Talk:Subaru Impreza

message: The 4th gen section has no mention of the now-released WRX and STi variants.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.49.122 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 4th gen WRX/STi

message: This article needs merging with Impreza, probably. There are too many Impreza pages in the Subaru category!
Andrewferrier 15:27, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
I think this has been done.  Impreza now redirects here. --SportWagon 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can you say Subaru 360, Subaru Justy ?  And the Legacy isn't "large".  Do they mean precise "compact" versus "sub-compact" or "micro" or something?  Or is the claim just plain wrong?--SportWagon 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Entry into Small Car Market? 

message: "The basic turbocharged motor, the EJ20, produces 211 bhp."
 
The "EJ20" was the single overhead camshaft engine with either 8 valves (88) or 16 valves.
The "EJ20T" was the twincam 16 valve turbo which produced upwards of 180HP
-------------------------------------------
Actually, EJ20 is a block designation, it has nothing to do with the heads or turbo.
^^^ Don't forget to sign! EJ22T is different block to the non T model, with design considerations made for Turbo-charging. It was used before the 97-99 redesign. Daniellis89 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct engine designation. 

message: Would it be possible when adding / changing images that the full spec is included in the image name or comment, including the region.  -- Jbattersby 11:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Shouldn't there be a separate page for the RS just like the WRX and STi? --Arun 23:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate page for RS? 

message: At one time (5 years ago) it was difficult to find die-cast replicas of Imprezas, or Subarus in general.  There are far more available now, however, both as collectibles and pure toy variety (I myself sometimes find the latter more "collectible", but anyway...).  IMHO the new section says little of interest (toy and collectible replicas are made of most successful automobiles), and is nowhere near complete.  I mean, they don't even mention AutoArt. (And yet a complete list would probably be off-topic for the article).--SportWagon 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very difficult to find in the US. Yes, there is some controversy over whether collectibles should even be allowed in WP, but who is to  say whether a Subara Impreza is notable, but a Choro Q Impreza is not, as there are certainly articles on types of toys, and certainly individual cars such as the Hot Wheels beach bomb. I would advocate not following those who seek to delete all topics they do not deem of interest, and err on the side of including more information, rather than less. --matador300 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete the Collectibles Section? 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention that the 2.5L engine used in the USDM STi is the EJ257, and the 2.0L JDM and EDM versions are the EJ205?
:Of course it should. USDM STI's enigne designation is EJ257. I corrected it twice yet some moron keeps changing it to EJ25.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.104.213 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if you had cited a source or even at least used an edit comment the first two times it wouldn't have been misidentified as vandalism.  Also note that personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. swaq 19:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine Designations 

message: There's a silly amount of external links here, mostly to fan sites and other non-encyclopedic sources.  Can someone take a look a tidy them up? StopItTidyUp 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link-Fest

message: I think I've seen Impreza's used in road course racing. 67.188.172.165 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Road Course

message: For the 2008 model it's said the base model have a 1.5L engine, that doesn't sound right, I'm fairly sure 2.5 was intended.
:Nope, 1.5 litres is correct. In Japan the new Impreza comes as a 15S (1.5 litre), 20S (2.0 litre) and S-GT (2.0 litre, turbo).  Paul Fisher 06:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error for 2008 model? 

message: talk about fuel efficiency of Subaru Impreza models?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.138.245 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel Economy 

message: The very first Impreza had a very strange grill partially closed off with a plastic panel. It didn't last very long, but does pre-date the more open type shown in the 1st generation images in this article.  Can anybody find a picture of the original?  Paul Fisher 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean this or something even older? IFCAR 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not it. Even older, I think. Paul Fisher 13:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a sketch of the original 1992 styling. . And here is a picture I found through Google  A photo of this model would be a significant addition to the article. Paul Fisher (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. We never had that in the US. IFCAR (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First generation - image 

