relevance of environmental performance: Sustainable transport and environmental performance are not obscure fringe topics nor fancruft-laden (as asserted in these discussions) but rather quite mainstream, just like climate change so it cannot be ignored, and Wikipedia reflects theses facts everywhere, except, it seems, in WP:AUTO. The United Nations, The World Bank and all other international development organizations, and many governments of first world countries (and many developing countries too) make decisions and implement policies following such environmental and sustainability principles (wonder why there are so many government incentives for this types of vehicles). Furthermore, comparison tables like the one reproduced below are built with information provided by the US Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency (not some green advocacy group), both government agencies and considered reliable sources in WP. Therefore, this type of info in a hybrid article cannot be considered fancruft, nor marketing. The rejection of this type of information just reflects the already recognized biased (by some of the editors of WP:AUTOS) against electric drive vehicles that use the glider of existing gasoline or diesel vehicles. The performance indicators included in this table reflect the mainstream new reality that the social and environmental impact of automobiles must be evaluated and relevant information provided to car buyers. This indicators reflect the relevant impacts caused by automobiles, from good old air pollution, through greenhouse gas emissions, to oil consumption/energy independence (particularly to reduce imports from not so friendly countries). As your edit war with me in the recently merged Ford Escape demonstrates, you merged the article cleansing it from all environmental performance but the fuel economy, just by claiming this type of content is fancruft regardless of being supported by reliable sources and being a mainstream subject. Again, not following WP policies but supporting yourself in WikiProject guidelines.--Mariordo (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Placing the hybrid Civic version content within the relevant Civic article doesn't detract from the relevance of the environment, global warming (or the tables). These votes/this debate are not a referendum on the relevance of gas mileage comparisons, tables, or any other content (promise!): it's an attempt to reintegrate a version of an existing car into the main article where most of us feel that it belongs and nothing more. In all actuality, the possible advantages of hybrid versions will be more visible and relevant when placed on the main page, as readers will no longer have to find links and click through them. Mention of hybrid versions in the introductory paragraph will help farther.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Am I talking to a brick wall or not? Just because a topic with a slight variation from another receives press coverage does not instantly mean we must give it a special article all of its own. If you take a look at the vast majority of car articles on Wikipedia, they exist as a single article outlining multiple unrelated generations, despite each generation most likely being subject to a plethora of press coverage. Each generation shares little or no engineering with the others, yet they coexist—happily and without dispute as well. Case in point: Toyota RAV4, contains information on three unrelated generations because there is not enough content to separate. Only when, and when only articles become too long do we start to consider splitting them up.


 * Having the articles merged does not inhibit your ability to edit or improve the contents at all. It simply moves the contents from one place too another. Note the operative term, "moved", and not "deleted" (unless it's cruft of course). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Integrated Motor Assist article explains the evolution of this technology, not the individual model articles." I'm sorry. Have you been to the IMA article lately? Where does it explain the evolution of the tech.? Furthermore, the article looks more like OR, without citing any source for much of its material.---North wiki (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not our problem if that article does not sufficiently explain the history of the technology—it should—and does not need to be repeated on every article for every car that uses the IMA technology. The regular Civic page does not outline the history of the powertrains either; they have their own articles for this purpose. Your recent expansion to Honda Civic Hybrid is also unsourced and is full of original research. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously it's not a problem for Wiki, but it's a problem for the editor who stated that "the Integrated Motor Assist article explains the evolution of this technology". 1. It's a factual error, on that editor's part, because the article doesn't. 2. What can be included in the article is not about what should, but what could. There has to be a RS. It seems some editors are confused. 3. If the RS is about changes from one generation to another, what is the rationale to move that away from the article of the latter generation? 4. I think it's beyond the scope of this discussion whether the regular Civic page outline the history of the powertrains used. Furthermore, is there any such proposal from editor? 5. Where is the article that "outline[s] the history of the powertrains" of Civic. Can you show me? 6. The additions to Honda Civic Hybrid article are sourced and cited.
 * The separation of Civic hybrid from the Civic article is because of public perception. I read many comparison tests between Civic hybrid and Prius, between Prius and Insight, but I have difficulty to find one between Civic hybrid and a non-hybrid Civic from a notable source. (I'm not saying there won't be one, but it's just much, much fewer.) It doesn't seem to be what the public need or want. I also read many commentary about the sales of Civic hybrid against that of Prius, but few would compare the sales of Civic against that of Prius. It's obvious there's sufficient ground to show that, at least in many media reports, Civic hybrid is treated separately from the mainstream Civic models. ---North wiki (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Merge I weighed in on this once before. I see several HUGE problems with the merge.  My main concern is that there's more than enough material to justify separate articles, and the honda civic hybrid is far beyond the threshold of notability needed to have its own article.  This argument alone should be grounds to speedily close the discussion.  But another concern I have is with WP:UNDUE: the civic hybrid directly competes with the Toyota prius; by merging it into civic, Wikipedia is effectively downplaying Honda's leading hybrid car, and the second-most-important hybrid car on the world market.  The fact that we're even discussing this seems ridiculous.  I recommend a speedy close to this ridiculous and far-fetched proposal.  Cazort (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge &mdash; the Civic Hybrid has generated enough independent press coverage, and is a notable enough subject in its own right, to justify the existence of a separate article. I believe that a merge would only serve the desire of some editors for "consistency," not the well-being of Wikipedia readers. <b style="color:#11A;"> *** Crotalus *** </b> 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose - as above arguments--High voltage41 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As a totally uninvolved editor, and non-expert in the subject, I am amazed at some of the arguments used. Deliberately amitting the sort of publication which would consider any variation worth a long discussion and separate review,  all general interest publications such as Consumer Reports or the NYT or Popular Mechanics  regard hybrids as distinctly separate models that must be separately reviewed, not just as versions.Contrary to a statement above, we do go by press coverage, and if these are covered extensively separately, then they get separate articles. We do follow the sources. Thats the entire basis of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:Original Research, and WP:SYN.  And all the more for pure electrics, which are really a different type of vehicle in  a similar body and with a similar nameplate.  108.21.112.38 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the V6 Mustang is reviewed separately from the V8 Mustang. Does that mean they should be split up into multiple articles? For that matter, magazines often re-review cars that are identical to the previous year aside from one or two minor package changes. Does that mean we should have an article for each year of a car even if it's the same as before? (e.g. 2007 Civic, 2008 Civic, 2009 Civic...) CGameProgrammer (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Then perhaps these should also be considered to be merged with its main type: Shelby, Saleen XP6, Saleen XP8, Saleen S281 and R.R. Corniche. -North wiki (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Honda Accord Hybrid
The proposition:
 * Honda Accord Hybrid > Honda Accord (North America seventh generation)

Opinions/Discussion:
 * Support - Both articles could comfortably merged into their respective counterparts. -- Pineapple Fez 01:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: per above and precedent set by Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid. Turning the Honda Civic Hybrid article into a set index page (similar to Ford Ranger) may be a good idea to assist in pointing readers to the correct articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support to me it is largely a size issue. I don't want to lose encyclopedic information, but I don't want to make articles too long to navigate.  These articles could be merged without making the target page too long. --Leivick (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed as per all my arguments above. Each article has different merits, so I still believe a case-by-case is more appropriate. And by the way, length is not a good criteria, but length there will be no stubs in Wikipedia, you might find always some article it could belong to. WP:CARS has plenty of stubs, or am I wrong?-Mariordo (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually think length (and detail) is a fine way to separate these articles. There might be plenty of information with which to write a full Honda Civic Hybrid article (maybe even an Accord Hybrid article too), but right now neither can stand on its own.  At one time there wasn't enough content to have separate generation articles for the Civic, but it got to the point where the main article was just too long to be useful and we split it (in 2005 I would have argued to merge a "Seventh generation Honda Civic" article).  Maybe someday the hybrid sections will become developed enough to branch the articles and when that happens we should do so.  Some car company articles have all their models merged into a single page because it is easier to navigate than a whole bunch of single model stubs.  One nice thing about Wikipedia is that it is fluid, articles can be split and merged as necessary. As a side note I also think this debate is nice part of Wikipedia, many good points being brought up by a number of editors arguing rationally and with civility.  People put forth a good faith proposal, it didn't get consensus and we moved on to discussing articles individually, what could be better! --Leivick (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Now that the discussion is case-by-case. The Camry Hybrid does not meet the notability criteria to have its own article. If the Accord plug-in being tested right now in California or a new generation of hybrid powertrain that seems to be in the works make it successfully to the market then enough notability might grant a separate article in the future.-Mariordo (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed - These are entirely different cases and should be considered separately. The Honda Civic Hybrid was and is one of the most successful hybrid models to date. The Accord Hybrid was an unsuccessful venture into the "performance hybrid" realm that never caught on with the car-buying public.  Separate these discussions, tag the corresponding articles, and please let's wait until after the holidays so that all interested parties can have a chance to take part in the discussion.  Thanks.  Ebikeguy (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - The Accord Hybrid is only a footnote in history. While the failed "performance hybrid" category may deserve independent coverage if someone is up for the task, a separate subsection of the larger Accord article could be referenced as easily as a separate article.  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed per Mariordo and Ebikeguy Johnfos (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - support per above -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support – Just because the Accord was available in a hybrid power version did not make it a completely different vehicle. The buyers had a selection of drivetrains - from basic and traditional to fancy and "exotic" - in the same car with basically similar comfort and appearance features. There is no reason to have a separate article on the basis of undefined "performance hybrid" market segment. Such marketing puffery seems to be an example of Honda's Boastful Superlative for publicity purposes, rather than encyclopedic information. CZmarlin (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you invent the term "boastful superlative"? It really is a great synonym for "marketing puffery" (also a good phrase), which certainly seems to be the basis for all but a few of these separate articles. Hybrids and performance variants should not be given undue weighting over the conventionally powered luxury and "poverty-pack" trims, as this could suggest a non-neutral point-of-view. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - per OSX, Mr. Leivick, and CZmarlin. --Sable232 (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - no stand-alone interest. Perhaps in ten years, when the Accord Hybrid has developed into its own line of cars.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - For exactly the same reasons thrashed out in Toyota Camry Hybrid. The differences in the two cases are not significant to alter my opinion for this car. --Falcadore (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Like Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid I see no reason why this should have its own article when it can easily have its own section in the generation article. Bidgee (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Renault 5 Turbo
The proposition:
 * Renault 5 Turbo > Renault 5

