Jump to content

Talk:Compact executive car/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article

This article needs more sources as it has now some opinions which are not based on facts, the whole article needs overhaul. This article reminds me somehow the Luxury car article and its problems ....--Typ932 T·C 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

^ I agree. I just wanted to add as an anonymous internet person that in reading this I was rather confused when it says "Compact executive cars are usually available in saloon, estate, coupé, and cabriolet body styles." yet when you click on "saloon", "estate", "cabriolet" (unfamiliar terms to me) I'm linked to articles titled "sedan", "station wagon", and "convertible" -- all terms familiar to me. Sounds like this is a difference in european and US english however I think either the article should make it clear that it's using european terms (to avoid confusion) and linking to US-titled articles, OR just use the US terms to remain consistent. --2601:9:7E00:238:8:70AD:604E:FFE7 (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Chrysler 300

The Chrysler 300 is--and the Chrysler 200 is not--similarly priced to compact executive cars. How do people not know this? Why are everybody reverting the page? 166.137.191.38 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about compact-sized executive cars. The Chrysler 200 models fit that segment. On the other hand, the Chrysler 300 is a full-sized automobile. I hope that helps. CZmarlin (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Compact executive car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Compact executive car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compact executive car. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compact executive car. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Compact executive car. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compact executive car. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A different car?

Sorry, I don't know how wikipedia works but just wanted to point out this from the page:

"the Acura TLX (a re-badged North American Honda Accord"

This was written by someone with an axe to grind and is not grounded in reality. The TLX is not a re-badged Honda Accord. It has a different transmission, exterior, and interior. Yes, it was built on the same platform as the Accord, but in literally every other way is a completely different car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1900:87D0:F5F4:6B2C:309C:437D (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello anonymous user! Reviews such as done by Consumer Reports consider these two corporate cousins and essentially similar cars even with the "differences" among them. For example, in this report here - the less expensive version is ranked higher! No axes are ground in WP! Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Connection between Volvo models

About the Volvo thing and verification of connection between models. The 850 (800 series) was positioned, as the name suggests, between the 700 series and 900 series. However that is in name only as the 854/855 are smaller than any 700 series model and also any 900 series model.

If going by what was the plan when development began (see Project Galaxy), it's clear Volvo intended to have a smaller vehicle. Smaller and more affordable.

If we can agree that the 850 (854/855) is a compact executive car / mid-sze car / large family car / mittelklassefahrzeug the same has to be true for the first generation S70 and V70. The cars are nearly identical as far as dimensions go.

If the above isn't agreed on, but it's agreed that the S70 is a compact executive car the first generation V70 has to be classified as compact executive as well. S70 and V70 share everything from the front bumper to the b-pillar and even the rear doors.

Now it gets a bit complicated as Volvo stopped production of the first gen. S90 and not really replaced it with the first generation S80. Those are clearly executive cars.

The S70 was replaced by the first generation S60 which is a compact executive car (here is a source [1][1]) and the V70 (V70 II) had its second generation. Again S60 and V70 share most parts from the front bumper to the b-pillar. Front bumper is different though but that should not matter.

In 2006 (MY2007) Volvo replaced the S80 with the second generation S80 (S80 II). It remains an executive saloon/sedan (here is a source [2][2]). The third generation V70 (V70 III) is now based on the S80 which elevates it from compact executive to executive car (here is a source [3][3]).

Taking the divergent path the second generation S60 (S60 II) remained a compact executive car (here is a source [4][4]). Generational change was delayed and happend after the V70 III had debuted. S60 II got an estate/station wagon version called V60 which is in the same class for obvious reasons.

Third gen S60 (S60 III) and second gen V60 (V60 II) already have sources in the article.

Hope that clears at least some things up. Regards, 2A04:4540:903:E200:4CF7:8DDD:B2C2:C916 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Some more things. S80 I (here is a source [5][5])

Mid-size statement from a UK source for V70 II (here is a source [6][6])

Another S80 I (here is a source [7][7])

S80 II / V70 III / XC70 II (here is a source [8][8])

V70 XC I as per EPA - XC and V are identical other than ride height (here is a source [9][9])

There is also a trim called 'Executive' so that can get confusing. Limited to the S80 so not quite as confusing as it may appear. 2A04:4540:903:E200:4CF7:8DDD:B2C2:C916 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

200 series is currently missing which leaves a gap between the 100 series and the 800 series. 140 -> 240 -> 850 | 160 -> 260 -> 760 -> 960.

