Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:39, 22 February 2011

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Automobiles and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Automobiles and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Automobiles Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about automobiles. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about automobiles at the Reference desk.

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.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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 — 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 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 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 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.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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 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 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?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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 16:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OT? 842U (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"OT?" Off-topic. TREKphiler 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 — 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 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 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 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!  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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 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 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 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 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 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.
There are 78 reliable references - flag not needed
Article reduced from 128k bytes to 78k bytes - flag not needed
Article was wikified by several Users- flag not needed
Article does not require a clean-up at this point and does meet Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 — 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 — including egregious attacks on other users. The point of view of the article, its length, and it's fancruft tone can be adjusted — 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.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

However, Bob could probably use a chill pill... easy there, you're somewhat undermining your position.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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 08:43, 18 February 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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:

{{mergeto|merger target|discuss=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Mass article merger}}. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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

Motions of order

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

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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 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.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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)

Closing procedure

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 Misplaced Pages are made on a "majority rule" basis, because Misplaced Pages is not a democracy." (see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Merging#Proposing a merger section IV:

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.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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 Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Resolved – consensus supports merger. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved – consensus supports partial merger. Warren Whyte (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved – consensus supports merger. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

GA rated articles in WikiProject Automobiles that are similar or smaller in size than the Ford Fusion Hybrid (gross total size in KB)
Article	Size	Article	Size
Holden Apollo	36.3	AIL Storm	18.0
Ford Fusion Hybrid	35.8	Brabham BT46	17.7
Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil	34.5	Talbot Samba	12.4
Chevrolet Cobalt SS	28.1	Lancia Flaminia	12.0
Mitsubishi i	27.0	Simca Vedette	11.5
Toyota Matrix	26.5	Mitsubishi i MiEV	11.1
Ford BA Falcon	26.0	Ferrari P4/5 by Pininfarina	10.8
Chrysler 180	20.5	Autobianchi Primula	7.9

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

GA rated articles in WikiProject Automobiles that are similar or smaller in size than the Ford Fusion Hybrid (gross total size in KB)
Article	Size	Article	Size
Toyota Prius	42.2	Chrysler 180	20.5
Holden Apollo	36.3	AIL Storm	18.0
Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil	34.5	Talbot Samba	12.4
Chevrolet Cobalt SS	28.1	Lancia Flaminia	12.0
Mitsubishi i	27.0	Simca Vedette	11.5
Toyota Matrix	26.5	Mitsubishi i MiEV	11.1
Ford BA Falcon	26.0	Ferrari P4/5 by Pininfarina	10.8
Toyota Prius (XW30)	25.3	Brabham BT46	17.7
Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid	24.2	Autobianchi Primula	7.9

Resolved – consensus supports merger. Warren (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Resolved – consensus supports merger.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. 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.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (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.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Support -->Typ932 13:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved – consensus supports merger. Warren Whyte (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

If you came here because of a post at Autoblog Green, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Project-Class Automobile pages
• NA-importance Automobile pages