Opinions/Discussion:
 * Oppose - the mid-engined Turbo was in reality a silhouette car, with only a superficial resemblance to the fwd Renault 5. It had a largely separate existence and development history, was of a completely different technical layout and so on. While the engine block, roof, and glass were the same I would consider it its own car deserving of its own article (which could, incidentally, use some fleshing out and referencing).  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you give it a try expanding the article to highlight its notability. As it stands today I would be incline to support the merger.-Mariordo (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 *  Neutral Support - the article states that the "mechanicals were radically different". This may be a slight exaggeration, I don't know. However, the shell looks like it's identical between both cars, but all the exterior panels except for the roof and maybe the doors appear unique. The Turbo also goes from front-wheel drive to rear-wheel drive, and so on. On the other hand there is not much content, and the differences could probably be adequately discussed at Renault 5. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think going from FF to MR can safely be considered as radically different, even though the engine block was the same. I do agree though, that the article does need more content.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - short article, easier to find all Renault 5 info if in the same page, doesnt matter if its silhoutte but the same name is enough.-- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Also, I propose the merging of Renault 5 Alpine and Renault 5 Alpine Turbo into the main article as well. All the sports versions of the R5 should be on the same page. --Pc13 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Based on the comments above, I would normally oppose this, but this article is short and could easily be merged into the Renault 5 article, as can the extremely short list which is the Renault 5 Alpine and its longer sibling, the Renault 5 Alpine Turbo article. -- Pineapple Fez 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Two books have been written specifically about the Turbo model, indicating a notability separate from the rest of the range: Renault 5 Turbo (Grand Tourisme) by Dominique Pascal in 1983, and Renault 5 Turbo: The Forgotten French Supercar by Peter Meaney in 1996. Article should be expanded, not merged. Regards, DeLarge (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good tip - purchased Pascal's book, with view of expanding article.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposed addition to merger - Renault 5 GT Turbo > Renault 5


 * Varied. Renault 5 Alpine to Renault 5. Renault 5 GT Turbo to Renault 5. Renault 5 Alpine Turbo to Renault 5 Turbo. Essentially combin all the FF cars together and all the MR cars together. If the MR versions can then create a readable article after merge/re-write is done then leave at that point. If not, merge all the R5s together. --Falcadore (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems that the articles can be merged for now, until the Renault 5 Turbo gains enough content to make it deserve a stand-alone. All the FF cars should definitely be merged to their various generations.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Due to majority support I have merged the Renault 5 Alpine and Renault 5 Alpine Turbo articles - there was actually very little difference between the two pages due to duplication. One could argue that the new merged page could also be merged into the main Renault 5 page as a significant amount of the information is also duplicated there, and might help reduce confusion of the differing version. There is an argument to maintain the Renault 5 Turbo page if it was expanded due to its rather different status and motor sport history.Warren Whyte (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - On working through the Renault 5 Turbo article and reading around some new references, I would propose this should be retained as it is quite different from the normal Renault 5, and with its motor sport history, it could be a very interesting article. Support that the 5 Alpine and 5 GT Turbo can easily be merged into the main Renault 5 Article as they are just sports derivatives of the normal car. Warren Whyte (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Any further thoughts on this? I have suggested a compromise to merge the Alpine and 5 GT into the main Renault 5 article but leave the Renault 5 Turbo article as it stands. Warren Whyte (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good for now. I still believe Renault 5 Turbo should be merged, but you may as well get a start on the others. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 5GT Turbo now merged into main R5 article. Will assume 5 Alpine will also merge into main R5 article in due course unless any more comments here. Warren Whyte (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ford Escape Hybrid
The proposition:
 * Ford Escape Hybrid > Ford Escape (first generation)
 * Ford Escape Hybrid > Ford Escape (second generation)

The contents of Ford Escape would also be summarised and integrated into the appropriate generation article.

Opinions/Discussion:


 * Support: the Escape Hybrid is just another powertrain option for the Escape. There is no need to have a separate article for this hybrid system, which is also shared with the Fusion Hybrid (content duplication). To quote CZmarlin from above, "it is also easier for an uninvolved reader to compare and contrast the differences between the two power versions when they are presented in one succinct article." OSX (talk • contributions) 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: only long and complicated articles should be split up, and the Escape is just two generations. Better would be a single "Escape Hybrid" section in the existing article. The hybrid tech didn't change much over time, so it doesn't need to be divided up. IFCAR (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, it did not change much and it is shared with other Ford hybrids, so in order to avoid duplicating content, the hybrid powertrain information should be discussed in an article specific to the powertrain. The same is done with other powertrains shared among different vehicles, like Buick V6 engine, Toyota AZ engine, and GM 6T40 transmission). Both the Escape and Fusion pages would link to this Ford hybrid powertrain article. It is ungainly to compare the various Escape powertrains in the current page setup, and just about every other article that requires splitting up is done so by generation, and not powertrain (Toyota Camry, Toyota Corolla, et cetera). OSX (talk • contributions) 22:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Very few automobiles are split up by generation; most are (more conveniently) in a single article. Nearly every exception to this is a car with a large number of model generations -- like the Camry and Corolla you mentioned -- not like the Escape.


 * To be clear, my objection is only to splitting up the Escape article in what appears to be a reasonable effort to consolidate it. IFCAR (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * IFCAR, since most of the other supporters of the merger agree that there is insufficient content to also create separate articles for each generation, then I will support this to begin with. If down the track this single article becomes too long, then it may be feasible to split by generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support merge of hybrid content. I don't see any reason to split a two generation article which is only 31kb long. Oppose split of generations in main Escape article. There is a significant amount of good info on the hybrid page, but I think it can be worked into the main page. --Leivick (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly Opposed as per my arguments above and IFCAR. and also it has to be considered that the article has a summary about the plug-in demonstration project (which by itself still does not merit its own article), which is more related to the hybrid than to the conventional ICE version. Or are we going to cut and dice an article that has enough content just for the sake of unifying the generations? or declare everything that is not automotive (such as fuel economy, emissions, etc provided by an official source such as EPA) uncyclopedic? This is one example of the articles that need more time and more participation to decide.-Mariordo (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify your position? IFCAR's proposal is to merge Ford Escape Hybrid into Ford Escape. This is the same as what I initially proposed, except Ford Escape will remain as a single article, and not an overview page with two sub-articles for each generation. I would support this proposal as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for calling my attention, I indeed misread it and ajusted accordingly.-Mariordo (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that it seems to be consensus in not splitting the Ford Escape article by generation, I would like to expand my arguments for not merging the Escape Hybrid article:
 * Notability states that "on Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article" and also states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The Ford Escape Hybrid article clearly meets these basic requirements, and using as a proxy of coverage the number of hits in Google, the closed search "Ford Escape Hybrid" returns 482,000 hits (see here). In contrast, the coverage of the General Motors EV1, which nobody here has any doubts of its notability, produces only 91,800 hits (see here). Browsing through the all the reliable sources talking about the Escape Hybrid, this particular powertrain is notable because it was the first SUV hybrid, it is the most sold hybrid by an American manufacturer, its fuel economy as compared to other SUVs. Also the current article highlights some of the environmental and social benefits (just as safety is dealt with in any automobile article) which are not typical of the the regular gasoline powertrain (and these issues are mainstream as reflected by legislation in the U.S., Europe and several countries, and many of the environmental and social characteristics are provided by EPA, not but some advocate group). There is enough notability for the Escape Hybrid to have its own stand-alone article.


 * Article size: Due to readability issues and technical issues (i.e. mobile browsers), the recommended article size is 32 KB but up to 50 KB is now acceptable. The main Ford Escape article has 31,406 bytes while the Ford Escape Hybrid has 30,554 bytes, so both are within the desirable size and a merger would produce an article that exceeds 50 KB. So a merger will move the consolidated article closer to the criteria for splitting rather than merging. As explain here], a rule of thumb is that if length is > 60 KB probably should be divided and if > 40 KB may need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size).


 * Criteria for merging: As explained by Merging, "reasons to merge a page include the following: unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic. Discretion should be exercised to make sure merging does not result in an article that is too long or drawn out,..."

The reasons provided by several editors supporting the merge in the Camry Hybrid and now here is the convenience of consolidating all info for a given generation. This might be a desirable objective by the WikiProject:Automobiles from an automotive point of view, but has no support in Wikipedia policies, that is not how notability is defined, and on the contrary, is violating these policies and principles in the case of the few hybrids that are notable enough to merit its stand alone articles. A summary section in the Ford Escape article seems to be what is missing with a redirecting to the Escape Hybrid article. I respectfully request the editors who are supporting the merge to carefully review the policies I mentioned above and act accordingly. Our work in Wikipedia is aimed to our readers not us, the Ford Escape Hybrid article has existed since 2004, and since December 2007 has fluctuated between 4000 to 6000 viewers per month, enough demand to keep it as a separate article for those searching for info for the hybrid version.--Mariordo (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mariordo, there is no gross violation of policy in either retaining the Escape Hybrid article or in the act of merging it. It is through the consensus of this project that determines how articles should best be organised, something that is variable and is not immune to adjustment. Policies should act as a rough guide, and should be worded as such. There are many notable topics that are technically different that are combined in a single article due to the significant potential for overlap. For example, Universal Serial Bus (USB): USB 1.0, USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 are all standards of USB that vary in technical specifications but are located in the same article because of the very reasons outlined at Merging (which you alluded to above): "reasons to merge a page include the following: unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic."


 * Just because a topic is notable does not mean a separate article is warranted, and there is no one doubting the notability of any of the hybrids list on this page. The Mercedes-Benz C 63 AMG (among other similar vehicles) is widely discussed (and praised) throughout the automotive media, so there is no question regarding its notability as an automobile. It offers different powertrains, tacked-on interior and exterior trimmings, and a thoroughly reworked chassis and suspension. Yet one should not genuflect to the marketing departments that highlight these superficialities and often seem to ignore that the core vehicle and fancy by-product are one and the same.


 * I simply ask, where is the line drawn? An all-wheel drive derivative of a front-wheel drive vehicle with affixed accessories that attempt to accentuate the off-road ability of the vehicle in question does not alter the fact that the core vehicle is the same. The Volvo XC70 is a textbook example of this—an all-wheel drive "off-road tough" version of the regular Volvo V70 (and thus should remain merged). Likewise, the coupe version of the BMW 3 Series (E90) sedan is discussed in the same article, despite most if not all of the body panels being unique, including the entire front-end. This does not relegate the coupe to a lower standing of notability than granted to the sedan; the consolidation occurs because both the sedan and coupe share the vast majority of engineering, and to split the article based on such specifics would lead to significant duplication of content.