Volvo liked to claim the cars were in a higher class than they were but it's pretty obvious that for example a 264 does not compete with a BMW 7-series or S-class.

Any way, the IIHS something something mid-sze (here is a source [10][10])

Some more IIHS which also takes SAAB - why was that deleted? - into account (here is a source [11][11])

What does the other users name with the question mark mean in your edit comment? Meh.

Sources

  1. ^ https://www.media.volvocars.com/us/en-us/media/pressreleases/90103
  2. ^ https://assets.volvocars.com/uk/~/media/united-kingdom/documents/pricelists/my16/volvo-s80-pricelist.pdf?la=en-gb
  3. ^ https://www.media.volvocars.com/uk/en-gb/media/pressreleases/147232/volvo-v70xc70-wins-executive-car-class-honours-in-2014-what-car-jd-power-survey
  4. ^ http://www.autoscraze.com/2012-volvo-s60-drive-with-a-class.html
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmKClq4hqL8
  6. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLFmWIEepuM
  7. ^ https://www.theaa.com/staticdocs/pdf/carreports/AA_REPORTS/VOLVO-S80-JAN00.PDF
  8. ^ https://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/cartestreports/2007062.html
  9. ^ https://www.motortrend.com/news/volvo-v70-xc/
  10. ^ https://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr2604.pdf
  11. ^ https://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3009.pdf

2A04:4540:903:E200:4CF7:8DDD:B2C2:C916 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello 2A04:4540:903:E200:4CF7:8DDD:B2C2:C916. I hope you don't mind me reformatting your text above. Jayaguru-Shishya had collapsed it so that it was hidden.

Regarding your last question, Jayaguru-Shishya is suggesting in this edit summary that you are a WP:SOCKPUPPET of my account. I find this suggestion highly disrespectful and it violates WP:FAITH. Jayaguru-Shishya, please withdraw this accusation unless you are going to launch a Sock Puppet Investigation. Also J-S, I will reply to your comments in the November 2018 section soon. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, maybe Jayaguru-Shishya thought you hadn't logged into your account. In the sense of good faith lets assume no ill intend. As a random IP let me state that I am not 1292simon. Regards, 2A04:4540:900:5100:F5D8:E5A9:A998:8EAC (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, 2A04:4540:903:E200:4CF7:8DDD:B2C2:C916! As much as I admire your deduction, I'm afraid that's original research. We would need reliable secondary sources verifying that "o pertains to A" (o ∈ A), that's all. In this case, that the mentioned models pertain to the group of compact executive cars. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused. Did you even look at the sources that were placed to show that this isn't original research? Obviously the text is a mess but this is a talk page. For someone not familiar with the timeline and development of Volvo vehicles over the past 20 years this is meant as a condensed version. If you demand that every single source has the words 'compact executive' somewhere that would be very limiting. Not every country uses this exact phrase so substitutes as listed have to be accepted. Going by what is already found in the car classification table that is not up for discussion. 2A04:4540:903:E200:4CF7:8DDD:B2C2:C916 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
While I admit that this is English-language Wikipedia, we must also take into account the Swedish and European markets. Many Volvos are indeed marketed as executive cars in English-speaking countries, but at home (where the majority of Volvos have been sold) they were mainly sturdy family cars. What is the definition of an executive compact car? Because the 850, imho, is simply too big. Volvo did intend the 460 and also the 360 (a bit of wishful thinking, perhaps) as executive compacts. I cannot find any useful citations for the Amazon as a compact executive, most English-speaking commentators considered it a "sporty family saloon" or things along those lines.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
How about we try to find a consensus on the modern Volvo models first and work backwards? That should work best and at least covers the easily researchable vehicles.
Your statement about Swedish and European markets is right on the problem I have with how some of the cars in question are classified. And the thing about Volvo and wishful thinking is even more on the mark.
As I stated before, the term 'compact executive' is primarily british but as far as listed in the car classification article is interchangeable with other things like mid-size and so on.
Volvo has said their cars belong to one market segment when they clearly don't. because this is easy to find sources for I will use the german terms of 'mittelklasse' and 'gehobene mittelklasse' in the following explanation. 'Mittelklasse' is used for A4 / 3-series / C-class so as per classification that matches with 'compact executive' and the current third generation S60 and second generation V60 compete in this segment. Unless there is disagreement I will take this as a given. Sources here: [1][2][3]
The Second generation S60 and first generation V60 also competed in this segment - third generation V70 and second generation S80 are as per Volvo's own words executive cars or 'gehobene mittelklasse'. Source for S60 statement here: [4]
Now things get muddy. The first generation S60 was often compared to the 3-series and other very established 'compact executive' vehicles. Volvo did not make a clear statement as to the market position. Prizes were awarded for both 'compact' and 'executive' market segment. However Volvo had the larger S80 at that time. But they tried to position that as a 'full size' vehicle. It clearly does not compete with the A8 / 7-series / S-class from the 1998-2006 time frame, neither on size nore euqipment nor on price. Reviews compared it with the A6 / 5-series / E-class / S-Type. Sources for the S80 statment: [5][6][7] || And a source for the first gen S60 statement: [8]
That leaves the issue of what market segment the 5-door version of the first gen. S60, aka the second gen V70, belongs to. Logically it should be the same as the sedan - 'mid-size' / 'mittelklasse' / 'compact executive'. Compared with the competition of the time it is in between say a c-class and an e-class in terms of size. It was compared by the press with rivals such as the VW Passat, Opel/Vauxhall Vectra and so on. Those are firmly in the 'ce' category. Sources for this statement here: [9][10]
Is there an agreement for this logic chain or should it be made prettier with more sources? Regards, 2A04:4540:900:5100:F5D8:E5A9:A998:8EAC (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources
Nice research, sir/madam. I think this might be the most throroughly researched example on Wikipedia of determining which segment a car fits into! The fact the reviews are comparing the Volvo with the C-Class, 3 Series and A4 also supports that it is a compact exec.