message: The blue impreza doesn't do the article any favors and it is now 2008. I hope the old image doesn't have a fan and tries to defend his vehicles image with the old one. Maybe someone will upload a nicer image of the latest impreza, just anything but the bug eyes blue sedan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddike (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think the bugeye WRX should be illustrated in the article? And there's no reason whatsoever that the newest image should be at head, particularly when it isn't of high quality and puts redundancy in the article. IFCAR (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bugeye can be illustrated somewhere in the article to show design history, but it shouldn't be the first image when the article first appears. I welcome anyone who wants to upload a better version of the newest model as a lead image. The bugeye is no longer built.(Dddike (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter which is being built. Only one infobox describes the current generation, the head infobox describes the entire line and can be illustrated with any version. IFCAR (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the reader has found this article due to "googling" the vehicle name to research the vehicle for a new car purchase, but doesn't know what the new car looks like, and chose Wikipedia instead of the manufacturers website first, I think the first image shown should be the current version. I realize that there are hundereds of articles currently written that do not show the latest version of that vehicle, regardless if the vehicle is still in production. Do you currently have an emotional attachment to the bugeye vehicle?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddike (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's stupid. It doesn't matter if you think the head image should be the newest, because there is clear policy and precedent that it should be the best image, not the newest, and there is absolutely no reason to have the same image twice in the same article to accommodate your irrational desire to make Wikipedia the top source for someone who Googles Wikipedia to find out what the current Impreza looks like and won't read the article. IFCAR (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I understand; this is a photo of your car and you are emotionally attached to the image. My appologies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddike (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "UK spec 2005 Impreza." That's mine all right. Never mind the fact that my profile page says that I live in the US and drive a minivan. Nice thought though. IFCAR (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Leading Image

message: I've reverted to the version that seems more correct (dates mesh with filenames) and has more references.  It would be great if both of you would discuss your differences instead of reverting each other as vandalism. -- BillWeiss | Talk 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Material was removed legitimately after having been fact-tagged for months.  GoldDragon is trying to reinsert it as part of a larger edit (the rest of which is legitimate).  I will remove the offending material only, not reverting the entire edit, but he has to stop reinserting the material unless he is going to provide a source.  AverageGuy (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the diff from my revert (here), especially the last diff section, you'll see a reference that you were removing.  It looks like that's the reference for what you're removing.  Disagree? -- BillWeiss | Talk 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:GoldDragon]] and [[User:AverageGuy]] reverts 

message: At the beginning of this article, one sees links immediately to the WRX, WRX STI, and Outback. Is this really necessary? It just strikes me as odd in comparison to other articles about car models. I know they're very important, but I think it would be more fitting to be placed somewhere in the main text, perhaps before the Contents. RotisserieEngine (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No they dont belong there, should be changed  --Typ932 T·C 08:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links at the beginning of the article 

message: Atleast in the Finnish Subaru site you can "order" a diesel version already, 
*2.0 TD 2,0 TD 110/150/3600
*2.0 TD-S 2,0 TD 110/150/3601 (Sport)
So the article is very outdated with the "Diesel" section in the third generation. The infobox could be updated with the 2.0 liter Diesel as well, or is it only US-centic, as it does not even list the 1.5 L version for Japan and Europe? --Pudeo' 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please update the information about Diesel engine options available for the Impreza as Europe seems to be the only source of information. (Regushee (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that, I also added 1.5 L and 2.0 L engines to the infobox. The 2.0 L 150 hp can cover the turbodiesel as well, as according to Subaru they're both the same 2.0 L and 150 hp. --Pudeo' 00:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diesel 

message: The article stated:
:"Impreza" is a coined word, deriving from an originally Polish word, meaning a party.
:''
Sorry, but Polish dictionary is not a proof. Do you know what Ford Kuga means in Serbo-Croatian? Here's The answer. So, please give as a source, preferably from Subaru, which states the origin of the name. No such user (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name 