 * As CZmarlin has said in the past, a consolidated article helps to eliminate the plethora of boastful superlatives that often seem to plague pages with a strong enthusiast following. In the past, this was almost exclusively the sole domain of performance vehicles, but the previous decade has seen the uprising of a similar group of "green" automotive enthusiasts. Based on your contributions, would I be correct in stating that you fall into the latter category? Because this is where much of the problem lies: as an enthusiast of "green" vehicles, it is very easy to elevate the standing of these vehicles above all others. Performance car followers are guilty of the same, and I think the goal of the most of the editors of this WikiProject is to hamper the opportunity for these fancruft-laden articles to exist. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and while citing Article size, you have missed the key operative term: "readable prose". The figures of ~31 and ~30.5 KB that you have used for the Escape and Escape Hybrid articles are not the measurements for "readable prose", but rather for the total article size, including section headings, infoboxes, tables, and references, et cetera. The total level of readable prose for the Escape Hybrid article is ~16 KB, and short of making an actual measurement for the Ford Escape article as well, I would expect a similar figure. If in the future a merged Ford Escape article becomes too large, then community consensus would again be utilised to determine whether the article sould be split back up into the current partitioning based on powertrain, or by generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Somewhat support - As per User:IFCAR. -- Pineapple Fez 23:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - for own generation articles it the article grows too big when merged -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support merge of Hybrid versions. Wouldn't mind a generational split but not too worried either way on that point.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - For exactly the same reasons thrashed out in Toyota Camry Hybrid. The differences in the two cases are not significant to alter my opinion for this car. Not sure about generational split as Ford have announced there will not be a third generation. Depends on length of merged article. --Falcadore (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Like Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid I see no reason why this should have its own article when it can easily have its own section in the generation articles. Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose by-generation split, support IFCAR's alternate proposal. --Sable232 (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Similar vehicles with different power systems should be in one article. This will make comparisons between them easier. CZmarlin (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz SLK
The proposition:
 * Mercedes-Benz R170 > Mercedes-Benz SLK
 * Mercedes-Benz R171 > Mercedes-Benz SLK

On checking something on the Mercedes-Benz SLK page, I was surprised to see the general poor layout, and then also surprised to see two further pages of questionable format for the two generation models, Mercedes-Benz R170 and Mercedes-Benz R171. I would propose as part of a reformat and edit that these two additional articles are brought back into the main article as part of the mass merge as there is a lot of duplication and inconsistencies. Warren Whyte (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On further reading of some other Mercedes articles, many have a generation per generation article, all by their code names rather than their proper names. Am I treading on toes here, or opening a can of worms? Warren Whyte (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion in 2009 about the various BMW articles that were titled in the same manner (the current "BMW 3 Series (E90)" page was previously titled "BMW E90"). With the Mercedes-Benz models, it is not as straight forward. The newer models, such as the W221 S-Class would be better served under the page name "Mercedes-Benz S-Class (W221)". However, this would really only work for the two preceding S-Class generations as well (the W140 and W220), because the W126 was not really an S-Class as such. The current format (C 240, E 280 CDI, S 320, et cetera) was only introduced in 1993 (the S 320 of 1993, would have been a 320 SE in 1992; the replacement for the 190E 2.6 (W201) was the C 240 (W202), and so on). Unless an editor can come up with a good uniform naming approach, the current format where all models are named in the same way seems to be the best. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in general, but must note that the S-class has officially been called the S-class (Sonderklasse) since the introduction of the W116, and unofficially at least since the 220S (W111) of 1959. However, C- and E-klasse are much more recent concepts, necessitated by Mercedes' hyperaccelerated growth of model ranges.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think on reflection I will leave the current structure of the articles as they are, but continue the edit of the main SLK-Class page so that it makes sense, and reads more like the Mercedes-Benz SL-Class article. However, if strong support exists I am happy to reconsider! Warren Whyte (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no opposition to the mergers, just the page moves. That is, unless someone comes up with a great way to do so, whilst maintaining uniformity that exists currently. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: and delete those excessive technical specifications lists, converting anything notable into readable prose. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merging of these articles. CZmarlin (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support there is definately insufficient content in the R170 article to support a separate article. There are large chunks of both the main article and the R171 article which are just long lists of specifications, and last I saw, spec lists weren't what wikipedia was about. Trim those out and merging should be fine. --Falcadore (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - since the car is actually called the SLK, there isn't the same need for stand alone articles as there is for the W123, W124 etc.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - As with most articles on car models, information on different generations of a same car should be described in separate sections of a single article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ford Fusion Hybrid
Mariordo (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposition:
 * Ford Fusion Hybrid > Ford Fusion (Americas)

The excessively crufty "fuel economy and environmental performance" section also requires a significant pruning. See also: Talk:Ford Fusion Hybrid. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OSX, would you be so kind to give me a break. You are fully aware that I am still dealing with three GAs reviews, and still pending to expand my arguments in the Civic Hybrid discussion above (that I am expecting it will finish next Sunday (7 days), considering the request I made was granted in the discussion closed by you). I do not understand what is the rush to do several of the hybrids at a time. There is a long list of gasoline vehicles in the list (several dozens actually), but hybrids have been picked quite disproportionately, showing that there is a clear bias against the advanced technology vehicles. The purpose of the mergers is to hear arguments which are different for each case (as consensus was reached on this point) and merger discussions have the main objective to reach consensus rather than counting votes. Therefore I respectfully request that you withdraw the Fusion Hybrid and Prius Plug-in discussions and postpone these discussions following a more reasonable rate, or at least let's agree that the discussion will be open for more than a week (two to four weeks depending on how much you are planning to open - one per week seems more reasonable to me). These two articles are more than 35K, both vehicles are particularly notable, and the Prius PHEV article is mainly about a demonstration program (a change in the article name might be an alternative to the merger). The arguments in this case are completely different than the Camry's. Please let's set some ground rules before continuing this rush.--Mariordo (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are more than welcome to oppose any of the mergers, we have already postponed the first batch due to your holiday, so I am not too keen on doing so again. The reason why I am targeting hybrids is to get them all done and out of the way (I will focus on another group when these are done; it was only the other day that I merged several articles outlining individual Mercedes-Benz AMG models). Also, I have the time to argue these at the moment, time that is required because these hybrid articles seem to be the most difficult to maze through the merger process due to the persistent opposition from yourself and a coupe of other users. So is there a bias towards hybrids? At the moment, probably.


 * I will happily leave all today's discussions open for at least two weeks, giving you ample time to formulate responses for each case. I am also open to persuasion regarding your consideration to merging the Prius PHEV article, whilst retaining an article for the demonstration programme. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: as nominator and per all the above reasons. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support there is room to merge this information into a subsection after we get rid of the cruft, but this article is an example of a close call, there is good information here that I don't want to lose. I also oppose putting this off further.  I was pretty shocked that we took a 3 week break on this previously and I really don't see the point of waiting further.  Keep in mind that nothing that we do is irreversible.  --Leivick (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support needs some shortening as the hybrid article is also quite long -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly opposed: as per the reasons I detail below. In order to simplify the arguments and reduce the prose, analytics are presented in the following tables to support my arguments:


 * 1.Notability: Using Google search as a proxy (close search with " "), the results demonstrate that the Ford Fusion Hybrid has received significant coverage as required by Wikipedia policy. Considering that the Fusion/Milan hybrids have been on the market only since March 2009, the search with a date range shows 1,2 million hits vs. 2,28 million for Ford Fusion (which overlaps some of the hybrid results). The hybrid hits are more than 50%. Even without a restricted date range, the hybrid hits represent a 38% of total Ford Fusion hits, despite the latter being in the market three years before than the hybrid version.
 * 2. Visitors (demand): The hybrid article has had a reasonable demand (as measure by visits) since it was created. The reason for having this encyclopedia are our readers, and they silently vote with their visits to the articles. As shown in the table, the Ford Fusion Hybrid and its two redirects have had more visitors than the Ford Fusion (Europe) during both of the sample months of 2009 and 2010, and around a 25% of the demand of the parent article.
 * 3. Article size: Despite being used repeatedly in the hybrids merger discussion, article size is irrelevant deciding if the article should be merge as the minimal content criteria does not apply for the following reasons:
 * 3.1 The Fusion Hybrid article is 35.8 KB, quite bigger than the Ford Fusion (Europe) (5.8 KB), and almost the same size than its "parent" article (35.1 KB) - In the hybrid article there is not an overlap with the topic of the parent page and neither unnecessary duplication of content (this is the WP policy). By the criteria being applied against the hybrid articles, should the Fusion (Europe) be merged because of its smaller length? or is it notability what really counts?
 * 3.2 Using as a sample the all GA rated in the WikiProject Automobiles, the following table demonstrates that 15 out of 22 GA articles are of similar size and most are quite smaller than the Ford Fusion Hybrid article. What is the of cannibalizing the hybrid article to fatten the parent article, since it is also 35KB? Note that half of the articles are less than 20 KB but they made it to GA.


 * Just as a curious example please note that the Mitsubishi i and the Mitsubishi i MiEV are both WP:AUTO Good Articles! (the latter should be removed from the merging list above, a merge of two GAs is simply nonsense - Desclaimer: I nominated the i MiEV several months ago, well before this mass merger conundrum began).
 * 4.Relevance of environmental performance: Sustainable transport and environmental performance are not obscure fringe topics nor fancruft-laden (as asserted in these discussions) but rather quite mainstream, just like climate change so it cannot be ignored, and Wikipedia reflects theses facts everywhere, except, it seems, in WP:AUTO. The United Nations, The World Bank and all other international development organizations, and many governments of first world countries (and many developing countries too) make decisions and implement policies following such environmental and sustainability principles (wonder why there are so many government incentives for this types of vehicles). Furthermore, comparison tables like the one reproduced below are built with information provided by the US Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency (not some green advocacy group), both government agencies and considered reliable sources in WP. Therefore, this type of info in a hybrid article cannot be considered fancruft, nor marketing. The rejection of this type of information just reflects the already recognized biased (by some of the editors of WP:AUTOS) against electric drive vehicles that use the glider of existing gasoline or diesel vehicles. The performance indicators included in this table reflect the mainstream new reality that the social and environmental impact of automobiles must be evaluated and relevant information provided to car buyers. This indicators reflect the relevant impacts caused by automobiles, from good old air pollution, through greenhouse gas emissions, to oil consumption/energy independence (particularly to reduce imports from not so friendly countries).