Regarding the first-gen S60, here are some references supporting that it is in the same segment as the C-class, 3 Series and A4 (i.e. the compact exec segment): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This represents a lot of work - however, not everything in life is so easily classifiable. As markets have begun to tilt strongly in favor of prestige brands for anything bigger than the Golf class (and there, too), manufacturers have tried to reposition accordingly, hence a shift into this class beginning in the 1990s or so. Sometimes being a tiny import brand makes competing on price impossible, which is how the Volvo 340 Saloon was sold as an executive car in Indonesia for instance. A Volvo 242 L with the 82hp B19 engine was nothing but utilitarian, unimaginative transport, whereas a late 245 Polar was a prestigious car in most markets.
What I am trying to say is that unless something incontrovertibly belongs on this page, trying to group and classify things through deeply flawed categories such as these is going to be a giant waste of effort. Also, be careful about using chains of logic as this is likely irreconcilable with WP:OR. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
As for the Volvo S60 being meant as a 3-series/A4/C-class competitor, I think that it is pretty clear, here is a supporting citation from Sweden (which is meaningful, as this is Volvo's main market).6  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems that we have consensus for all three generations of S60 so I'll update the article accordingly.
One thing to note please: The usage of 'range' when referring to the S60/V60, especially when using the term 60-series, is not ideal. Volvo has done this and grouped the completely different XC60 with S/V60. So at least for this article it's best to stick with the exact phrases.
Personally I would not look at every market in detail and take a more broad approach to classification. If Volvo sold the imaginary V20 as a large family car in the equally imaginary country of Snæcklånd but in Europe it's seens as a micro car it simply is a micro car. IMO the home market is important as are the markets with the biggest sales volume. Regards, 2A04:4540:905:7F00:830:8291:6204:333 (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Manic ip

Much of what the Ip is inserting is pure conjecture or just fabulization. The Toyota Cresta, considered a large luxurious car (with a sporty bent) in Japan, is not a Compact Executive Car. The citation consists only of a timeline, I can find absolutely no mention of "compact executive car" in it. Even more absurd is the inclusion of the Simca 1301/1501, a solidly boring middle class family car.

Stop trying to categorize older products by this neologism. I am not sure when the term "compact executive car" first came about, but the way you are trying to apply it is indiscriminate and in complete violation of WP:OR. Also, no one is challenging you on the inclusion of the S60 and V60, so feel free to remove some of the thirty citations clogging the text. WP:OVERCITE.