message: If the Outback was crying out to be merged into the Legacy, why not do the same for the Impreza. It would make navigating through the WRX and STi versions so much easier, the logic used for the Outback and Legacy merger (Regushee (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally feel that this made the Outback article harder to navigate through and damaged the integrity of that article, but that is not the reason for my opposition. My reason for the opposition is that these three vehicles have completely different engines, bodywork, and are not updated at the same time (they do not always share the same generations for the same year). MarcusHookPa (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bodywork is the same (new plastic bumpers are not new bodywork; the body pressings are still the same). We will need to split the Impreza article into generations to accommodate the mergers as the detail will make the main page too long. Once the non-encyclopaedic content (overly-detailed specs, marketing puffery, etc) are pruned from the WRX and STI pages, the content will be much more manageable and should fit into the generational articles very nicely. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Amendment 1.1: MarcusHookPa has suggested that the Saab 9-2X be merged as well, so I would like to add this to the above proposal. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I can confirm that Marcus is correct. The current generation does not have "Impreza" badging in most markets—the USA and Canda are exceptions to this. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, the WRX is now sold without the Impreza badge in the UK too, but of course it still is an Impreza.<B>Warren</B> (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Wow Marcus, I'm impressed. And you've already started the merger! OSX (talk • contributions) 10:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, hopefully we can rub out the rough edges with that one soon. There wasn't much to work with, but I feel that we may be able to get this done by the end of the week at this rate. Thank you, MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Things are starting to flow a little better now. I'm really stuck with what to do with all the WRX variants though. Any suggestions because that section is still a mess? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Don't you think that would just a little too long? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I have merged the lot now. I managed to get it all into two articles: the main Impreza page, plus Subaru Impreza (second generation). There was simply too much information on the second generation to cram it all into the main page (and that includes the Saab 9-2X as well). By pruning the contents of the first generation WRX and STI down, I think that section is now of reasonable length and we can probably go without a separate page for this series. Likewise, the third generation section is not all that long so I don't think we need to consider a separate page for that generation yet (and I have yet to go through and slim down this section). If anyone wants to salvage the motorsport information from the old WRX and STI pages, feel free, but they were simply to messy to warrant inclusion. This information needs to be made more encyclopaedic before we consider restoring it though. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article looks like crap now.  All of the formerly easy to read spec information on the old standalone STI page has been squashed into a couple of paragraphs. 24.16.226.233 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Due to the sheer number of Impreza variants released, we can not reasonably include weights in the infobox. This is something that is going to have to be (and has been) relegated to the prose. Powertrain tables for each generation would fix up your concerns with respect to the engines, and allow details such as power outputs that were cut from the infobox to be restored to this article. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really have to agree that the current article is something of a structural mess ... there are just too many different models in the Impreza line to allow for the creation of a single, coherent article.  While it would be overkill to construct separate articles for each Impreza generation, the Crosstrek is definitely distinct enough to merit a separate article, and it might also be logical to create a separate article for the WRX/STI "sport" variants. Pitamakan (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Pulling the "band-aid" and suggesting various articles shoud be merged into Impreza