And the potential out dating is no excuse for not having this table, it just implies hard work to update the info at least once a year. I do so in the articles I created or where I am the main contributor. I hope that if consensus tilts towards the merge at least this table is preserved. As the Toyota Camry Hybrid demonstrates (and now in the newly merged Ford Escape Hybrid), OSX trimmed all the "green cruft" and left only the automotive info. Finally, it takes quite an amount of time to develop arguments based on evidence, so rushing the discussion goes against the quality of the arguments, and again, what is the rush for getting rid of the hybrid articles if there are dozens of gasoline-engine articles. Considering the list proposed above, the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight and the Honda CRZ (and now the Toyota Prius V I hope) will be the only HEVs to have their own article in Wikipedia, just because of the desire of some editors in this project, who consider a Project guidelines more important that Wiki written policies (pagainst WP:CONLIMITED) and have enough votes to get away with it.--Mariordo (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: And please note that all the multiple issue tags in the Fusion Hybrid article were posted by OSX (Dec 21) three weeks before this particular merger discussion began. I really would appreciate if, according to the recommended rules of a merger, OSX or any editor who proposed a merger refrains from closing any of the merger discussions (an admin can be called to close it if the consensus is not evident). This request is also based in OSX evident conflict of interest.--Mariordo (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Sustainable transport and environmental performance are quite mainstream issues and are are not obscure fringe topics. The Ford Fusion Hybrid is a notable topic which has received significant coverage in news media and it deserves its own article on WP. The article has proved quite popular in terms of number of visits to the page. Johnfos (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. The hybrid Fusion is just another choice of power unit/fuel type options and can be dealt with perfectly well within the main car article. The generic details of hybrid technology is then dealt with in the relevant technical article. I would not expect to see a detailed examination of diesel technology or E85 fuel in each and every car article, but relevant references to the main wiki article. The search argument above by Mariordo is all well and good, but how many Google results for, say,  "Ford Fusion V6"? Oh, that would be 1,730,000 on Google.co.uk, over 400,000 more than the quoted hybrid search above, where the car isn't even sold in the UK, and I don't see an argument for a stand-alone Fusion V6 article. On another matter, why would anyone suggest merging the US Fusion with the European Fusion? Two completely different cars that just happen to share the same name (just so we are clear that I only support mergers where the case is well made!). I would have thought anyone who supports hybrid technology would prefer to see this on the main article page so that it is then by default seen as a mainstream powertrain. Warren Whyte (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - For exactly the same reasons thrashed out in Toyota Camry Hybrid. The differences in the two cases are not significant to alter my opinion for this car. That the current Fusion Hybrid article is well written is not a good reason to exempt it from merger discussions. Perhaps it means that a merged Fusion article could actually end up being just as good. If I may add User:Mariordo you are not the sole arbiter across all of Wikipedia on this subject, OSX is not under any obligation to give you special treatment with regards to timing on any issue he so chooses to raise. It's not all about you, you know. --Falcadore (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to note that my opinion that most of these articles should be merged is not part of some sort of gearhead anti-environmentalist agenda. While I do not feel that there have been any suggestion of such, I worry that these debates could seem as "motorheads versus greens" to someone on the outside looking in. For the record, I commute by bike or train and am completely in favor of more efficient and cleaner transport (and less of it, too). Hybrid cars are both technically and socially interesting, but: when based on an existing car I believe that they belong in that article rather than in a discrete entry.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your disclaimer. But take a look a the recently merged Ford Escape Hybrid, OSX trimmed the environmental performance table as green fancruft (I reversed for the record). Oil consumption and greenhouse emission are mainstream issues, fully covered here in Wikipedia, and the info comes from reliable sources (U.S. gov agencies) - see my other arguments below. That table from the social/environmental perspective has similar merit as the tables comparing the different automotive engines for a given generation. Then why the "green stuff" gets trimmed? And also for the record, out of around 40 hybrids in the market, only half a dozen (excluding Prius and Honda CRZ and Insight) had their own articles (the rest with short sections in the corresponding car article), and most of them it was due to notability. I supported the Accord Hybrid merger because this car lack notability. So it is not black and white for me neither, but we need here more dialogue not the rule of the majority vote.--Mariordo (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not OSX for one thing. And I don't believe that the requests for merging is because of any lack of importance, it's simply because these are versions of existing cars. Hence separate articles for the Insight and Prius, but not for the Mazda Rotary Pickup (I hope, even though I'm a Wankel fan - feel free to weigh in) nor the Civic Hybrid.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that because there are versions of existing cars, then there's no need for separate articles. I think it's all about how one perceives, and how one would want the rules be set. If I think since Matrix is essentially a hatchback version of Corolla, I should merge the two articles? Explain to me what's the difference in engineering. I think the majority of the difference is in the body shell. For your information, officially, Toyota treats Matrix as Corolla Matrix, and accordingly, all sales of Matrix in the U.S. are officially disclosed under Corolla, no separation (I know because I read that is the explanation from Toyota U.S.A. for no separate disclosure of sales of Matrix). Isn't that strong enough ground for me to justify merging Matrix with Corolla?


 * It's all about how you think cars should be classified, but obviously there can be different points of view. It's about how Wiki:Automobile project treats dissenting voices, how to treat so-called 'minorities'. A 'majority' in a small group of editors doesn't necessary represent the majority view outside that group. ---North wiki (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Matrix is built off the same platform as the Corolla, but does not share any panels or major interior trimmings at all. The car may fill the void vacated by the Corolla hatchback, but it is not a Corolla at all (in fact there is a dedicated (and unrelated) Corolla hatchback model that is sold in other markets). Many cars share a name or part of a name with another, yet have little or no relation (i.e. Subaru Liberty/Subaru Liberty Exiga, Honda Accord/Honda Accord Euro, Toyota Yaris (hatchback)/Toyota Yaris (sedan), Honda Civic (Asia/North America/Honda Civic (Europe)...). Names are a marketing concept only. This merger discussion has nothing to do with a shared name, but shared engineering that differs only in terms of powertrain. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Fusion hybrid is notable by itself to have a separate article. (Note: I think it's Wiki's policy only for articles of subject that is notable, I can't find any Wiki policy about grounds that 'difference in engineering or technology' is a necessary factor in such determination.)---North wiki (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see from comparing Google search stats which is being used to promote notability that the V6 Fusion has more search results, but I don't see a need for a stand alone V6 article... Warren Whyte (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Fusion V6 has more google 'hits' does not mean the Fusion hybrid is not notable. Don't shift the argument. BTW, I wouldn't mind if you make such a proposal and seek consensus. ---North wiki (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support This is just Toyota Hybrid Camry all over again. -- Pineapple Fez 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge &mdash; the Fusion Hybrid appears to have enough notability on its own to warrant a separate article. Combining it into the main Ford Fusion article would make things more difficult for readers for no good reason. <b style="color:#11A;"> *** Crotalus *** </b> 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. 1. Hybrid is not just another powertrain!!! It is an expensive revolutionary technology that greatly reduces oil consumption and air pollution! Manufactures cannot just add a "Hybrid powertrain" to any model they want - it is a risky and costly choice. That is why there are very few hybrid models on the market and most manufacturer cannot afford to have even one model!!! 2. If you merge the articles it makes it difficult for a person to learn about a hybrid model because a person has to waste lots of time sifting through the unrelated none-hybrid material. As we saw above in Google search and other statistic numbers lots of people are interested specifically in Hybrid by typing for example "Ford Fusion Hybrid" in the search box. Why you make it difficult to learn for these people? I think that is exactly your agenda - to discourage people from learning about valuable green technologies. Yes, i do believe you have a wicked agenda! Stop this nonsense! Unmerge all hybrid articles immediately! People want to learn about "Ford Fusion Hybrid" - let them learn! ---Yegort (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - More than enough coverage of the hybrid as a topic in and of itself, in reliable sources. Meets WP:N by a long-shot.  Also, interesting and relevant to readers as a topic in and of itself.  I note that a lot of the people arguing to merge aren't actually making compelling arguments about guidelines, they're reasoning about the cars themselves, the details of the car is irrelevant!!!  What is relevant is whether this car is covered as a topic in and of itself.  If a certain style of a certain model receives enough coverage, it deserves its own article as well...it's the degree of coverage, not any innate properties of the car that matter.  Cazort (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid
Mariordo (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposition:
 * Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid > Toyota Prius (XW30)


 * Support: as nominator and per all the above reasons. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: No need for a separate article.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly opposed: as per the reasons I detail below. In order to simplify the arguments and reduce the prose, analytics are presented in the following tables to support my arguments:


 * 1.Notability: For the following reasons, I think there is enough merit for the Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid to merit its stand-alone article:
 * 1.1 Using Google search as a proxy (close search with " "), the results demonstrate that the Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid has received significant coverage as required by Wikipedia policy. The search with “ “ parameters returns 4,8 million hits for the informal name and 3,4 million for the more formal name. The number of hits is quite high considering the first concept was unveiled just in 2009 while talk about the Prius dates back to the late 90s before it was launched in Japan.
 * 1.2 This article has evolved from the Prius PHEV concept car to the PHEV demonstration (or preproduction?) model currently being field tested, and there is little info about the production version to be launched in late 2011/early 2012, as Toyota has not provided much detail. For this reason, most of the content deals with the ongoing demonstration program in the several countries, just like the Mini E electric car as explained in the corresponding article. I believe that a more suitable solution is, after the merger discussion is closed and if the article survives, to open a new discussion to decide if an article change name is required, and I suggest to do so in the article page, not here to avoid confusion with the mass merger.
 * 1.3 This vehicle is a plug-in electric vehicle, therefore both its technology and environmental performance and impacts are quite different from the regular gasoline-electric Prius.
 * 2. Visitors (demand): The PHEV article has had a reasonable demand (as measure by visits) since it was created. As shown in the table, the Prius Plug-in article (without considering the six redirects that add around 500 more visits per month) has had more visitors than the Prius third generation article in the two months since the latter was created. This reflects that our readers are a bit more interested in the plug-in version thant in the third generation Prius.
 * 3. Article size: Despite being used repeatedly in the hybrids merger discussion, article size is irrelevant deciding if the article should be merge as the minimal content criteria does not apply in this case for the following reasons:
 * 3.1 The Prius PHEV article is 24.2 KB, almost the same size as the Toyota Prius (XW30) (25.37 KB), while the "parent" article Toyota Prius is 42.2 KB. In the plug-in hybrid article there is not an overlap with the topic of the parent page, actually most of the contents deals with the demonstration program of a preproduction version, and the recently split third generation article already has a short section about the PHEV and there is no unnecessary duplication of content.
 * 3.2 Again, using as a sample the all GA rated in the WikiProject Automobiles, the following table demonstrates that around half of the 22 GA articles are of similar size or smaller than the Prius PHEV article. What is the purpose of cannibalizing the hybrid article to fatten the parent article, since it is almost the same size? Note that half of the articles are less than 20 KB but they made it to GA without a problem.


 * Again, it is illustrative to note that the Mitsubishi i and the Mitsubishi i MiEV are both WP:AUTO Good Articles! (the latter should be removed speedily from the merging list above, a merger of two GAs is simply nonsense - Disclaimer: I nominated the i MiEV several months ago, well before this mass merger conundrum began). This is an example of how articles with the same glider but different powertrain can coexist and both be GAs.