This is a subjective category, with rapidly fluctuating meanings across time and place and language, made more confusing by the added pressures of marketing and lazy copy-editors. Trying to fit every car in the world into some sort of category is futile and pointless. Reduce this article to a few things that are indisputable and stop trying to add every car that has ever been referred to in the same breath as the BMW 3-series.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I can only assume you are intending to talk to me. Look before complaining, I have nothing to do with falsely categorizing the Cresta or the Simca. And especially not with the state of the France section. Please direct any criticism at 1292simon regarding that.
Yes, obviously there are to many sources for the Volvo section. My edit comment should have made it clearer that the current state is not the intended end state.
Neither am I adding any car that ever got compared to the 3-series. What gave you that impression?
At the same time please stop putting Weasel words into the article like some say or some liken to. Regards, 2A04:4540:900:CD00:357E:CFE:F32F:6666 (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


Let me know if the current state of the Sweden section is appropriate in your eyes.
I'd like to find a consensus on which previous sedan/saloon models should be considered to be within scope for this article.
The S70 was launched at a time when the larger S90 and smaller S40 existed. By mid to later 1998 the larger S80 (smaller than the S90) and smaller S40 existed. Various sources place the S70 either as a mid-size vehicle, as an upmarket mid-size vehicle, as compact executive, as an executive vehicle, as Mittelklasse and also as gehobene Mittelklasse. What is your opinion on that?
Regards, 2A04:4540:900:CD00:357E:CFE:F32F:6666 (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The S70 doesn't fit comfortably and clearly into any category, so leave it out. As for the Simca, it has been restored and re-restored by various, mainly Australian IPs. Shall I call you German ip? A handle makes conversation much more pleasant.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hi Jayaguru-Shishya. Here is an explanation about the issues I see with the recent edits:

  • It is useful to show the reader the overseas equivalents (eg luxury compact) in the intro, to provide context to the rest of the article. MOS:LEADCITE is about avoiding duplicate references, it does not forbid citations in the lead. And the use of citations here is quite different to the examples shown in WP:OVERCITE.
  • I appreciate that CN often goes at the end of the sentence, but in this case I put it directly after the claim in question, so that it was obvious which statement it relates to.
  • The Volvo link shows the model names, because this is what the average reader would more likely recognise.
  • Deleting the entire Volvo section due to questions about two sources is unwarranted. The sources are there to confirm the lineage between models, so I think they are used appropriately.

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, 1292simon. My concern with the lead is the fact that it doesn't reflect the contents of WP:BODY. Citations can be used in the lead, and personally I prefer using them. However, the current lead introduces nine new references not mentioned in the body.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. According to MOS:LEAD:

The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is ... a summary of its most important contents. ... Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

The other concern has to do with the references at the Sweden section. Even though the references might mention the specific Volvo models, those fail to verify the connection between the very models and the compact executive cars (what this whole article is about).[10][11][12]. The Jacobs source[13] talks as its very best about mid-size executive sedans, but still doesn't make a connection to the compact executive kind. I couldn't help noticing, however, that you had inserted into the new lead that:

Compact executive cars are equivalent size to mid-size cars (called "large family cars" in the United Kingdom) and are part of the D-segment in the European car classification.

The entry remains unreferenced, however. A reference would be highly needed in order to make the citation by Jacobs (2015) just.
The last two references[14][15] do confirm indeed, that the models pertain to the compact executive class. But if that single sentence is left to be the only remaining content of the section, one could ask if the material really deserves a section of its own?
Last but not least, Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. (WP:VERIFY). Therefore, the whole paragraph[16] needs to be referenced, even though you'd like to emphasize a specific part of the paragraph. The content is already challenged, and may be removed if not provided by reliable sources.
Therefore, I'd suggest 1) to restore the stable version before expanding the WP:BODY to cover all the essentials included in the lead; 2)) re-introduce the Sweden section when there are references verifying the connection between the car models and the compact executive cars; and 3) not move the {{citation needed}} template from the end of the paragraph until an appropriate source is given.
I hope this managed to cast some light on my edits and critique! ...and thanks for the numerous edits you have done so far at the article! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jayaguru-Shishya. Thanks for your reply, yes I appreciate having the light casted on the edits!

Regarding the lead section, MOS:LEAD says "apart from basic facts". Describing the equivalent terms in other countries is a basic fact IMO. I agree that the number of cititions in the second para is excessive for such uncontroversial statements, so I would not object if you would like to remove a couple. While we're talking about the MOS, I would just like to point out that it is a guideline, not a rule book. Also, you mentioned "stable version", but wikipedia is constantly evolving, so there is no such thing as a stable version.

If the Volvo S60 and its predecessors aren't compact exec cars (each of their wiki articles state that they are), which category do you believe they belong to?