message: Have an umbrella article titled Subaru Impreza with the following sub-pages:
* Subaru Impreza (first generation) — including the regular model, WRX, WRX STI, and Outback Sport
* Subaru Impreza (second generation) — including the regular model, WRX, WRX STI, and Outback Sport
* Subaru Impreza (third generation) — including the regular model, WRX, WRX STI, and Outback Sport
* When the fourth generation becomes detailed enough, then Subaru Impreza (fourth generation) can be created.
* Subaru Impreza in motorsport — for all the race-related information that is in significant detail.
The WRX and WRX STI pages would be turned into a single disambiguation article, akin to Subaru Outback. And to quash any concerns that the next generation WRX will be an independent model separate from the Impreza; that is true, but the new car will be migrating to the "Subaru WRX" nameplate, completely eschewing the Impreza title and allowing a new Subaru WRX page to exist. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Amendment 1.1: MarcusHookPa has suggested that the Saab 9-2X be merged as well, so I would like to add this to the above proposal. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm that Marcus is correct. The current generation does not have "Impreza" badging in most markets—the USA and Canda are exceptions to this. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, the WRX is now sold without the Impreza badge in the UK too, but of course it still is an Impreza.<B>Warren</B> (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Wow Marcus, I'm impressed. And you've already started the merger! OSX (talk • contributions) 10:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, hopefully we can rub out the rough edges with that one soon. There wasn't much to work with, but I feel that we may be able to get this done by the end of the week at this rate. Thank you, MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Things are starting to flow a little better now. I'm really stuck with what to do with all the WRX variants though. Any suggestions because that section is still a mess? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Don't you think that would just a little too long? OSX (talk • contributions) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I have merged the lot now. I managed to get it all into two articles: the main Impreza page, plus Subaru Impreza (second generation). There was simply too much information on the second generation to cram it all into the main page (and that includes the Saab 9-2X as well). By pruning the contents of the first generation WRX and STI down, I think that section is now of reasonable length and we can probably go without a separate page for this series. Likewise, the third generation section is not all that long so I don't think we need to consider a separate page for that generation yet (and I have yet to go through and slim down this section). If anyone wants to salvage the motorsport information from the old WRX and STI pages, feel free, but they were simply to messy to warrant inclusion. This information needs to be made more encyclopaedic before we consider restoring it though. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article looks like crap now.  All of the formerly easy to read spec information on the old standalone STI page has been squashed into a couple of paragraphs. 24.16.226.233 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Due to the sheer number of Impreza variants released, we can not reasonably include weights in the infobox. This is something that is going to have to be (and has been) relegated to the prose. Powertrain tables for each generation would fix up your concerns with respect to the engines, and allow details such as power outputs that were cut from the infobox to be restored to this article. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really have to agree that the current article is something of a structural mess ... there are just too many different models in the Impreza line to allow for the creation of a single, coherent article.  While it would be overkill to construct separate articles for each Impreza generation, the Crosstrek is definitely distinct enough to merit a separate article, and it might also be logical to create a separate article for the WRX/STI "sport" variants. Pitamakan (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 1.0 

message: Okay, where is the first generation?  I know Impreza's were made in the 80's.  I am really confused.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookster451 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confusing this car with the older Subaru Leone. Impreza production started in 1992. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing generation? 

message: I see that in the past several articles for Impreza were merged, and understand that reasoning... However, I'm sure many of us are aware the WRX is it's own model now. So... What to do?
Proposal 1:
Separate Article for WRX. Pull all the meat of the WRX stuff in there, and reference back to Impreza article when necessary. Likewise, in the Impreza article, mention the WRX, but no specifics.
Pros:
- Both articles contain all the important information, and are relatively thorough.
Cons:
- Maintenance. lots of duplicated information and crosslinking.
Proposal 2:
Separate article for WRX (not to be confused with the former Impreza WRX). Simply start with the 2015 model. In history, mention the Impreza article and that they used to be the same model. also highlight the differences from the Impreza to establish the new platform. (truthfully, I don't know how different it is, but know that a lot of different "model" subarus are very similar e.g. 1999 Forester and Impreza.)
Pros:
- Accurately matches the current branding.
- Little initial work to be done.
Cons:
- That Will make the WRX article pretty short, but that's fine for now I think. Many readers if not most will have to navigate to the Impreza article to get older info.
- Also, over time that Impreza article will seem to have little relevance to the WRX.
As it stands, the current structure is ok, but somewhere down the road this will have to be addressed. I think this will please a lot of people who liked the separate articles in the past too i.e. the performance crowd versus practical shoppers.
Other suggestions are welcome, so feedback would be great! AutumnWind 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what to do with the WRX right now. My inclination is to maintain the status quo, maybe look at revisiting the issue with the next generation. This is because as far as I know, the new 2014 WRX is not really a completely separate model. Yes, the front end (including fenders) is different. The rear fenders are also uniquely sculptured, plus the rear doors have had a subtle reskin with an upwards kink (but otherwise the same shape). However, it appears that the roof (including roofline/profile silhouette), front doors, boot lid and interior are common with the Impreza. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate WRX Article? 