As the evidence presented shows, from the POV of Wikipedia policies there is no justification for a merger, and Project guidelines do not supersede Wiki policies (please see WP:CONLIMITED). The merger of this article quite frankly is a disservice to Wikipedia readers.Mariordo (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose: For reasons stated, above by Mariordo. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per analysis provided by Mariordo. Johnfos (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: First, could someone please show the guideline that states merging of two GA articles is "nonsense". Anyone can request a community reassessment of an article. Many articles no longer have GA status as they change over time with new contributions, additional information, or even evidence of redundancy with material that is contained in other similar articles. Second, although the tables and statistics shown above look impressive, the fact remains that the basic automobile and platform is the same. It just happens to be available and marketed by the manufacturer with a variety of power or fuel technologies. There are many examples among a particular line of models with a significant range of differences between a "basic", all manual and economical version, and its fancy fully "loaded" and powerful edition. Although having divergent characteristics and target markets, this does not mean the different variants get separate WP articles. Third, the fact is that automakers will be introducing ever more varieties of fuel and power technologies to the marketplace. To have a separate article for every version of powerplant/fuel/propulsion that will be available on a particular platform is unnecessarily redundant. CZmarlin (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much good content in the plug in article to be merged with the 3rd gen page. In response to CZ, I think we have to take it on a case by case basis.  Not every power train/fuel option is going to deserve an article, but the plug in Prius is one of the first and there is enough content to need a separate article. --Leivick (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Common-based vehicles should be described in one article covering all their fuel/technology/power trains with separate and detailed articles about each of their particular motive technologies. The notable and "good content" would then be highlighted in its own article. After decades of reliance on the internal combustion engine, manufacturers are rapidly introducing various hybrid vehicle drivetrains. It would be redundant to describe all the different technologies in each individual car line using it. An example is the case with all the Toyotas (and other brands) that share Hybrid Synergy Drive. There is no point in repeating the same information in articles for every version of model that uses this system. Although the "first" use of a technology may be "notable" on a particular vehicle, that is not a threshold for a "separate" article that stands the test of time. Any technology is soon applied across a number models marketed by a particular manufacturer, or even sold to competing automakers. For example, there is not a separate article for the first automobile model featuring a steering wheel,automatic transmission, air conditioning, fuel injection, or other new technology. These were all significant developments that changed the automobile. Rather, the innovative feature is mentioned in the overall history of the vehicle, and can be fully described in a separate article. Of course, the total amount of Boastful Superlatives within the "merged" articles would be lessened, but WP is an encyclopedia, and not a marketing arm of the automakers and their enthusiasts. The bottom line is that no matter what the fuel/technology/power train, the plug-in version of the Prius model uses the same basic platform, dimensions, interior, and other major characteristics as its "regular" - and already well known - "traditional" version. In summary, there is no long-term justification to have separate articles for the diesel-powered, four-wheel drive,convertible, nor plug-in versions of an existing car ... even if they were "first" in the market. Thanks CZmarlin (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Daniel J. Leivick, this edit shows the Toyota Prius (XW30) article without the plug-in version contents merged. However, this test edit shows how the article looks when it is merged (with no contents lost or hidden away). Having a separate article because it is a "world first" does not make sense if other vehicles are going to adopt the same technology in the future (thus making a separate article for the powertrain a better option). Also, the Prius PHEV is not the first plug-in hybrid—that honour goes to the Ford Escape. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Or is it? "the (BYD) F3DM was the first production plug-in hybrid sold anywhere in the world, starting in December 2008"  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - For exactly the same reasons thrashed out in Toyota Camry Hybrid. The differences in the two cases are not significant to alter my opinion for this car. And please - can we generally be a bit more judicious in the usage of these Strongs. The usage of strong or weak is not supposed to be a measure of our personal involvement. Personal involvement is not supposed to be a part of the debate. --Falcadore (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose per analysis by Mariordo. ---North wiki (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly support - This is even MORE similar to its original or donor vehicle than other hybrids. -- Pineapple Fez 22:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, it has the same engine and transmission as the regular Prius, but has additional batteries and the means to plug it in. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment' - you know you don't get extra votes by putting in 'Strong' or 'Strongly'. Shouting doesn't get extra benefits. --Falcadore (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - These articles are far too large to be made into a single article. Besides all this merging just takes more content off wikipedia. Personally I do not like scrolling though enormous masses of info. Where possible it is best to have separate articles and with these articles more than any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.128.215 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What we should maybe do is if these idiots insist on merging these articles to try to eliminate the EV articles, we should just get rid of the gas car content in the merged article. That way more people will know about electric cars than ever before. These idiots should know it cuts both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by High voltage41 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * High Voltage, I would prefer not to be called an idiot. While I disagree with the positions of some of the above editors, I respect all of them - especially with those views directly opposed to mine. They have raised valid points. I don't agree with all of the points and some of them I give much less weight to but the idea of a discussion is to hear viewpoints different to yours so that all parties can make an informed decision. To address your main point, I have seen no-one mention deleting any EV information - quite the opposite, they (including me) want to put the EV info into the article of the parent car. If somebody types in the name of the old EV article then they will be automatically redirected to the appropriate section of the merge article - nothing is lost. Thanks.  Stepho   (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for using the word idiot, and you are right this is for hearing viewpoints. These two articles though are extremely large and can not be merged without losing an astounding amount of material. As an avid wiki reader and editor I personally find it much nicer to have separate articles for EVs and plug in hybrids because I am not interested in reading about the gas car even if the body and interior are exactly the same as for the mini E. I find it frustrating when some editors suggest vehicles such as the Ford Focus EV, which are very different from Gas to electric, make comments which are untrue, such as that they are simply different drivetrain options. To sum it all up merging articles loses information and those in market for an EV are not interested in gas cars even if they are similar, different audience.--75.155.128.215 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We aren't here to cater to the "I don't like petrol/diesel powertrains" rant of EV fans. Some people might only be interested in diesel VW Golfs, but too bad, that information goes with petrol models. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * High Voltage. Apology accepted, welcome aboard! As Ben Franklin said, 'I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' So I can't classify your arguments as ranting - even though I personally prefer merging. I take it that a critical issue here is that the EV enthusiasts really don't want to have to sift through all the non-EV material in order to get to the EV info they want. Fare enough, I also hate having to wade through stuff I don't care about. Is it possible to have it both ways? One possibly way would be to have EV subsections. These show up in the table of contents at the top of each article. EV enthusiasts would quickly scan the table of contents, see an entry labelled EV (or similar), click on that link and start reading. I'm seeing a similar pattern to what we saw in the early 1980s with the introduction of vehicles with petrol+carb engines, petrol+EFI engines petrol+EFI+twincam engines and diesel engines (and occasionally rotary) - all based on the same body and chassis but aimed at quite different customers. Is the difference between the regular Prius and the Plug-in really a huge difference? The plug-in article seems to imply that it has 2 extra batteries that allow it to stay in EV mode until they are depleted. Then it transforms into a regular Prius until charged at a socket (ie still gasoline based for long drives, still lugging that gasoline engine around at all times, plus also lugging around two more heavy batteries). The plug-in's technical section is actually quite short and the bulk of the article is a long list of trial launches. People tend to care about trials when they are new but will this list of trials be worthy of keeping in five years time (when hopefully hybrids and EV have become standard). Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with that one. I would be against deleting this information entirely, but specific references to the cities involved in the trial, the exact dates, and precisely how many cars each city was provided with is hardly necessary. Maybe mention the total number per country and leave it at that. As I said above in the i-MiEV discussion, articles on vehicles that use a form of hydrocarbon as a fuel do not make any mention of the companies/governments that make fleet purchases as this has no discernible affect on the car—a sale is a sale.


 * The likes and dislikes of certain readers has little merit. In articles about global cars, market-specific information such as fuel consumption and trim levels are separated by market and have separate sections (i.e. "Europe", "Asia"). Readers from the United Kingdom would likely have little interest in the trim levels offered in the US, nor would they care about the US EPA rating. However, they would be interested in the trim levels available in their own market and the MPG figure given by the UK government. Having special sections like this makes it easy for readers to skip information that is not relevant to them. If a fan of electric vehicles doesn't want to know about the donor vehicle, then skipping to the "EV" section should more than adequately suit their needs. I can't see how a separate page makes things any easier. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the facts are quite different. Just check the history in the Toyota Camry hybrid here and compare it with the content of the section in the main Camry article . OSX did a huge trimming. Also check the discussion below "Excessively crufty fuel economy tables" regarding what content gets actually trimmed. On the other hand, as these PEVs are launch to the market (the Prius PHEV is slated for early 2012), new info will become available, and old info gets summarized. As a sample just look a the evolution of the Chevrolet Volt through the article's history, it has evolved a lot and it will continue to do so as it is launched in other markets. This is going to happen with all the xEVs articles. If the Prius PHEV is notable enough today, what is the sense of merging it when in all likelihood it will be split in a short time. Any car, green or not, if it has enough notability can have its own stand-alone article.--Mariordo (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep scrolling down to the market section (like I have pointed out to you before) and there you will find market-specific hybrid information, such as trim levels and the EPA data. You know it's there, you just continue to ignore this so you can whinge about the content being "lost". OSX (talk • contributions) 22:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Stepho, While I tend to agree that the details of various trials may not be as relevant as today "in five years time (when hopefully hybrids and EV have become standard)", however, I hope we're not leaping too far ahead (5 years) of where we presently are. I propose to wait for i) the production specs., before any conclusion is drawn on how much difference there is btn the plug-in hybrid and the Prius; ii) the production launch, before a better perspective can be drawn on if minute details of the trial program should be trimmed. -North wiki (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mazda Rotary Pickup
The proposition:
 * Mazda Rotary Pickup > Mazda B-Series

Opinions/Discussion:
 * Support - No need for a stand alone, since this was just a re-engined third generation Mazda B-series.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - per nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Article merged as per consensus, and references converted into inline ones. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Rover P6 Estoura
The proposition:
 * Rover P6 Estoura > Rover P6

Opinions/Discussion:
 * Support - Just a custom bodied estate version of the P6. Also, the Estoura should be removed from Template:Rover. Cool car by the way, never knew of it before.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - per nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - same car basically -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Audi Coupé B2
The proposition:
 * Audi Coupé GT > Audi Coupé (B2)
 * Audi Coupé quattro > Audi Coupé (B2)

Opinions/Discussion:
 * Support - Both of these are just different versions of the typ 81/85 (FF/quattro) Audi Coupé, also commonly referred to as the Audi Coupé B2. See also de:Audi Coupé B2. Additionally, the earlier lower spec versions were called just plain "Audi Coupé" or "Audi Coupé GL", so using "GT" in the title is entirely incorrect. There are problems with the succeeding B3 Coupé/Cabriolet as well, but I will place that on the Audi 80 talkpage.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Audi Coupé (B2) article, support merging both Audi Coupé articles (and Audi Quattro) into an Audi 80 (B2) article. The B2 coupe is just a coupe version of the B2 sedan. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That would prove much too far a cry for me at least. The Audi Quattro could possibly be merged with the Audi Coupé B2 (I wouldn't like it, but if there was consensus I could probably live with it), but the Audi 80/Coupé:
 * Are of different marketing categories (family sedan vs sportyish coupé)
 * Have different names
 * Have largely different development histories (no diesels, separate production dates overlapping B3 Audi 80)
 * Share not one visible body panel
 * Share not one external dimension (the Quattro not even chassis dimensions)
 * The 80 and the Coupé are grouped separately in every single piece of period literature accessible to me: from the Swiss Automobil Revue via Italy's Quattroruote (Tutte le Automobile del Mondo), World Cars, German Auto Katalog, the American Standard Catalog of Imported Cars and so on. The Coupé and Quattro are occasionally grouped together (aggravating as I find it!), but the 80 and Coupé are never listed as conjoined in any period print item available to me.
 * If we were to join the 80 and Coupé, then the VW Golf and Audi TT should perhaps also be conjoined, as they too share a bottomplate. The B2 Passat and B2 Audi 80 should most definitely be combined, as they have considerably more in common than do the Coupé and 80. I consider it clear that there is a limit as to what can comfortably be combined in any one article.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When I took a deeper look into the relationships of these vehicles, the front-end and front doors of the Audi 80 (B2) seem to be common with the myriad of B2 coupes on offer (see these images of the sedan and coupe). So do these really share no panels as you claim (granted all Audis tend to look more or less the same anyway)? Marketing categories and names are superficialities, companies always do this, with the "all new" or "new and improved" product that is really a major facelift or a re-skin of what was perviously sold. Not sharing external dimensions seems reasonable if they are of different body styles. Sorry to be picky, I just need to get this clarified before reconsidering my vote. I will probably compromise on allowing the coupes to exist independently because there is a fair amount of content on hand. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh no! My bad, I committed a hasty reading. Maybe I need a parts catalog... nonetheless, I still think they deserve a standalone. As far as content goes, I have plenty more but wanted to wait until a merger takes place.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merging Audi Coupé GT and Audi Coupé quattro into Audi Coupé (B2). Audi 80 is getting big-ish already, so merging substantial content from other articles into it may not be the best idea. Letdorf (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC).


