Talk:Sport compact

message: Morwan,
I see you've added a statement to the sport compact article that says Front Wheel Drive cars are prefered for autocross.  Can you reference that?  I only ask because I autocross a FWD car, and I consider it to be a considerable disadvantage.  In fact, Adam Breaky, the founder of autocrossforum.com, calls FF cars "wrong wheel drive":
http://www.autocrossforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1940&st=0
If you look further down in that same thread, you will notice that Ian Steward (2005 National ProSolo Champion for STU)lists his requirements for a prosolo/autocross car, and the very first requirement is RWD.  Evenprime 18:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the results of Solo II nationals, it looks like there's a somewhat even mix of FWD/RWD/AWD, or at least it's clear that no single layout  completely dominates, and no single layout is completely missing from the standings.  So perhaps the article shouldn't state any preferences, or shouldn't state them so unequivocally.  --Interiot 18:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable to me.  I'd say that part of the article should be removed. Let's see what Morwan has to say Evenprime 18:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll go ahead and change it to 'fairly popular'. I was just looking at the national rankings for stock classes, the Celica, Integra, and Mini Cooper S seem to dominate their respective classes, but that may be due to the classifications themselves.Morwan 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I've cleared up most of the NPOV-related talk because it's more or less been settled.
I've marked Sport Compact to be merged into Sport compact. I think this article is just missing a short section on hot hatches, but beyond that, I think that Sport compact contains all of the important information in the Sport Compact article and a little bit more. -- Morwan 18:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging Sport Compact

message: The Compact performance car article talks about the same car type as this article. Besides, the sport compact term is more commonly used (only 154 results in Google). -- NaBUru38 00:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Compact performance car 

message: These seem close enough that it's sensible to merge.  Thoughts?  Friday (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I would try to be a little more articulate than the last user.  I agree that the terms are different enough to warrant separate pages.  Hot hatch is used almost exclusively in Europe while Sport compact is used almost exclusively in the US.  These words have different history and to some extent refer to different types of cars.  Some overlap exists but I think that the difference in use and history make separate pages the best choice. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, from a purely practical standpoint, they are each rather long articles.  Thefirstdude02 06:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No! They are distinct terms. One is used in the US, one in Europe. Don't Americanise everything! R5gordini 08:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Have to agree with the opponents to a merger. These two terms are not used interchangeably in real life and cannot be used as substitute for each others. KEEP 'EM SEPARATE (BUT EQUAL) :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaVieEstBelle75 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The two phrases do not mean the same thing - in the UK a hot hatch is a hatchback. In the US, a sports compact often means a saloon. To avoid confusion, perhaps the detailed North American references in Hot hatch need to be relocated in to Sport compact? <B>Warren</B> (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Hot hatch]] 

message: I've replaced the  tag that dated from 2007 with a  tag, highlighting not just the WP:OR issues but also WP:EL and WP:CITE issues.
The external links seem a little too "link farmy" - particularly the inclusion of a "miscellaneous" section.
More importantly, however, the article has comparatively few references.
TFOWR 10:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues 

message: I think econosport and sport compact cover the same ground.  Since Wikipedia articles are generally about things, not terms, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery.  I'm assuming that "sport compact" is the more common term based on some quick google searches, though I could be wrong. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unable to find any decent refs for the term "econosport", I've merged it into Sport Compact, and welcome refs to support this term. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal (econosport and sport compact)