Talk:Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class

Moving this page to SLC-Class

Mercedes-Benz now refers to this class of cars as SLC and have been doing so for some time. With that in mind this page should be moved to SLC-Class and SLK should redirect to it. Atald 15:04 Aug 01, 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Is it K for Kompakt or K for Kurz ???

Google says Kurtz. --SFoskett 02:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yup its Kurz, it means 'short', check it out on the Mercedes GLK-class page. It talks about Mercedes's plan to takle the BMW X3, it also includes the Kurz explanation

1996 model?

The article is US centric when it referes to the year of launch as 1997 and the initial lack of a manual transmission option. The SLK R170 was available in Europe, and other markets, from 1996 with either manual or automatic transmissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.129.204 (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated this to suit its original launch in Europe and the 1994 concept SLK. Warren Whyte (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

1998 model

Some design info should be provided.

Tone of this article

There is way to much unsubstantiated hyperbole in this article. It needs to be cleaned up.

Proposal

I am going to try and clean up this page. At the moment the information is haphazardly arranaged and I think we could make better use of the articles pertaining to the exact platorms (r170 and 171 articles). I also want to put more information pertaining to the general make-up of the car and move the more specific information of the cars performance and reviews to the platform articles.

I'm going to be moving some of the pictures across too so there ins't so much clutter about. Maybe one of each of the platforms and then we can have pictures of the AMG models etc on the platform pages. Any opinions?--Polmerfox (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave articles as is

I am thinking that we should leave the articles as they are now. japanesevehicles100 (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807013008/http://www.autodesignmagazine.com/articoli/es/098/a2.htm to http://www.autodesignmagazine.com/articoli/es/098/a2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311224219/http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/261979/new_mercedes_slk_revealed.html?CMP=NLC-Newsletters&uid=1d9a228ddfbbf1a3300875dcac276eac to http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/261979/new_mercedes_slk_revealed.html?CMP=NLC-Newsletters&uid=1d9a228ddfbbf1a3300875dcac276eac
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mercedes/sautoexpress.co.uklc/93793/goodbye-slk-hello-new-mercedes-slc-roadster
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100814174235/http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/class/class-SLK to http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/class/class-SLK

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A good faith edit is not a WP:HOAX. Please do not make such accusations

On 22 July 2019 Areaseven changed the production dates from 1996-present to 1996-2019, citing Car and Driver's article Mercedes-Benz Says Goodbye to the SLC (and SLK) Roadster with a Final Edition, which is a pretty clear statement in the headline, and the piece ends with "The end of the line for the current SLC leads us to wonder what Mercedes-Benz has up its sleeve next."

Now this edit summary says "I see that the source provided announces a Final Edition. However, it does not talk about production being entirely done with nor gives an end date. It has been taken out of context, essentially being WP:HOAX." The Do not create hoaxes guideline says "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real", referring to editors deliberately inserting errors to test Wikipedia or otherwise cause grief. Even in cases when one has indeed found a hoax, WP:DWHOAX does not say to cast assertions. It says to nominate hoax pages for deletion, or otherwise make necessary corrections. Accusing anyone of hoaxing violates the WP:Assume good faith policy, and such accusations, if they absolutely must be made, belong in appropriate forums, not edit summaries.

The hoax page also links to the WP:Vandalism main article, with what to do about vandalism (if this even had been hoax vandalism) and particularly what not to do: "Avoid the word 'vandal'. In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a 'vandal', discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks." Calling an editor in good standing a hoaxer is equivalent to calling them a vandal.

Obviously, a citation to a reliable source is hardly a hoax. One may disagree with what the source is saying, or cite better sources that contradict it, but that is a perfectly normal part of the article development process. Attacking Areaseven because you think they got a fact wrong is disruptive, and a civility policy violation. It is false to says the source does not give any dates: it does. It gives the 2020 model year and says it is "the end of this generation's run". The edit did accurately reflect what the source says. One could cite other sources saying no it's not discontinued, but what I find is Road and Track saying The Mercedes-Benz SLC Roadster is Officially Done, saying "the Mercedes-Benz SLC (née SLK) has been officially discontinued. A Mercedes rep tells us there is currently no direct successor planned." Other sources agree [1][2][3][4].

Even if Areaseven didn't have several sources supporting the edit, even if they cot it completely wrong, assuming anything but good faith is totally unjustified. A civil discussion as to whether the article should say the SLK is to be discontinued is appropriate, because perhaps it's premature to say so now. But be civil, please. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the standard practice of a magazine seeing the label "Final Edition", putting 2 and 2 together and making 22 . It's speculation on the part of the magazine whether this is the last edition for this generation or the last edition ever. WP reports facts, not speculation. Nothing to see, move on.  Stepho  talk  21:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Accepted practice is that production dates remain "...–present" until production is confirmed to have stopped. I think in this case, the announcement of a "Final Edition" must have been misinterpreted as such. Sources do mention a 2020 model, so it's likely that the 2019 date was incorrect and the car is still being built, for now. Usually when a model goes out of production there's at least a smattering of news about it, and I doubt something as high-profile as this would escape notice. But, that misinterpretation is hardly a "hoax," and the fact that Mercedes-Benz has stated that it's discontinued and there will be no direct successor warrants a mention. --Sable232 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should write it that way in the body of the article: Mercedes-Benz said the SLK and SLC are discontinued and no direct successor is planned. We don't know which year production will cease, but we can verify MB said they don't intend to make any more versions beyond the Final, which could in theory remain in production for a while. Since all that nuance is lost in the infobox, we should side step it, per MOS:TOPRESENT and MOS:CURRENT, and change Manufacturer [...] Daimler AG (2007–present) Production 1996–present to say Manufacturer [...] Daimler AG (since 2007) Production Since 1996).

The half dozen citations above do constitute just such a smattering of news that we'd expect, and I don't think they misrepresent anything. They refer to speaking to a Mercedes representative who confirmed no successor is planned, and the data matches the official press release. Nobody knows the future, but we can accurately attribute these official statements of their intent to the company itself, not the news reporters' imaginations. The sources are correct that the car was in production in 2019, which is verifiable, and they were producing the 2020 model year. Template:Infobox automobile has both production and model year fields to specify this, if we wish. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What I meant is that while Mercedes announced that they're going to discontinue it, there is no confirmation yet that they have indeed stopped building them. Until there is, we can't assume that production ended simply because we know it is (or was) planned to, only state those plans. "Production was discontinued in February 2019" is highly improbable given the rest of the facts. I would expect something as prestigious and well-known (to the automotive press at least) as the SLK/SLC to have its "the last one rolled off the line today" story from numerous outlets when that day comes. --Sable232 (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)