Talk:Subaru Baja

still in production?

Ceased production, April 2006 in USA.

Production?

The Subaru Website still shows the Baja and Baja Sport as availble models because Subaru stockpiled Baja's before ceasing production.

which photo is better for a reference article

Wikipedia has guidelines regarding the photo -- but the fifth pillar of Wikipedia is to be bold and disregard the rules.

For someone coming to this article for the first time who has never seen a Baja, which photo is better for the article.

The Baja is unlike a lot of other pickup trucks and cars. A frontal shot doesn't show the primary features of the vehicle very well -- and the side shot shoes them better. Discuss.

Can the article support both?

The Motor Trend article errors

The continued references to errors in the Motor Trend article seems self-defeating. The Wikipedia is about the Baja... not the Motor Trend article. If we put the correct info about the engine, along with citing resources for the correct information, that should be enough. Let's consider taking out the information about the Motor Trend article. Thoughts? 842U (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Pickup Truck

The Baja shouldn't be listed in its intro as a pickup truck... it's not a pickup truck, though it has a bed. Thoughts? 842U (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a pickup truck, therefore so is the Baja

If it has a bed, and isn't obviously a heavy truck, it's a pickup truck. Pickup trucks have been made from Morris Minors, Minis, VW Golfs, Ford Falcons, Chevrolet Chevelles and 1980s Dodge Chargers based on Dodge Omnis. The BRAT used some legalese and some useless seats in the bed to make itself legally not a pickup truck in the US for tax purposes; otherwise it was a pickup truck. Why would the Baja not be a pickup truck? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Coupe utility is a type of pickup truck. Except rather than being constructed on a frame, they typically use a car-derived monocoque chassis. I also believe another defining characteristic is an integrated cargo bed rather than a separate bed as used by regular pickups (i.e. the Chevrolet Silverado has a bed that attaches to the chassis separately to the cabin) OSX (talk • contributions) 00:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A comparison test of 11 small pickup trucks in 1982 had the Omni-based Dodge Rampage in third place behind the S-10 and the Ford Ranger. The Volkswagen Rabbit Pickup came fifth after the Datsun King Cab, and the Subaru "Brat" came in eighth, after the Mitsubishi-built Dodge Ram 50 and the Isuzu P'up and ahead of the Mazda B-2000, the Toyota SR-5, and the Jeep Scrambler. (Source: Taylor, Rich (August 1986). Linkletter, John A. (ed.). "PM Road Test - Detroit Pickups Vanquish the Imports". Popular Mechanics. 158 (3). New York, NY US: Hearst. ISSN 0032-4558. Retrieved 25 September 2014.)

Popular Science, on the other hand, tested just the domestics, which finished in the same order. (Source: Dunne, Jim (July 1982). Ortner, Everett H. (ed.). "PS Car Test and Driving Report: Little Pickups - Detroit's New Import Fighters". Popular Science. 221 (1). New York, NY US: Times Mirror Magazines. ISSN 0161-7370. Retrieved 25 September 2014.)

By the 1987 model year, the Rabbit Pickup and the Rampage were gone, but the Chevrolet El Camino and the BRAT still made it into the Popular Mechanics Pickup Truck Buyer's Guide. (Source: Parker, Steve (August 1986). Oldham, Joe (ed.). "PM Special Report - Pickup Trucks: Buyers Guide". Popular Mechanics. 163 (8). New York, NY US: Hearst. ISSN 0032-4558. Retrieved 25 September 2014.) Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Coupe utility is a 'type of pickup truck, it is just a more precise term. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, this thread begins with a comment saying that the Baja is not a pickup truck.

Secondly, all these references refer to these vehicles as pickup trucks, as does the old Car and Driver compact pickup special section I can't find. From what I recall, the British refer to Morris and Austin car-based open-bed vehicles as pickups too. The only place I've ever heard this "coupe utility" stuff from is here on Wikipedia. My guess is that it's an Australian term that's being forced on the rest of the English-speaking world through Wikipedia. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the coupe utility thing is a Wikipedia affectation. For a long time, the article simply said "open bed vehicle" and left it at that. I moved coupe utility into the parenthises and pickup truck out. 842U (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've owned one since 2015 and registered it in KS, WA and CA. In WA and CA it was considered a truck for registration purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.130.84 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger attempts

Certain editors have been abruptly merging this article to the Subaru Legacy article -- without discussion. There is a protocol for mergers, and these attempts have been unilateral and without concensus. I for one am in disagreement with the merger.842U (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger, as the Subaru Baja is considered a separate nameplate. Mr. Choppers and OSX have not initiated any discussion before merging. Nor have they attempted to incorporate any of the material into that article either (which in its own right needs a separate thread of discussion) so this is considered page blanking. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There are similar problems with Audi S8 and Subaru Legacy Outback.