 * The plan is for an Audi 80 (B2) article, not to dump all this content into the parent Audi 80 page. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as per Letdorf's GT and quattro into Audi Coupe, but does not need (B2) in brackets? Would prefer the simpler Audi Coupé, which already exists and is redirected to Audi 80 Warren Whyte (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: the model name "Audi Coupé" was used for several generations, not just the B2, so the disambiguation is necessary unless the article will cover all generations of Coupé. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Which it very well may in the end, I just want to merge it all one step at a time. I think such a joint article might actually be the best in the end as the later Audi Coupé and Cabriolets developed an ever more independent existence.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 13:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Audi 4000CS quattro
The proposition:
 * Audi 4000CS quattro > Audi 80

Opinions/Discussion:
 * Support - Absolutely no need for this particular version of a rebadged Audi 80 to have its own page.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - per nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Only a rebadged Audi 80/90 from what I can see. Warren Whyte (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mitsubishi i-MiEV
Mariordo (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion/Discussion:
 * Strongly oppose - it would be ridiculous to consider merging Mitsubishi i-MiEV with Mitsubishi i. Different technology, different drivetrain.---North wiki (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral - As the name suggests, its just an electric Mitsubishi i, however this is quite a large article, the technologies are different (as per above) and the markets are different. Pineapple Fez 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak support - If I had written these articles, it would have never occurred to me to separate the electric motor version. While the markets are quite different, and the Citroën and Peugeot version further complicate matters, it is still a Mitsubishi i with an electric motor. But I find this less problematic than many other of the articles up for discussion.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose - for the following reasons:
 * 1. Both articles are rated Good Articles ! This means both have been assessed by an independent editor for notability, reliable sources, etc and no reservations were raised due to the article size (see the review here and see above the summary with the typical size of GA articles in the WikiProject automobiles). Though there are no policies, common sense dictates that it does not make more sense to merge two GAs.
 * 2. Notability : If being GA is not enough, a Google search returns 1.73 million hits, which shows that has received significant coverage. In contrast "Mitsubishi i" returns 812K hits, which shows that the electric car has become more notable that is gasoline sibling . And for the record, as of the end of last year the MiEV was the most sold modern production electric car, highway-capable or city car, as 5000 units have been produced by November 2010, while the Tesla Roadster had only +1,500, and the REVA +3,500. Until Nissan accelerates production of the Leaf, the i MiEV will continue to hold the record of the EV with most sales in the world (you can check the facts in the Wikipedia articles). Finally, most sales of the "i" are concentrated in Japan, and availability is limited to Asia, Oceania and the UK. The i MiEV in contrast is slated for sales worldwide.


 * 3 An electric car is completely different than an ICE gasoline car. The exterior shell or glider might be the same, but the MiEV plugs in while the i requires refueling; the MiEV has a limited range while the i does not; the MiEV and the i have different environmental impacts (the former could be better or worst depending on how the electricity is generated);.... The real issue here is that electric car has a completely different technology than ICEs, and as such, if the EV fulfills the WP notability requirements, all electric cars should have their stand alone articles (I hope this becomes an WP:AUTO guideline so we do not have to waste time discussing case by case). From an encyclopedic POV what is the difference between the Nissan Leaf and the i MiEV? Just because the latter share the glider there is no excuse to have a single article.
 * 4. Demand (our readers) : as shown in the table in the right, the number of visits of the electric car has been growing fast to the point that now more readers look for the electric car article than the gasoline car one . It will be quite a disservice to our readers to merge the articles. The section about the EV in the "i" article just need an update.--Mariordo (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose - These two cars are distinctly different and mechanically completely dissimilar. A Ford Mustang and a Chevy Camaro are far more similar than these two vehicles, yet no one is suggesting merging those two vehicles.  Stop the anti-EV madness.  Ebikeguy (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Ebikeguy and Mariordo. Johnfos (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - just another powertrain option, the unique powertrain should have its own page if it is notable. The demonstration programme is verging on cruft, and should be cut down substantially. Articles about regular, not so fancy vehicles do not state, "In May 2009 XYZ Enterprises purchased 1,200 Toyota Camrys for their sales executives to drive around the cities of blah blah blah to meet with potential customers. ABC Incorporated in Canada also purchased 900 Camrys the following June for their employees to travel to and from work in." Seriously, why does in matter that the City of Sydney council received one iMiev to compliment its fleet of Prii and Hybrid Camrys? Not notable really, the same goes for the other cities listed. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't MiEV already the powertrain article? -- Pineapple Fez 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Several good reasons above; my favorite is that the people searching them are different. People don't decide to buy a car and then pick between electric and gas; they decide to buy an electric car and then pick between the models available.  As usage stats show above, a lot of people look specifically at the electric info, and it should remain separate. RedmondChad (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Wiki is not a buyer's guide. Nevertheless, Wiki should be a good source of information for readers when they need, in ways easy for them to use. ---North wiki (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - I didn't like this article when it was created (and still don't). However, I'd be strongly opposed to merging an article out of independent existence when it's been passed as a Good Article. Regardless of the fact that I personally disagree with that editorial assessment, it clearly meets WP's standards to stand on its own. Frankly at this point a merger would be extremely pointy, and would likely lead to an edit war. I for one would be quite happy to side with the "eco-editors" and revert any attempts to merge/redirect this page. --DeLarge (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose merge for all the reasons specified above &mdash; this is one of the most ridiculous merge requests I've ever seen. <b style="color:#11A;"> *** Crotalus *** </b> 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - why the rush to get rid of every article on electric cars these days? the iMIEV looks the same as the gas version, but is a different car with different performance and cost characteristics that will appeal to a completely different segment of drivers. Nobody who is interested in the electric version will care a bit about the gasoline version (except maybe in the performance comparison). 19 January 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darelldd (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - The Mitsubishi EV is an important vehicle for the EV revolution and thus far has sold so far 5000 in japan. This vehicle is coming to north American markets this fall as a completely redesigned EV and thus it's article is likely to be greatly expanded in the future.--High voltage41 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

See the suggestion that this be merged into the gas version seems quite biased. Why is the article on the gas version said to be the parent? Why not merge the gas with the electric as a small paragraph? To have a consensus merge you would have to completely change the way these articles are written, just to be fair, with equal sections on both vehicles and not assuming either to be the parent. Which came first the chicken or the egg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.128.215 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably because the gas version was first made and the electric version is based on it, not vice versa.... very simple -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Like a Rolls Royce Corniche, i-MiEV, though derived from another existing model, deserves its own article in WP. I don't think many editors here concur to merge the articles would think merging Corniche is a good idea. Because of the notability and wide media coverage, i-MiEV deserves its own place in WP.


 * Comment: Seriously, WP: CARS should start to lay out its rules and guidelines for establishing a separate article before this whole 'case by case' discussion of merging becomes a joke. ---North wiki (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Subaru Impreza WRX STi
To merge Subaru Impreza WRX STi with Subaru Impreza WRX?

Opinion/Discussion:


 * Strongly oppose - notable, length of article. ---North wiki (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per above--the TOC is even too big for my screen. -- Pineapple Fez 21:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Provisional Support - In theory. STi's are in the end just hi-po examples of the WRX and share the same image and history. To all but the fans the two are interchangeable. That having said, because of the length of the STi article that won't be achievable without dumping a very large portion of the article. It's vergeing on attempting to compress the range of HSV models articles into Holden Commodore. Based on this a simple merge isn't going to work, and the sheer volume of material to be removed would in effect make this merger discussion closer to an AfD. While this arguement has been used in defence of the hybrid cars that was an easier edit to achieve because of the volume of cruft and over-description. I would like to know the practicalities of the merge before a confirmation of a merger tick or cross. --Falcadore (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral both articles are a huge mess of cruft. If someone wants to reorganize them and either merge them or leave them separate I would support it either way. --Leivick (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment indeed - perhaps both articles should be tagged for major re-write prior to merger. A simple merge likely would not be simple. --Falcadore (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Too soon - both huge crufty messes, largely useless. Could they be split into WRX by generation, each including the STi version? In terms of notability, generation trumps spec. I would welcome some serious pruning, but arguing with fanboys isn't exactly my idea of fun.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Second proposal

 * Subaru Impreza to be split into:
 * Subaru Impreza (first generation)
 * Subaru Impreza (second generation)
 * Subaru Impreza (third generation)

