Talk:Lexus LS/Archive 1

message: Regarding references: I don't believe that listing or delisting a particular competitor should be that much of an issue. In fact, the LS's wide price range and all-around quality means that different people may be cross-shopping them with lots of models. I believe that the LS and the DTS can compete in terms of luxury, ride, isolation, acceleration, etc. The LS and 7-series or S-class likewise have areas where they can compete.
My point is: the LS is an all-around excellent car and is competitive with many luxury models, German, Japanese or American.
I have to make one more request of the other editors of this page:when adding/deleting references, please synchronize the references with the footnotes so that a reference superscript's number corresponds to the same footnote number. Thanks, DonIncognito 00:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, they should correpond with each other, but I'll double check. You're right about the competitors, the DTS, TC, Q45, S-Class and 7-Series are all compeititors. As Toyota intended the LS competes with a wide range of flagship luxo cars. Thanks for your input. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: First spell my name right, Mr. Samuel Stayton. Yes they are competitors, just in case I added references from intellichoice. Also Sam, you added a lot more POV to this article than I did, in German we have saying: "Clean your own rug before you clean that of others. Okay? I'm not trying to be assertive but you know... Signaturebrendel 18:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of references

message: No, you misunderstood, the mainly-US sold only applies to the LS, TC, TL, and Q-thus making them similar. I Agree with you Bravada that the Q is by far the most similar. I also agree that the TC is one of its kind, the Fleetwood Burgham was last similar car, though some press releases state the DTS, a FWD uni-body, to be similar. Anyways, in this case it is possible to list all five similar cars, as these are luxo flagships and not mainstream mid-sizers. There are only five car that have RWD, are full-size with V8s and are the flagships of a luxo marque. It is possible to list all five. Now you can say let's only count uni-bodies, that eliminates the TC. Then we can say lets eliminate those cars whose brands were not conceived as being luxury that eliminates the BMW (a preformance brand originally). So we could say lets only list the XJ, S-Class, and Q as they are: RWD, full-size, unibody, V8, flaghsips of marques conceived to tend to the luxury market. (well, MB has been tending to the luxo market before anyone else, so... I think that would work). BTW: Isn't the XJ made with an Aluminum body or something, if so, perhaps we should discount the XJ instead of the 7-Series. To sum up here is my compromise:
#Exclude the TC as it is body-on-frame
#Exclude the XJ as it is Aluminum or exclude the 7-Series because BMW was not initialy a luxo make as Lexus, Inifniti, etc...
So we can either list the
Q, S-Class, and XJ or under the provisions above, list the Q, S-Class, and 7-Series.
How about that?Signaturebrendel 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is even more of a foot-in-mouth than trying to argue that all five cars listed (you seem to conveniently forget about the Quattroporte) are equally "similar" while A8 and Phaeton are not. What is indisputable is that the Infiniti Q is by far the most similar. All the other can be argued to be similar in this way or another, but this is always by using some awkward and/or disputable criteria. I'd say let's leave the Infiniti Q alone and stop going over and over again about something that is not worth the time and effort. Also, a one-item "similar" list could serve as a good example for all those cars that contain a Consumer Guide listing in the infobox that you can actually have just one entry in the "similar" field and that's fine too! Bravada, talk - 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, including only the Q is fine with me. The Quattraporte is in a whole another segment in the US, up there with the Bentley. What do you mean "you seem to conveniently forget?" Uhhh... ;-) You said some POV is neccesary. Okay, there is some POV in those exclusion guidelines. The Pheaton and A8 are exclude because they arn't RWD (are they?). The Pheaton can also be excluded as it is not made by a luxo marque. But you're right you can make up nearly any criteria to fit any configuration of luxo cars as being similar. That said I'm fine with having only the Q on there, but other user seem to differ from our consensus. Also, aside from the Q which is more similar than all others, the remaining four are not "equally 'similar'" but it takes "some awkward and/or disputable criteria" to rank them. So, as I said, lets just leave it at the Q. (Hmmm, sounds catchy) Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't add the Q45 as its only similar vehicle ever again.  The Q45 is discontinued. -- Bull-Doser 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Compromise

message: Hi, I just nominated this article for good article under self nominations, since I have contributed quite a bit to it over time. Signaturebrendel 01:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a more thorough and well-written article than most auto articles. I'm planning to put some time into the Lexus GS article; while it has a decent amount of information, I think it could use a bit of organization and maybe a bit more technical info. Great contributions, by the way. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no references (GA criterion number 5).  Slambo (Speak) 15:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your peer review, I'll take them into consideration and will make various improvements to the article in the next few days. FYI: I moved a copyyour review into the review section. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: A lot of work still needs to be done to make this a GA. There are very few and missing citations all over the place for one. Also, I am not a fan of the future section. It also seems out of date. I would go over everything said about the article at WP:GA/D and cover the comments made there. Just an outsider's POV. KnightLago 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted 7 citation needed tags, and citation #4 does not work in the future section KnightLago 02:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted as GA

message: This article has improved a lot; thus I am inclined to think that it may be time for a GA renomination. What do think? Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give me some time to review it, I can't answer at the moment. I am afraid though that I can see already that the use some of the copyrighted images cannot be rationalized, and that can be a major problem. The comments about trivia and awards also hold true. Bravada, talk - 04:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay-the more input the better! Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renom?

message: I am not very familiar with the Japanese market, but looking at the Celsior image on the article I couldn't help but notice the cloth seats, causing me to question the vehicle's position within the market. I guess my question is whether or not the Celsior is should be mention as a related vehicle or in the aka space. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 22:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks that's the answer I needed. That means we will definitely keep the Celsior in the related space and out of the aka space. As I understand it the Crown was the related to the LS 400, the Clesior related to the LS 430 and the new LS 460, is the LS everywhere. Alrighty... SignaturebrendelNow under review! 05:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  aka Celsior 

message: I was wondering whether UF10, UF20 etc is preferred...I have seen UCF10, UCF20, UCF30 etc used elsewhere. Enigma3542002 03:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vehicle codes?