The reason I had tagged the Audi F103 specifically is that I was dubious about the significant claim of it being the first compact exec car from any German manufacturer. The sentence is now referenced and re-worded, so I have removed my tag. Of course, if you dispute any onther claim in the paragraph and therefore think it needs referencing, you are welcome to add another tag. Cheer, 1292simon (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi 1292simon. WP:MOS is the closest that comes to a "rule book" in Wikipedia, believe me. ;-) As WP:MOS states itself: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. I think that "basic facts" refer to something like "the Earth is a globe", "the Earth revolves around the Sun", or "the Sun is a star". Those wouldn't need to be referenced, of course. I can hardly believe, however, that car classifications could be considered as "basic facts". Just take a look at the Wikipedia articles Car classification or Euro Car Segment, and you'll get the point.
As WP:LEAD puts it in a nutshell: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. At the moment, none of the information around those links is in the WP:BODY. Perhaps you could consider writing a new section about the classification standards, just like in the Luxury vehicle article?
To which category I believe "Volvo S60 and its predecessors" should belong to? Honestly, I have no idea. I am just making casual fact check as part of my wikignoming. All we need is a source verifying that "o pertains to A" (o ∈ A), that's all. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jayaguru-Shishya. I believe that identifying alternate names for things is a basic fact which warrants inclusion in the into.

I disagree that adding all the Citation Needed tags is "fact checking", it seems more like WP:TAGBOMB. The purpose of Citation Needed is for any editor to highlight statements that they genuinely disagree with and therefore think need references. It is not for pedantically insisting on references for every paragraph, which is just a waste of time for other editors having to dig up references for trival statements. For example: The earth is round.[citation needed] Most cars have four wheels.[citation needed] The Audi A4 (B8) is the successor to the Audi A4 (B7).[citation needed]. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, 1292simon! I am sorry you feel like I'd have ignored your reply.[17] Brevity is the soul of wit, according to WP:UNSOURCED:

All content must be verifiable. ... The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

When it comes to the "scapegoat fv's"[18], as you put it, according to WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION (numeration and emphasis added by editor):

To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you (1) explain your rationale in the template, (2) edit summary, or (3) on the talk page.

As far as I am concerned, I did (1) explain my rationale in the template, (2) explain my rationale in the edit summary, and even did (3) explain my rationale at the article Talk Page[19]. I hope this helped to understand my point better! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jayaguru-Shishya. Thank you for your apology about the delay replying here. I think this discussion is now superseded by the "Recent reverts" section below. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Greetings! There has been a couple of major scale reverts lately. Here's a short summary:

Revert number 1

  • Revert: [20]
  • Original edit(s): [21]
  • Commentary: The source failed to verify because it didn't even mention the "third generation", something that the source was added to support in the first place. This was clearly stated by the {{fv}} template.

Revert number 2

  • Revert: [22]
  • Original edit(s): [23][24]
  • Commentary: Each source was tagged specifically, showing how the source failed to verify the text on the article. However, all the sources were restored without addressing any of the concerns.

Revert number 3

  • Revert: [25]
  • Commentary: Is this edit a revert, a modification, or both of those? Mostly it seems like a revert, but also some sources have been changed[26], such a YouTube one that was tagged for {{copyvio link}}. Please keep reverts and other edits separate from each other?

Revert number 4

  • Revert: [27][28]
  • Original edit(s): [29]
  • Commentary: Failed to verify (The source doesn't even mention the 'compact executive')

New edit number 1

  • New edit: [30]
  • Commentary: Failed to verify (The source doesn't even mention the 'compact executive')

New edit number 2

  • New edit: [31]
  • Commentary: The article is about Compact executive car; the addition is about Mercedez-Bend '...in its fourth generation.'

Revert number 5

  • Revert: [32]
  • Commentary: There's been no commentaries on the article Talk Page by 1292simon ever since 3rd March. Moreover, the revert[[33]][34] didn't correct any of the issues brought up by the templates in the article. Please discuss at the article Talk Page before reverting again, thank you.

Revert number 6

  • Revert: [35]
  • Original edit(s): [36]
  • Commentary: Failed to verify (The source doesn't even mention 'compact executive')

Please discuss at the article Talk Page before reverting. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

There has been "no commentary" from me here because I was waiting for a reply in the February 2019 section. It seems you have ignored my reply and the edits since have completed disregarded that active discussion.