With the contents of Subaru Impreza WRX and Subaru Impreza WRX STi to be cleansed of cruft and merged into the appropriate generational article. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: as nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: as nominator. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 13:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Provisional support - I could see each WRX generation (including STi content) also needing separate pages, based on the amount of material that would remain even after heavy cleaning up.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - This makes more sense than the other proposal. -- Pineapple Fez 21:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose.
 * For starters, on procedural grounds: there's an entire wikiproject -- WP:WRC -- who can lay claim to this article just as legitimately as we do (see the talk page), and as far as I can see they've not even been consulted on these mergers. Mashing the two together just because it suits us is a Very Bad Idea™ (and that objection stands for every proposed merger of homologation specials, or any other merger where more than one WikiProject has a banner on their talk page).
 * Second, I'd say it's going to be impossible to write a good, cohesive history of the STI if its broken up across three articles. The development of the cars by Prodrive, the delay in switching from the Legacy Turbo to the Impreza in the early '90s, the twenty year rivalry with the Lancer Evolution, etc. None of that is relevant to the mass market versions, but it's very relevant to the WRX/STI.
 * Finally, the performance editions have an independent notability as demonstrated by multiple books dedicated only to them: "Subaru Impreza" by Graham Robson (2007), "Subaru Impreza Turbo" by Andy Butler (2006), "Autocar on the Subaru Impreza Turbo" (2008), "Subaru Impreza WRX" (Japanese), etc.
 * I'd be OK with an eventual merger of the WRX and STI articles in due course, as long as everyone is consulted, but that's as far as it should go. --DeLarge (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As the competition versions of the WRX and WRX STI, while admittedly high-profile, make up a very small number of the vehicles, aren't the competition versions very much a secondary consideration? Additionally are the WRCs even relevant? Ford Fusion article does not contain detailed history of the evelution of Fusion NASCARs, which like the WRCs are modified well beyond their production roots. --Falcadore (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They may be a secondary consideration to the Impreza as a whole (although I wouldn't necessarily say so -- the company's image was completely transformed by rallying, and it wouldn't shock me if it turned out that turbo'd Imprezas were the bestsellers in the 1990s); however, they're not of secondary consideration to rallying. In fact, without the WRC and Group A/Group N, I suspect that the WRX and STI wouldn't even exist (the same is true of the Lancer Evolution). This is why I objected to us not informing the Rally WikiProject -- what's significant to us and to them are entirely different, but their interests are just as legitimate, as is their entitlement to be included in the discussion.
 * By the way, there's significant differences between rallying and other forms of motorsport like NASCAR. Specifically, the rally-rep cars must be (a) built in relatively large quantities -- 5000 per year must be sold before the rally versions can be homologated for competition, and (b) even the most high-powered, top-end race versions must be completely road-legal, since they're required to drive on public roads between the special stages they compete on. It was a lot more than just sticking a badge on a racing car for marketing purposes; the road and race versions are inextricably intertwined, hence why books like this and this exist. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Today['s] NASCAR race cars have very little in common with street cars. Almost every detail of a NASCAR car is handmade. The bodies are built from flat sheet metal, the engines are assembled from a bare block and the frame is constructed from steel tubing...  " ---North wiki (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rally prepped Imprezas, which take the form of the WRX and STI models, are road cars. They are built for the road and driven as such. Group N specification Imprezas, the most numerous of the modified competition Imprezas, are highly specialised extreme modifications, and many of which are not done by Subatru or by Subaru Technology. Interior is stripped, roll-cage inserted, complete replacement of suspension package with adjustable options as rally specification suspension systems are completely incompatible for road use, replacement of exhaust systems, removal and raplcement of dashbord electronics. Even at 'showroom specification' Group N level, these are highly modified very-low volume cars. Group A and WRC models are of course even wilder again, and much even lower volume still with a mere handful built - and handbuilt by Prodrive not by Subaru. Apart from the prestige of rally competition, it is comparable for say for example Ambulance modifications of vehicles like F-Series trucks - which wikipedia does not cover at all. While the rally prepped 5000 hologation cars might come close to rally car specifications, the rally cars themselves are not the primary intention of what these vehicles are for, and more than any of the 500 Group A touring cars of each kind created with circuit racing homolgation in mind the the 1980s. While these cars wer created with modifications for rallying in mind, they still had to sell 5000 of them to the public of which the vast majority would never be converted to rally cars.
 * As for the special stage claim? Most if not all contries give special dispensation registration to rally cars for competition. In point of fact they are not road legal, but allowed under special caveat, because otherwise the sport would not exist. --Falcadore (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is getting a bit tangential, but...
 * Your experience is the polar opposite of mine. Aside from Australia and Greece (and possibly US/Canada where the sport's profile is much lower) I can't think of a country with "special dispensation" for rally cars. They have headlights, indicators, treaded tyres, licence plates, and meet the minimum noise and emissions requirements, all of which are tested in scrutineering. Ergo they are road legal. It's not a claim, it's a plain and simple fact up in this part of the world. The mods you mention may render the car "non-standard", but they're certainly not automatically illegal for road use. And many of those mods -- removal of dashboards, heavy engine mods, removal of exhaust systems -- were forbidden under Group N, at least prior to 2001.
 * If they're getting a "special caveat", why bother fitting licence plates, treaded tyres, etc in the first place?
 * As an aside, aren't you getting your terminology confused? A "rally-prepped" car is one which has been prepared for rallying, not the bog standard, unmodified vehicle. --DeLarge (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right about tangential, but in essense I was merely disputing that the rally prepped homolgation specials are actually rally prepped. The differences between a Group N rally car and an unmodified STI are still marked. Considerably less than Group A and WRC. And btw - never said anything about modifying engines.
 * The intent of disputing the rally prepped claim was to suggest that based on modifications and the numbers that are modified (compared specifically to the numbers that are not modified), that competition is not the primary goal of these cars. While it might have been the reason the cars were created, if it was the primary goal then majority of that 5000 (multiplied by the number of models that is re-homolgated) would actually be rally cars. --Falcadore (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me the Motorsport project would also have some interest in this, beyond just rallying, since it would (does) touch on homologation & how it works (or doesn't...). From Falcadore's comments, I get the sense he thinks we shouldn't do pages on rally specials or ambulance bodies, with which I would disagree (because I favor including as much as possible, & because, if there are pages on Pokemon characters & every episode of "Seinfeld", the bar for inclusion is already pretty damn low). I'd agree, tho, the "homologation specials" are only tangentially related to the actual WRC cars. (And that presumes Subaru isn't outright cheating on how many are built, & whether they're actually for sale, or just "for sale" to a very select group of customers masquerading as "public".) Which might be reason enough to have a separate page, to address the situation (fact & fiction), without cluttering the Impreza page proper.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  03:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say we should not. I said there are no ambulance modification pages. Not an opinion, a statement of fact, the pages do not exist. --Falcadore (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, then. I got a different impression.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  00:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The content of the WRX/STi pages is of a different purpose than the Impreza page. People visiting the WRX & STi pages are looking for rally or street racing information; people visiting the Impreza page are looking for passenger car information. But, I do think that the WRX and STi pages could be combined together though, and I think that would be appropriate since they are very closely related both technically and in purpose. In either case, about 75% of the WRX and STi pages should be deleted and burned in a fire. They are truly terrible articles. Throw out all of the "revs," all of the autocross/rallycross results (at least those that are not cited), throw out the 2007 WRX WRC specs and the "plans for the '08 car," (seriously?), throw out the Super GT car specs, etc etc. All that should remain is notable racing results, major revisions, and the typical specs that are listed in any other WP:AUTOS article. We could combine the two, remove all the non-notable information, and the new article would be half as long as one of the two is now. Bdc101 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WRX pages are dominated by info about their competition heritage etc. Therefore merge will make new parent article large and with little relevance to any of the freshly merged articles. It would become a 'jack of all trades - master of none'. (First post on a talk page, hope its appropriately written etc) ARDawson (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ford Focus BEV
Mariordo (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

To merge Ford Focus BEV with Ford Focus (international)?

Opinion/Discussion:


 * Strongly oppose - notable, different drivetrain, different technology ---North wiki (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Although the technologies are different, the article is short and U.K. demonstration program, U.S. market and Marketing aren't all that important. -- Pineapple Fez 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - A short article on a prototype (not for sale) version of a production car? Definately. --Falcadore (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support not enough content to justify separate article, could easily be a section on the main Focus page. --Leivick (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - since this one is just more than a stub I might be tempted to go for the merge, despite being a different technology. Nevertheless, the potential parent article is already long enough (60.3KB), and considering that the EV is slated for market launch by the end of 2011, it is quite likely (as occurred with the Leaf, the i MiEV, and similar articles) that new content will be added fast and even more as the market launch approaches, so I do not see the point of merging it today to split it in a few months. Other question is that the article is about the preproduction car, and it seems the production car is going to be called just Ford Focus Electric, so this means that as new developments unveil there is a chance for an article name change (existing content would become a couple of sections of the production EV). Also, this EV is going to be sold in several regions so I do not know if the right place to merge is Ford Focus (North America) or Ford Focus (international). With so many ifs I rather wait and see (and vote to keep the stub in place) + despite just being a fat stub the number of visitor has jumped in the last months from 1K to 3K which means the stub is more convenient for readers looking for info about the EV rather than sorting through the long article.--Mariordo (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For reasons listed by others, above. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Ebikeguy and Mariordo. Johnfos (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - stub, just one version of the car -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 03:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: same car different powertrain. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Mariodo's reasons are awfully compelling. RedmondChad (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - same car, different drivetrain. Electric versions of existing cars very rarely need their own articles.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - Though the marketing for the Ford Focus and the Ford Focus BEV might be similar, the development of each car is very different. Developing an all-electric drivetrain will have very specific issues, and those issues should be discussed in a separate article.  For example, the SAE J1772-2009 plug is a requirement for North American electric vehicles that is not applicable to other markets.  Standards and certifications will be different for each market, so the development of the vehicle will differ.  For example, electric motors in North America must follow the NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) MG-1 standard, but electric motors in Europe (and other parts of the world) typically follow IEC (International Electrochemical Commission) standards.  Developing a car with an electric powertrain is very different from developing an ICE car, and documenting that development will require a separate article.  ---MNEAAmember20 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.127.89 (talk)
 * ""oppose"" Same Car, Different Drivetrain, is a contradiction in terms.  The car is the drivetrain, everything else is style.  also the BEV is managed out of a totally different group--71.178.199.89 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - The ford focus EV is very different not only in drivetrain, but also in the body, interior features, everything. In fact it shouldn't really be called a ford focus, as you see from it's recent release. This is a very different vehicle.
 * Support - Same as regular Focus Mk III with some enhanced interior electronics, and of course a different drive train. But shares chassis, suspension, all body panels bar front grille with regular Ford Focus. The current article also mixes up the original BEV concept (based of Focus Mk II) with the proposed Focus Electric which doesn't help the argument for a stand alone article as it isn't working as it stands, and would fit so much better into the main Focus article where it can be seen in context of the petrol, diesel and RS derivatives (all of which have their own development teams too). <B>Warren</B> (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the entire structure of the Ford Focus articles need to be completely revisited. Currently we have: Ford Focus (international), Ford Focus (North America), Ford Focus BEV, Ford Focus FCV, Ford Focus RS.