message: In the section "First generation (1992–2000; GC, GF, GM)" it says:
 
"Trim levels were LX, GL and Sport generation. LX models were front-wheel drive, and powered by a 1.6 L engine; these were four-door only. GL trim levels were either front-wheel drive (Subaru badged these 2WD) or all-wheel-drive (badged AWD); cars launched in 1993 had a choice of 1.6 and 1.8 flat-4 engines, the 1.6 being available with 2WD, the 1.8 an AWD version only. From 1996, the 1.6 and 1.8 versions were dropped (in the European market), and replaced by a 2.0 L engine."
The LX models were available both with FWD and AWD, and were also available both 4-door and 5-door (hatchback). Thus the 1.6 engine was available with both FWD and AWD. Also the 1.6 was available at least until 1998. I cannot find any online sources for this though, and I've been searching for almost an hour. I do know there are many Impreza LX cars near me with the 1.6 engine and AWD. I even owned one ('98, LX, 1.6L, 5-door). Sedumacre (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The LX trim and the EJ16 engine 

message: This article is an absolute mess and very hard to read or skim for relevant info. There are also large sections that sound like they are written or copied from an auto magazine or something. I'm not a very experienced Wiki editor, so I'm not sure what the 'standard' template should be, but as it stands I find it incredibly hard to understand anything. Esoteridactyl (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messy 

message: According to the manufacturer's site, the dimensions listed for the 4th generation are incorrect. Is the company's own website an appropriate source? Ckoerner (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The link provided is for the WRX model. This is different to the regular Impreza. The manufacturer is fine for sourcing dimensions—feel free to add the numbers for the WRX. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th Generation Dimensions 

message: The WRX and Crosstrek redirect to here. They're two separate cars so I'm proposing a split. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:D0B9:3847:B5F:CCA6 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRX and Crosstrek 

message: Should the WRX STI be split into its own article, since the Subaru WRX exists as its own article? --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRX STI as separate? 

message: Good afternoon all,
Me and  have an image of a Subaru XV 5th gen that we are sorta arguing over.
It appears based on this, that he believes that his would be the better example as his is "...look nicer because it similar colour and angles..." however, while I agree with this statement, however coming back I did a second check and found the orange highlights are aftermarket (not factory fitted), because the wing mirrors are supposed to be body coloured even on the base model. I'm going to enlist  as he'd have more experience with this trivial matter.
I know mine is original because it retains the black bumpers and also has the body colour wing mirrors (not the orange highlights). Knowing Subarus, I can tell that  I can recrop the image if need be. Noticing Vauxford used to do his images tightly cropped, I learnt my crops through  & the 2017 method so thats why. Lets have a discussion and see which one of these would be the most suitable.  please see this discussion and input your thoughts. Until we have a discussion, this edit will remain. Okay, because we do not want this to become an edit war. Vauxford's Subaru image will be violating WP:CARPIX and therefore would not be suitable for use in the car articles --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you stop treating CARPIX like it some official policy. The orange trim for the grille is a official accessories from Subaru as shown: here. It very unlikely for a car that is less than a year old already been modified but I can't seem to find the orange covers for the bumper, skirt and wing mirrors which is odd. Reason why I thought it was all orignial because I know manufacturers such as DS do let you put additional colour trims as a option. --Vauxford (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry , but optional accessories do not really play a factor in replacing images. Again CARPIX is not the important issue at the moment.  The main issue is the wing mirrors and the bumpers which technically are aftermarket equipment. Again, this is relatable because my mum's X3 has the sports package so therefore there are plenty of unwanted accessories that detracts me from picturing her car :). Vauxford, some cars under six month old can be modified, but in your case the Subaru's wing mirrors and other accessories except for the winglets are aftermarket accessories. Such as in the case of , he uploaded an image of the green Mirage (pictured). This car was fitted with aftermarket accessories 1 week after being purchased. Some owners can be complete muppets. Also remember DS & Subaru are different companies so therefore they would have different rules relating to optional accessories. Check the company's official website before determining. Normally for me, I use the company's official website and also Carsales to help determine the accessories :)) Its not like its a bad image, but the orange accessories do not really work for the article. However, I do LOVE the Eclipse Cross, you have saved me plenty of time with your photo, but you should tweak the images to meet Wiki standards. Have a nice day --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better choice of XV image 