August 2014

I propose that Subaru Baja be merged into Subaru Legacy (third generation). I think that the content in the Baja article can easily be explained in the context of Legacy, considering the Baja is just a pickup truck variant of the Legacy (which currently has the sedan and wagon variants merged into one page, but not the pickup). A previous case involving a similar merge is the moving of Holden Ute contents to its sedan/wagon donor model article, Holden Commodore. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous! Demodave (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, and over 7 days have passed (9 days), I have performed the merger. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Increasingly ridiculous! Who are you to presume that you can speak for all Subaru Baja owners? Your deceision to proceed with a change is akin to the opening of the Hitchhiker's Guide where we are informed that a memo was posted at some interstellar town hall informing uf od a change that none of us had any reason to presume was coming. And that our planet will be effectively bull-dozed. (I will admit, though, that I am shocked at the low number of Baja sales over the sale life of the vehicle. Subaru skewered the pooch on marketing these little babies. I love mine.) Demodave (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. Again. There was no discussion. The mere passing of time is not a basis for a merger. It is incumbent upon someone proposing a merger to make an honest attempt to notify interested editors. Having no objections for this is not the same as having a consensus. When this was brought up in the past, there was clearly objection. To wit, just look at the comments above. What is the rational for a merger? With the merger, the Legacy article becomes huge and the Baja becomes a paragraph. The Baja was always a separate product line. Furthermore, the Baja was always closer to the Outback than the Legacy. Without a cogent argument and a real discussion, I will undo the merge and revisit the issue. 842U (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was tagged appropriately. I made an honest attempt, I tagged both articles and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Subaru_Baja_and_Legacy_.28third_generation.29_merger. I followed the procedures. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There are clearly objections to the merger and have been for a long time. And no rational has been given to merge the article. No discussion. That nine days passed is without any discussion does not invalidate or obviate all the prior discussion on the subject of merging the article. As I've stated, there are good reasons not to merge the article. Furthermore, please be kind in your remarks -- the "are you blind" comment was unnecessary and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. The fact remains I did not see the merger attempt. I am not going to revert this. You can if you'd like -- to reflect what you know to be a contested merge. If the merger isn't voluntarily undone, I'll contest the merger formally and we can take it from there. There are no rules to suggest that a merger made without discussion or that ignores previous discussion is valid. 842U (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you didn't see the discussion. You hadn't edited that page since May 2014, then suddenly, mere hours after I edited the page to tag in the merger you went ahead an edited it. I'd suggest that the article popped up in your watch list to provoke that edit. Maybe you intended to respond at a later date but did not. However, you will need to generate a consensus to unmerge it following correct protocol. A discussion from two years ago (when it was last discussed) is not a current discussion. I asked whether you were blind because I assumed you were, considering you mentioned "despite the fact that no discussion occurred". I apologise if this is not the case, but I clearly tagged both the affected articles and the WP:CARS talk page, and left a discussion to ensue for 9 days to no avail. I also gave my rationale as "the Baja is just a pickup truck variant of the Legacy". Is this not sufficient? Holden Ute has been merged for years without complaint as it is just the pickup version of the Holden Commodore wagon. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 14:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A "discussion" without participants is hardly a consensus. I have reverted and suggest leaving this proposal open a bit longer in the hope of generating more input from other editors. Mojoworker (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Baja>Legacy merger isn't a good idea. The Baja is a different body style than either the Outback or the Legacy -- and it's not based on the Legacy, but rather the Outback. Importantly, the Baja wasn't marketed as a variant of the Legacy or Outback, rather it was marketed as a separate line within the Subaru range. The article contains information that pertains nothing at all to the Legacy: Peter Tenn's development of the Baja, the ST-X origins, etc. When variants diverge sufficiently, they aren't lumped in with related vehicles, particularly when the article can stand on its own. Which Subaru Baja does.

Let's make a genuine effort here to see if other editors who've already voiced opinions on this matter are included in this discussion. Thanks. 842U (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Support - Now that the Subaru Legacy has split into separate articles. It only makes sense to include info on the different variants. However, with that said the [[3rd Gen Subaru Legacy article needs some severe clean-up and the Outback information needs better integrated into the article as a whole. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Disagree: the way to handle that is to have a paragraph in the correct "generation" article with a link to the main Baja article. This would be done just as the "generation" articles are handled to the primary Legacy article: the paragraph in the overarching article is brief and succinct; the article on the Baja remains fully developed. Again, it was never marketed as a Legacy variant, it is fully "distinct but related" to the Legacy. Any argument to integrate the Baja article into the Legacy article... would be be the exact same argument for merging Legacy and Outback. I don't see anyone making that case. And in fact, it could be argued that the Baja is more closely related to the Outback than the Legacy. 842U (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Outback was merged ages ago. There was a long discussion about it. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I was just looking over OSX edit history and noticed he likes to merge pages without any consensus, and in general often acts in poor faith against wikipedia guidelines if this is a regular pattern then a block is likely in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummmyeahreally (talk • contribs) 05:04, 24 November 2014