 * I feel we would be much better served with one parent article and four generational subpages.
 * Ford Focus: would have sections for three generations, the first (common between Europe and North America), second (with separate sections for Europe and North America as these cars are entirely different), and third (common between Europe and North America). The sub-articles would follow this format of separation:
 * Ford Focus (first generation)
 * Ford Focus (second generation, Europe)
 * Ford Focus (second generation, North America)
 * Ford Focus (third generation)


 * All the derivative models like the BEV and RS would have their contents relocated to the appropriate generation page. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you. The separate articles for Europe and North America should be split into generations even if they were completely different cars. The fact that they should be merged only emphasizes this. On a side note there is also a disambiguation page, Ford Focus, which makes the current problem slightly better. -- Pineapple Fez 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The disambiguation is the only saving grace of the current layout, but hopefully we can agree on the more holistic solution noted above. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion : The need to sort and reorganized the Foucus articles was raised at the beginning of this discussion. Nevertheless, in order to avoid confusion and more contentious arguments, I suggest that we close this and the other open merger discussions (to me all the open discussion are a clear no consensus so articles are to be kept separately), and start a new discussion about the merge and reorganizing of the Focus articles along the lines proposed by OSX in this talk but in a new section, even though I would prefer to have such discussion in one of the Focus pages, tagging all the other, just as it was done with Prius article. This approach will allow a broader participation than just the WP:AUTO editors, including those who along the years have contributed in creating and expanding those articles.--Mariordo (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mini E
Mariordo (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

To merge Mini E with Mini?

Opinion/Discussion:

* Strongly oppose - notable, different drivetrain, different technology ---North wiki (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - different drivetrain is not a basis for separating an article. The Mini E is just a Mini with a battery and an electric motor thrown in. As a matter of fact, it begins life as a regular Mini without a motor and then sent to Germany where they drop in the electric bits. It is hardly notable, except for in terms of an extremely specific category ("the world's first major car manufacturer to deploy a fleet of more than 500 all-electric vehicles for private use"), and not exactly a new idea. Peugeot too, slapped an electric motor in the 106 back in the day (and sold a few), but it too wasn't notable, and they weren't the first car manufacturer to try and gain a little green cred in such a cheap way.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Limited production run of an already existing model? Merge please. --Falcadore (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose plenty of encyclopedic content and no room for it on the main mini page. If it was merged good content would be lost, which in my mind is a very bad thing. --Leivick (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No content would be lost. If the Mini article becomes too big, it can be split by generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose Besides most of the same arguments I made about regarding the i MiEV, the parent article is already long enough (77.7KB) plus the additional space required to expand the section about the Mini E (the current section is quite outdated/inaccurate and short as compared to the Mini E article which is 21.8KB with no green fancruft as called here). Also it is important to note that the Mini E is not a production car but a demonstration car, and as such, the article deals mainly about this demonstration program and BMW plans to developed the production Mega City Vehicle. And for the record, a Google search with " " returns 1,26 million hits.--Mariordo (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: The content of the Mini E section in main Mini article was so outdated that I believe it might misguide this discussion. So I updated the content with a two paragraph summary from the Mini E article. Now I believe it makes more evident that it does not make sense to throw in the parent article all the details of the demonstration program/field testing.--Mariordo (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The two cars are mechanically completely different. BMW treats them as two entirely different programs. The Mini E has received immense amounts of media coverage and is entirely notable in its own right.  Merging these two vehicles would be similar to merging the entire Ford product line into one article.  It makes no sense.  Ebikeguy (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Ebikeguy and Mariordo. Johnfos (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: if the Mini article becomes too big, it can be split by generation as there are now two. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Mariordo lists lots of good reasons. Most important is how & why people are looking for the information.  People looking for info on electric cars don't care about the gas model details.  People looking at gas models may find it interesting that there is an electric model, but a link to a separate article is good.  They don't pick Mini and then try to figure out which powertrain they want.  Especially with the Mini-E program going away, they won't look at the article to pick out a car; they'll be looking at the history of e-car rollouts, and the Mini-E program was significant. RedmondChad (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How was the Mini E important? It's just a regular Mini with an electric engine thrown in, and "the world's first major car manufacturer to deploy a fleet of more than 500 all-electric vehicles for private use". Hardly of enough importance to warrant a separate article from the gasoline/diesel-powered Mini. If it's too long, delete all the unimportant stuff about how one was delivered to the government car pool in Downing Street etc etc.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose: Same rationale stated previously in support of Ford Focus BEV article: Developing an all-electric drivetrain will have very specific issues, and those issues should be discussed in a separate article. For example, the SAE J1772-2009 plug is a requirement for North American electric vehicles that is not applicable to other markets. Standards and certifications will be different for each market, so the development of the vehicle will differ. For example, electric motors in North America must follow the NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) MG-1 standard, but electric motors in Europe (and other parts of the world) typically follow IEC (International Electrochemical Commission) standards. Developing a car with an electric powertrain is very different from developing an ICE car, and documenting that development will require a separate article. It is misleading to claim that a manufacturer can simply "drop" a motor and batteries into a car and sell it.  Standards are developed to ensure safety when using electrical components by NEMA, and standards are developed to ensure safety when operating a motor vehicle by the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers).  Achieving compliance in all categories is very difficult.  As another example, the battery in one electric vehicle can differ greatly from another electric vehicle.  Tesla motors chose to "stack" lithium-ion batteries that were typically used in laptops, whereas General Motors initially used lead-acid (and later Nickel-Metal-Hydride) batteries in their first electric vehicles.  (As a side note, a drivetrain will "drive" the car by transferring the power to the wheels.  Powertrain will "power" the drivetrain.)---MNEAAmember20 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.127.89 (talk)


 * Support - I volunteered to take part in the Mini E trial as I live quite close to Oxford, but alas was turned down, so I feel I know a fair bit about the subject... However, I support the merging as it is the same car, just a different powertrain. Next will there be proposals for a stand-alone diesel article?! Many of the arguments above are way too much swayed by Mini's advertising and PR, rather than taking a more pragmatic encyclopaedic view of the article in question. The depth of detail about the field testing is way over the top for what is a public prototype. Warren Whyte (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose:- I am currently taking part in round 2 of the Mini E field trial. This vehicle, although based on a Mini, is unrelated to the Mini development programme and is part of a different programme internally at BMW (Project i), the result of which will be the BMW i3 MegaCity. It is not really of any relevance to the main Mini article therefore, except that a Mini shell was chosen to be used for the technology trial.  -Dan Huby (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just a Mini "shell", but chassis, interior, exterior, branding etc - pretty much the same as a diesel or petrol car but with a different engine and associated technical bits. The result will no doubt feed into the proposed BMW i project, but will also result in a production Mini E if the prototypes behave as BMW hope. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Those that oppose the current proposed merger may wish to reconsider in light of the proposed article split at Mini (marque). Currently the one page details all BMW era Minis and is very cluttered, and it is proposed that the Mini hatch/cabrio/clubman has its own page as a car model, as distinct from Mini the manufacturer. This has already happened with Mini Countryman. The only thing delaying the Mini hatch/cabrio/clubman page is to decide on a succinct name, but as and when that happens, I would suggest the Mini E article would live very happily within that article. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

BYD F6DM
Mariordo (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoever included this plug-in hybrid concept in the list forgot to check that there is no article for the BYD F6 gasoline sibling to merge to, so such a merge is an impossibility.

The proposition: To scratch this stub from the list inmediately. --Mariordo (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I (and I'm sure a few other editors) would make an article for it if that was what the group consensus was. -- Pineapple Fez 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be a first, create an article to justify a merger? --Mariordo (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It need a 'parent' article anyway though, weather it merges or not. You wouldn't have a Ford Fusion Hybrid article without a Ford Fusion article. -- Pineapple Fez 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think so, but for the time being there is no parent, then there could be no merger, so the proposition stands.--Mariordo (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mariordo, this has clearly moved beyond a merger to a page expansion. The expansion proposal put forward by Pineapple Fez is completely valid, so there is no need to have a heart attack because the terminology of "mass article merger" is incorrect. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose:This is an anti-EV witch-hunt, pure and simple. Stop the madness.  Ebikeguy (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It sure is and the witch-hunt will continue until we are ridded of all unnecessary articles such as this. Feel free to start a witch hunt against any of the articles that I have edited as well. For example, Holden Apollo, a holy and "untouchable" good article (per Mariordo's reasoning of his iMiev "good article") that was almost exclusively written by me personally. I expanded the Apollo page as a separate article to the Camry page when I thought along the same lines as you did; that is, Wikipedia must have separate articles for every variant of every car. I now believe it should be merged, so please do me a favour and nominate it. No hypocrisy on my part. Another one of mine is Holden Suburban. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me if I do not blindly follow your commands as to which articles are to be considered unnecessary. Many valid articles start out as stubs and grow from there.  That does not mean they are unnecessary at their inception.  Ebikeguy (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He is not saying that its stub characteristics have anything to do with it. Stub or not is not the important part. What he is saying is that cars which are based on existing cars do not need their own articles. We do not have a Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer page, we do not have a Opel Corsa Diesel page. These, just like the Mini E and BYD F6DM, are versions of existing cars, and as such they do not need their own articles. Separate articles for versions of other cars are only split off if and when the main article becomes too long. When this happens, the preferred mode of splitting is along generational lines, as it is along these that the most thorough engineering differences occur. Ebikeguy, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the Holden Apollo should keep its own article?  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: proposal to transform this page into a page outlining both the hybrid and non-hybrid car (page move required). OSX (talk • contributions) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: creating a BYD F6 page. This can also include hybrid content (will they ever build it? BYD promises a lot of vaporware)  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that all that came out of the F6DM project were a few concept cars. BYD seem to be developing the S8DM SUV instead. -- Pineapple Fez 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose:This is insane as there isn't even an article on the gas version yet, this can maybe be discussed when there is an article. Perhaps we should just merge all articles on vehicles and delete all sections referencing the gas versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.128.215 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This conversation has turned into a complete non sense and lack of regard of wikipedia policies (so I withdrew the proposition that opened this discussion). Anyone can create a new article, so please, go ahead and create the BYD F6 article, you do not need permission from anybody here, nor seek for consensus. Nevertheless, creating this new article with the BYD F6DM is even more crazy. The proper thing to do is once the F6 article is created, then it is possible to begin a merger discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I can think of a few articles that changed title to accommodate the entire range of models, for example: Lexus RX Hybrid --> Lexus RX (XU30) and Lexus LS Hybrid --> Lexus LS (XF40). Doing it this way maintains the article's edit history. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I strongly oppose renaming/cannibilizing the BYD F6DM article to create the new BYD F6. Instead create the F6 parent article so that we have enough elements to assess the merits of a merger. Creating such article does not require permission from anybody, just do it.--Mariordo (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Ebikeguy and Mariordo. Johnfos (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Volkswagen Lupo
As per the merger list proposal above, I have added merge tags to Volkswagen Lupo GTI to merge into Volkswagen Lupo. I propose to also reduce the advertorial content, and to locate some references during the merge edit. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - no need for standalone.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - as above. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - More of a buyers guide than an encyclopedia article, which is actually a shame due to the amount of effort put in. -- Pineapple Fez 06:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ford Taurus SHO
I think we can merge it into Ford Taurus right away without reviewing. I was supposed to do it months ago but I completely flaked out and I still don't know how to merge pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanhasaccount (talk • contribs) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)