Please give other editors appropriate time to respond to your latest changes, before you again pull your usual stunt of deleting whole paragraphs based on the scapegoat of an FV tag for a trivial statement. 1292simon (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, do you dispute that the Merc C-Class is a compact exec car? Do you dispute that it is currently in its fourth generation and has been produced in sedan, wagon, coupé, convertible and hatchback body styles? Do you believe that the Volvo S60 switched from compact exec to another class for the 3rd generation?
If the answer to any of these is yes, then I would be very keen to see your supporting references! If not, then this is a misuse of the FV tags as a scapegoat in a crusade to wipe out the Germany and Sweden sections for some reason. The resulting excessive citation been a waste of other editors time and, worse, has worsened readability of the text. I hope you are now satisfied. 1292simon (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
1292simon. There is no crusade against the Germany and Sweden sections. All material in the article must comply with WP:PROVEIT:

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

I am not quite sure what you mean by the "misuse of the FV tags as scapegoat".[37] If something fails to verify the material on the article, then it fails to verify the material on the article. So simple.
I can only wonder why some editors have been frantic about adding references to the article that don't even verify the text (or aren't even related). Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Jayaguru-Shishya, you have in the past objected to this source Paris auto salon 2010: Volvo V60 unveiling (de) on the basis that ' The source doesn't even mention 'compact executive' ' (see here [38]).
The text positioned in front of the citation read 'It was joined in 2010'. One could consider that this citation is used to support the year - 2010 - to show that an estate version was introduced significantly later then the sedan version. Reading the source it makes statements about the correlation between sedan and estate, the start of production or market introduction as well as market positioning. Quoting from the article:

Volvo schickt den V60 zum Pariser Autosalon 2010. Und lässt uns bereits jetzt ausführlich auf den schneidigen Kombi blicken, der die Hauprolle in der Baureihe spielen wird. 90 Prozent der jährlichen Produktion von 50.000 Fahrzeugen sollen mit einem V statt einem S vorm Zahlenkürzel zum Kunden rollen. Im Herbst 2010 ist Markteinführung des Praktikers . . . Technik und Motorenpalette teilt sich der V60 mit der Limousine . . . Volvo auf Augenhöhe mit der Konkurrenz, die vor allem aus den deutschen Platzhirschen Audi A4, BMW 3er und Mercedes C-Klasse besteht.

Please explain your objections. Specifically state your reason as to why the source, when positioned as it was, needs to mention the term 'compact executive'. 2A04:4540:907:3200:48E1:8072:6031:E65B (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm... "Die von Ihnen aufgerufene Seite wurde nich gefunden. Möglicherwise ist der Link oder das Bookmark veraltet."
Also, please note that this is the English-language Wikipedia. According to WP:NONENG: "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote." Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Wiki mangles the link, just click on the cited source in the article or copy paste ' https://www.autobild.de/artikel/pariser-autosalon-2010-volvo-v60-vorstellung-1208737.html '.
You also did not answer the question which means you either never read the source before originally removing it or have reasons not to make a clear statement. Both are highly suspicious. One might say that you disprove of anything that does not fit your agenda, whatever that agenda may be.
It seems pointless to ask for clarification for your actions if all you do is hide behind blue links. But just to give you the not deserved benefit of acting in good faith:
Why was the source objectionable given that the translated title reads ' Paris auto salon 2010: Volvo V60 unveiling ' and that the text positioned in front of the citation read 'It was joined in 2010'. One could consider that this citation is used to support the year - 2010 - to show that an estate version was introduced significantly later then the sedan version. Reading the source it makes statements about the correlation between sedan and estate, the start of production or market introduction as well as market positioning.
Jayaguru-Shishya, could you please answer my questions above (now bolded)? 1292simon (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a general note: In the German language, there is no word for what a "compact executive car" is. It simply doesn't exist. In German, there is Mittelklassefahrzeug, but that means "mid-size car" rather than compact executive car. The closest thing to describe what a compact executive car is would most likely be Mitteklassefahrzeug der Premiummarken, but that is not a fixed term you could find in a dictionary. Therefore, I doubt that German language sources are useful for this article, as the German language doesn't have a definition for what a compact executive car is. And Autobild is not a reliable source, it should be avoided, if possible. Sources 39, 40, 41, 42, 50, 51, 55, 58, 63, and 64 don't even mention the word "compact executive" and all they do is unnecessarily bloat the article. And there are several other sources that are mainly not about compact executive cars, but about certain car models, and I reckon that using those sources isn't ideal either. Presumably 40 % of this article's sources don't provide any useful information and should rather be removed. Citing ten sources saying that the Volvo V60 is a compact executive car in an article on "compact executive car" is not what I would consider good article work. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have cleared up some of the mess. But I recommend rewriting the article from scratch. In its current state, the article doesn't really explain what a compact executive car is, instead, it lists countries and what cars from these countries are compact executive cars. I reckon this article shouldn't go too much into detail about explaining all these cars' particularities. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, I see that your old habit of adding FV tags and then immediately deleting large amounts of text has returned. Could you please answer my questions above? It would be helpful for myself and other editors to understand where the edits are coming from, so I ask that you please stop ignoring these questions. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

