Talk:Genesis G80

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Midsize or full-size?

I'm afraid I'm turning this into another Avalon/LaCrosse/Impala/Maxima/Cadenza/Azera controversey...I know 137.25.35.93 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about the controversy. I'm part of it... haha

To answer your question (one month later, I know...), this car is legally full-size ("Large car" in EPA jargon) in the USA. Many big sedans other than the ones you've listed are legally classified as midsize, and vice versa. Every automobile article here in Wikipedia should include the official classification by a govt. entity like the EPA and Euro Car Segment; a lot of the times, a vehicle's intended market segment doesn't match its official classification!

So it should be stated in this article that this is officially a full-size car, at least here in the USA.

Kaio mh (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generations

It seems that Genesis/Hyundai considers the 1st generation Hyundai Genesis as the 1st generation G80 therefore making the G80 generations as 2nd and 3rd respectively, thoughts? https://media.genesis.com/NEWS/the-all-new-genesis-g80-digital-world-premiere--leading-design-and-luxury-focused-technology/s/c6845d22-ec27-44ba-b910-0cc44073955c Alawadhi3000 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would not be correct. The first gen of the Hyundai Genesis is the BH, from 2009 to 2014. The second gen Hyundai Genesis is the DH of 2014 which is what was re-branded into the first gen Genesis G80 for 2016. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Hyundai/Kia/Genesis's development codes have recently been revised to have the number for generation of a vehicle to come at last(ex) Current Hyundai Sonata's Dev. code is "DN8", which stands for "D" segment "N(Hyundai sedan)" "8"(8th generarion)). And the development code for current Genesis G80 is "RG3", which supports that Hyundai considers the 1st generation Hyundai Genesis as the 1st generation G80. But I don't find it necessary to merge this page with "Hyundai Genesis". --Damian B Oh (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't compute. The 1st gen Hyundai Genesis in no way is considered the same as the 1st gen Genesis G80. See my comment above. They are quite distinct at every level - despite HM's efforts to retro-actively change dev codes long after the fact (and well past the point of development). Picard's Facepalm (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Genesis Electrified G80 into Genesis G80

I don't think that the Genesis Electrified G80 has a notability that is separate from the "regular" G80. The sources cited in the article explicitly say that the EV is a "version" of the regular G80. In addition, the criteria listed at WP:PAGEDECIDE do not seem to argue in favor of creating a standalone article for the electric version. JBchrch talk 15:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --No coffee, please. (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The fact that it's an EV variant of a conventional vehicle should not prevent it from getting its own article. Examples: Ford Ranger EV, Chevrolet S-10 EV, Kia Soul EV, Dacia Spring, AC Propulsion eBox. On the Korean Wikipedia it also has its own article. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Periwinklewrinkles::

Ford Ranger EV: almost entirely unsourced, should probably be cleaned up and merged with Ford Ranger (or go through AFD)
Chevrolet S-10 EV: Same, with Chevrolet S-10
Kia Soul EV: WP:PAGEDECIDE criteria yield a different result in this case, given the breadth of the article.
Dacia Spring: Standalone model (?)
AC Propulsion eBox: not a variant of an original vehicle. JBchrch talk 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Periwinklewrinkles::

Just because there are other, malformed articles doesn't mean additional ones should be created. Using bad examples is worse than not using any example at all. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Speaks for itself. It is a variant of an existing model who's only distinction is that it is an EV. If this were 10 or 20 years ago - I might support there being a separate article - as the emergence of the tech was very fresh and new and it would have been one of the front-runners breaching the barrier. Today - it is not nearly as noteworthy as nearly every manufacturer has more than a few models that either already have EV variants or are slated for release in the very new future. If we make new pages for EV variants of every model that is coming out - we are going to end up with a large mass of articles with almost no new information, and endless links & refs to the other WP article and statements along the lines of "and like the gas model..." to describe anything else about the vehicle. It's pointless. So - just as the 4cyl turbo variant has a place on the same page as the 8cyl powerhouse - so should the EV. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Picard's Facepalm:, @JBchrch:: Hm, it's literally the first time anyone suggested to merge or delete any of the five articles mentioned above - except the Dacia Spring article (used to be merged with the Kwid). Or that they are malformed. But you can always go ahead and mention that on the respective articles' talk pages, that's what they are for.

These articles do need additional citations, though.

And, to discuss the merits: all five vehicles I mentioned are EV versions or conversions of ICE vehicles. Yes, two of them are sold under separate model names and brands, so the manufacturer does not call them "variants" of the original model. The eBox is a third party conversion. And the Dacia Spring, and the Renault City K-ZE, the Aeolus EX1, and the new Venucia e30, are all an electrified Renault Kwid^[1]^[2]^[3] (the body structure might be reinforced vs. the Indian Kwid, but Renault did the same when launching the Kwid in South America, and they did that without changing the name). That's more obvious for the media in the countries where the Kwid is sold.

And yes, we will often have to repeat the same information on different pages (but not necessarily with endless links & refs to other articles) and importantly, this is not limited to EVs. It also happens when manufacturers change much less than the whole drivetrain but sell it as a "separate" model (like, with the Citroen Saxo and the Peugeot 106; the Pontiac Aztek and the Buick Rendezvous). Sure it should matter how they are marketed, if they are sold as another model, or brand, or not... But if restyling and "badge-engineering" a car earns it its own article (Plymouth Laser), then actual engineering that goes into changing a car into an EV also should. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With your statement above - you are actually making the case to merge some of those other pages into the Kwid :) Anyhow - your last paragraph is actually and precisely why all the BMW generational articles were merged and collapsed into their respective series articles vs. remaining broken out into generational ones. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have proposed a merger of Chevrolet S-10 EV with Chevrolet S-10. Regarding Ford Ranger EV, a WP:BEFORE shows that the vehicle has received some sort of independent and significant coverage in recent years, and so a standalone article is probably warranted per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Not seeing the same thing with Genesis Electrified G80, though: the coverage is similar to what we would see if any brand launched a new engine for one of its pre-existing models. JBchrch talk 22:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An electrified version for the an ICE-based vehicle is simply a powertrain option that is quite common nowadays. We don't see Hyundai Kona Electric or Peugeot e-208 being written as a separate article. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a no-brainer merge. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see an overwhelming support for the merge. I'm moving on with it. JBchrch talk 02:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

[1] ttps://www.news24.com/wheels/NewModels/opinion-renault-electrifies-kwid-and-it-could-be-another-masterstroke-by-the-french-20201019-3

[2] ttps://www.financialexpress.com/auto/gallery/electric-renault-kwid-exterior-powertrain-range-and-india-launch-details-in-images/photos/1335420/

[3] ttps://autoblog.com.ar/2020/10/19/el-dacia-spring-es-la-version-europea-del-renault-kwid-100-electrico-y-con-esp-de-serie/

[1]

[2]

[3]