message: I've read through the split proposals on the Talk page, and it seems that the majority of people who replied support the split, so I am wondering as to why it hasn't happened.Eightsixofakina (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't be bothered to read it all again, but the proposal as laid down by R. J. Circus above seems logical and consistent with policies, even when those policies come into contradiction with each other. Go forth, Be Bold! I'll help out when I get the time. (I still think the Crosstrek entries belong in the requisite generational Impreza entries, but I am not about to get on any barricades over it)  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I went ahead and changed the WRX article from a redirect to a very basic stub article with lots still needed to be built on yet. I can't take the credit for the proposal as I was suggesting an idea someone else proposed early when the VA WRX was released. Expand on it how you will. — R. J. Circus – contribs - talk – 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Apparently it didn't work out as well as planned, as it's been reverted. Now I'm questioning if it's really wanted. Whatever; I'm not good at writing articles from scratch. If anyone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free. — R. J. Circus – contribs - talk – 01:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

text: As I've said earlier, the WRX article should focus mainly on the V* generation of the WRX, though briefly mentioning the Impreza-based G* generations. Honestly, I didn't consider just making a draft page as opposed to editing what was there and established already.— R. J. Circus – contribs - talk – 06:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

text: That makes sense. I could change the draft to just have the info from this article on the V* generations along with some information on the Impreza based models. Kk027 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

text:  I can merge it with the current WRX redirect myself if that's OK. kk027 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  So is the splitting of the article happening or not? 

message: Now that there is a separate article for the Crosstrek, is there any word on a separate WRX article? Eightsixofakina (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize i don't understand immediately, i open new trend. 5.90.232.9 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRX article 

message: The "all-new" "completely redesigned" 2024 Impreza is being unveiled on Nov. 17th at the LA Auto Show, meaning the final model year for the current (fifth) generation is 2023. Sixth generation section should be added after the unveiling, as seems to be custom. Luma834 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixth generation 

message: I want to division of wrx sti article and restore the old version of 2012 about 60 kb, which can be further expanded with subsequent generations. The WRX STi is an icon of both sports and rally cars in Motorsport and street legal versions, such as the Lancer EVO, BMW M3, Sierra Cosworth, Lotus Cortina, Lotus Omega, Civic Type R, 911 GT3, Lancia Delta HF and others; all of which have a separate article of their own. Will separate and restore the unbundling if there is no objection to it. 5.90.232.9 (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please get consensus for this first before moving again. I've changed the redirect to point to Subaru WRX which seems more appropriate now that we have a split article for that.OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored to stable question, in line with the outcome of the discussion. The preventive discussion (and is not obligatory open this) had been opened and has already taken place, in about 8 months no one has opposed it, proceeding with the result of the same has already been materialized by silent consent and WP:BOLD. If anyone wanted to oppose it, they had plenty of time providing adequate reasons and didn't do so. If you don't think this is appropriate, open a new and different trend and provides adequate reasons and justification to support your thesis.37.159.56.73 (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRX STi separation