1292simon, your questions are not really leading anywhere. The personal beliefs of editors do not count here. And it doesn't matter which cars actually belong to the group of "compact executive cars" either. In theory, it should be possible to explain what a compact executive car is without mentioning a single example. Obviously, this is not very ideal, (giving examples simplifies the expanation process), but describing a bunch of vehicles, saying (for instance) "the BMW E30, Mercedes-Benz W 201, and Audi 80 Typ 81 are compact executive cars" without describing what a compact executive car is (like the article does in its current state) doesn't help anyone. I don't see why the article should mention either the Volvo or the Daimler vehicle, neither of these make the article more understandable. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Johannes. The reason for the questions is that given the high level of disagreement, I think it would be useful to understand the reasoning behind Jayaguru-Shishya's edits.
Personally I don't think the current lack of a "definition" section is reason to exclude certain models. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, the lack of a definition section is not a reason to exclude certain models. But on the other hand, it is not a reason to include certain models either. My point is, that a list of vehicles sorted by countries does not provide useful information, and in addition to that, it may seem like a complete list, but it is somewhat biased and limited by the editors' knowledge. I can only give examples (not an ideal way of describing this), but why does the list not include the Škoda Octavia III RS? It comes with a nice trim level, 180 kW engine, and has a top speed of 250 km/h. It can be disputed whether or not all Octavia III models should be considered compact executive, but the Octavia RS meets most of the compact executive criteria, if I am not mistaken. (I do not want to add that vehicle to the list, this is just an example).
I cannot speak for Jayaguru-Shishya, but I presume he is unhappy with the article's current structure and overreferrencing (please correct me if I am wrong!) --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I made the same request: This is a subjective category, with rapidly fluctuating meanings across time and place and language, made more confusing by the added pressures of marketing and lazy copy-editors. Trying to fit every car in the world into some sort of category is futile and pointless. Reduce this article to a few things that are indisputable and stop trying to add every car that has ever been referred to in the same breath as the BMW 3-series. I feel that I know what a Compact Exec is, but only because I read British car magazines. And I am sure that others would disagree with my definition. Reduce this, now mostly pointless, article to defining the term (which is mainly used in the UK), and to covering the history of the term itself. A few examples are obviously necessary to elucidate, but our universal listophilia must be squashed.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't need long chains of logic to connect one car model to another[39], and neither do we need to classify every single car as a compact executive whenever some source says so. I've made the same request on March 1[40], asking: "Perhaps you could consider writing a new section about the classification standards, just like in the Luxury vehicle article?" Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

IP editor identification

Greetings!

Could you please verify (or deny) if you are the same editor? 2a04:4540:903:5b00:c5e6:5592:7a25:c1c4, 2a04:4540:904:f700:98bf:d6b3:b0bd:a8d6, 2a04:4540:904:100:11a9:8514:5183:e6da,2a04:4540:903:e200:4cf7:8ddd:b2c2:c916, 2a04:4540:900:5100:f5d8:e5a9:a998:8eac, 2a04:4540:905:7f00:830:8291:6204:333, 2a04:4540:904:4500:4563:845c:a628:31ba, 2a04:4540:900:cd00:357e:cfe:f32f:6666, 2a04:4540:904:ea00:a45c:d5b2:824a:8328, 2a04:4540:904:5600:9187:bcbc:d976:a51a, 2a04:4540:902:5700:8db4:d94a:5709:6d53, 2A04:4540:900:DC00:4CF8:518C:DFD9:4AC4

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unregistered editors can change IP addresses unintentionally, there is nothing unusual about that. What is the purpose of this anyway? Smells like a witch hunt... 1292simon (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
For context see here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive#15_March_2019 or see history of the page after 22/03/19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:903:BF00:896:DE0:5A7B:67AC (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Personally I like to know who I'm dealing with, whether it's fifty different ip's or a single person. But I don't feel that there is any vandalism. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
True, the WP:RPP request was not as well phrased as it could have been. The error was mainly for copying directly the format from an earlier RPP request that I filed[41][42]. A more appropriate wording would have been, for example, "suspicious IP activity".
There seems to have been, recently, 12 different IP editors on the article; all of dynamic IPs, all making similar edit ... which is pretty much considering the popularity of the article. Of course, if all of the above-mentioned really were different editors. In that light, it's highly understandable that one may ask if — for the short time-span or the narrow scope of interest — there is one editor behind all the IPs. As 1292simon well put it: "Unregistered editors can change IP addresses unintentionally, there is nothing unusual about that." Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
So please, I repeat my request, and there is nothing offensive about that: is there a same user behind the IPs? ...or some of the IPs? This would help a lot in order to identify with whom one is dealing. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Failed to verify -templates

Greetings!

