Template talk:Automobile classification
|WikiProject Automobiles||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject Trucks||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject Transport||(Rated Template-class)|
- 1 Examples
- 2 Coupé Minivan
- 3 Crossovers
- 4 Template usage
- 5 Request comment
- 6 Could we move the Protect Source?
- 7 Variety of brands
- 8 Globalise the Classification by Adding ISO?
- 9 Dont clear the edits
- 10 Link to ACRISS
I guess we should discuss what cars should be listed as examples. I mean, cars in the list should not be selected spontaneous, but rather be classic examples. Also examples should come from different markets (US, Europe and Japan minimum, adding Australia and Korea when possible) to represent the worldwide picture. Netrat (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Some models that are considered one segment in Europe are another segment in the US. These models should not be used as examples.
Hyundai Accent, Opel Corsa, Suzuki Swift. Nice examples, but these models are not best-sellers in the class. How about Volkswagen Polo and Ford Fiesta to represent Europe? Not sure about models from Korea and Japan, but I suspect that there are models that are more popular and have longer timeling compared to Accent and Swift. Are there any US-designed subcompacts? Netrat (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Opel Astra, VW Golf. Hm, there are no doubt VW Golf should be listed - it started the whole class. Focus, Civic and Astra are pretty popular. But how come the list does not include the best-selling car in the history - Toyota Corolla? We have to replace either Civic or Astra with Corolla. I suggest replacing Astra, as we already have another German model in the list (Golf). I love Astra and even hope to have 2009 Astra Twin Top as my next car, but we cannot add or keep all the cars we like. And how about adding a native US compact? We need a model with most establish history, so I don't know what to pick. Dodge Neon, maybe? Netrat (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the Golf is a significant model for the segment and should be included. Regarding the United States entry, the Dodge Neon sounds like a good choice to me. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Large family carEdit
Ford Mondeo, Opel Vectra, Toyota Avensis, VW Passat. Very nice list. The only problem it does not lists models from US. Are listed models popular enoug in US? Netrat (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- The above models are considered midsize cars in the US. The Fusion (Mondeo) is very popular in the US.
Compact executive carEdit
Chrysler 300, Holden Commodore. The problem is Chrysler is a premium (and some even say luxury) brand. How about replaсicng Chrysler 300 with classic Impala or Caprice? Don't know what to pick. Affordable full-size car is American phenomen, but one notable European example, Opel Omega, should be included as well. Netrat (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Mid-size luxury carEdit
Daihatsu Terios, Mitsubishi Pajero iO , Suzuki SX4. Suzuki is notable for their mini SUVs, but SX4 is a crossover, not a SUV. How about listing Suzuki Jimny instead? The poblem here is all models are Japanese. Do other countries produce notable Mini SUVs? Maybe, Jeep Wrangler? Netrat (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Audi Q5, Honda CR-V, BMW X3, Ford Kuga, VW Tiguan. Too many examples, too few notable ones. Audi Q5 is not even on sale yet, not to mention a fact its only purpose is providing an alternative to BMW x3. The same is true for Ford Kuga. How about adding morepopular and established models such as Toyota RAV4 and Ford Explorer? Netrat (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Audi Q7, Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Suburban. Hmm. :-/ Why doesn't the list include Range Rover and Land Cruiser(Not Luxury), while listing Audi Q7 which is actually an unibody crossover? Netrat The Q7 is a competitor of the BMW X5, Mercedes-Benz ML-class and the Lexus RX-series
I believe Coupé Minivan section should be deleted. See, Coupé Minivan is not a part of size classification. Coupé Minivan is not even a recognised body style. A single model is not enough to form a class that can be listed here. Netrat (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Crossovers are not defined in US law, SUVs are. Many American definitions of crossover have them as a subset of SUVs.
This should be a useful, noteworthy template, but at the moment it is a piece of guesswork. Car classification needs sorting out before this is pasted everywhere, and by sorting out, I mean it needs to be encyclopaedic with references to show who says that one car fits one category and not another and that something like A-segment exists as a defined term. At the moment things like Compact executive car are unsourced, opinionated articles that some editor or other has made up. Fine as long as you also include categories like Ugly cars, Nice cars or Big cars in your template. Not fine if you want to build an accurate cross-referenced template. At the moment I think this template easily satisfies points 1 and 4 at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, but it could be such a useful template that I think it deserves a chance to improve. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sources are easy to find. For example, here are few for Compact executive car: , . For all other terms: . For segments, my immediate link would be , but there are a lot of other sources. Interestingly, yopu didn't challenge American classification, but only European one. Anyway, I'm sure you should ask for sources in the articles' discussion, not the template that summarizes these articles. Footnotes would make template messy. Netrat (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your first source is to a specific car, the BMW 3 series. Your whatcar sources just go to the news page. Your segments source does not connect to anything anymore. The truth is no one has a definitive definition for the European segments, the American segments are fixed by law, which is why no one challenges them.
I'm requesting further comment after a no consensus verdict here. The relationships between fields in this table suggest objective relationships which are unsourced and subjective. This to my mind is original research which contradicts the policy at WP:SYN The template itself is also used as a starting point to define car class fields in the automobile infobox and in other templates which breaks the policy at WP:CIRCULAR. A suggestion has been made to replace this template with a navigation box similar to the one suggested here which allows the various classifications to be shown without implying the relationships that this template portrays as established fact. Mighty Antar (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I missed the whole debate but the template, as presented, is a mess (body sizes mix up with body styles, i.e. a Golf Convertible and plain Golf would end up in different classes). It also implies literal one-to-one equivalence of national classes which is not the case. The proposed navbox has its own curiosities ("bublle cars", defined in wikipedia as a fifty-year-old oddity, appear out of place) but it can be fixed and it's quite neat. Some suggestions:
- Decide if it's for size classes, or body styles, or both (not recommended).
- Decide if it should retain historical classes like sedanca-de-ville, bubble car etc. (not recommended).
- If the consensus leans to keep model names (which I don't recommend), list and link specific model years (generations, platforms) currently produced, i.e. Volkswagen Golf Mk6 rather than just Golf. They grow bigger and bigger each year :)). NVO (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we move the Protect Source?Edit
Variety of brandsEdit
There is really no need to edit this constatly, once its made its ready. try to keep many brands/countries represented here, so no need to add every audi or every citroen or every whatever brand model to this template. -->Typ932 T·C 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also worth ensuring that a reasonable global range of examples is included. Warren (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- My original intention when cleaning up this template was to keep the number of brands and models to the reasonable minimum. The reason is simple: it is much easier to see the difference between models of one make (like, Peugeot 208, Peugeot 308 and Peugeot 408) than between models of different makes (like, VW Polo, Peugeot 308 and Toyota Camry). I still believe having 1 Asian brand, 1 European brand and 1 American brand provides enough examples in most cases. Netrat (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Globalise the Classification by Adding ISO?Edit
Dont clear the editsEdit
I'm making the list more detailed by adding popular models of cars in the list, dont clear my edits, dont vandalize. I corrected again Thnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Link to ACRISSEdit
The other widely used classification is ACRISS, but when I tried to add in an additional column (under heading "Trade Body Defined") I could not make the alignment work - something odd happened when the additional cells were added when Rowspan was in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam O. Brown (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)