I've taken the discussion here by 1292simon's request.[43]

During the past few weeks, various {{Failed verification}} templates have been taken down repeatedly without either fixing the problem, or even addressing the issues here at the article Talk Page. Although many occurrences are already obsolete (as large portion of material have been removed from the article), it still might be worthwhile to bring up these past removals as we continue having a lot of references that fail to verify the material on the article, thus creating a further need for the use of the tag. I couldn't too much stress the importance of following WP:PROVEIT:

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

This means that we don't need long chains of logic to connect one car model to another[44], nor do we need to classify every single car as a compact executive whenever some bloody source says so. This has been noted by a couple of other editors already as well.[45][46][47]

Brevity is the soul of wit, so please find the removal of the {{Failed verification}} templates below:

First time: Addition of the tags[48] and removal of the material that failed to verify[49]. However, the old material was restored, leaving out and ignoring the {{fv}} tags.[50].
Second time: Addition of the tags[51]. However, the tags were removed without any other explanation than the Edit Summary, stating: "RV, for reasons already explained on the Talk page."[52]. The reason for the removal has not been provided at the article Talk Page.
Third time: ...again, the added tags were removed[53] (for the detailed diffs of both the added tags and the removed material, please see the collapsed section below).

Extended content

I added the tags in a total of thirteen different edits (or edit ranges), trying to keep the track of my edits as easy to follow as possible, and to explain the rationale behind each edit in the best possible way. The edits concerning addition of the tags: [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66].

Likewise, I removed the material that failed to verify "one by one", the number of edits (or edit ranges) summing up to nine. The edits concerning removal of the material that failed to verify: [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75]. Moreover, other tagged[76] and removed material[77] was restored, leaving out and ignoring the {{citation needed}} tag.

Fourth time: Addition of the tags[78][79]. However, the tags were removed[80], and instead of correcting the problems, some new references — also failing to verify the material — and Original Research were introduced.
Fifth time: Addition of the tags[81] and removal of the material that failed to verify[82]. However, the old material was restored, leaving out and ignoring the {{fv}} tags.[83] Moreover, the user also reverted the improvements made to the article, such as quotes, specified page ranges, or the placement of the references.[84]

There's still a lot of references in the article to be inspected. In case of a reference being tagged, please don't remove the tag but discuss the issue at the article Talk Page instead! Thank you! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add something to your excellent summing-up: The quality of the sources is important, too – citing car magazines is fine, however citing random webpages just because they popped up in a Google search isn't ideal. I recommend printed books, if available. This article would most likely not have any problems with FV or OR if it had a proper structure. I believe that the poor structure caused the problems we have to deal with (and have dealt with, partly). --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Citing Automobile Catalog is not really useful, except for data and dates. Please stop adding the Audi F103 until a useful source is found.  Mr.choppers | ✎  10:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I just checked the BMW section within the Germany section; it had to go due to failed verification. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Countries

As with many Wikipedia articles, this article includes sections on several different counties. I reckon that is totally unnecessary: Instead of describing which compact executive cars are made which countries, the article should rather focus on describing its subject. I mean, any such "country sections" would "fit" virtualy any article; however, I dare to make the bold statement that none of these sections contain any useful information for the reader. The article literally tells the reader, in its "United Kingdom" section that "[t]he 1971 Triumph Dolomite is an early compact executive car" – who would have thought? I suggest creating a section that briefly describes how the term "Compact executive car" was formed, and maybe another section that describes the history of such cars, e. g. when the first compact executive cars were introduced, how they developed through the decades, and what is now deemed a compact executive car. A list of common compact executive cars should also be included. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The summary is copied word for word from the linked source: “ Due to their high performance and comfort features, executive cars are often viewed as status symbols. A high share of the Executive Cars market consists of company cars.” 73.97.199.61 (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Compact_executive_car/Archive_1&oldid=1097621739"