Talk:Car classification

message: How is a VW Passat in this class?  It should be in the 'Large family car/mid-size car' section at best.. DivideBYZero69 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Executive car/mid-luxury car

message: I'm thinking this page is getting rather out of control and needs to be tightened up quite a bit, or it's going to become way too general and will include too much info that should be on pages pointed to by this page. I'm thinking about how to proceed.  —Morven 06:39, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: needs to be tightened up

message: In North America there's a fairly clear distinction between high-priced sports-luxury cars (BMW 3-series, Jaguar XJ, Saab 9-3, etc.) and "mainstream" cars (e.g. Honda Accord, Chevrolet Impala, Ford Focus, etc.). As I understand it, however, this distinction isn't so clear in Europe (where you can buy inline-4 powered 3-series' which compete with Ford and VW models for example). How should the article reflect this?
I also noticed there aren't any North American examples under Family Cars (except the Accord which is completely different in North America), which is why the confusion isn't yet evident. It simply wouldn't make sense to group the Chevrolet Cavalier with the Volvo S40, although as currently structured that's what the article would suggest...
Any ideas? -- stewacide 14:28, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports, luxury, and mainstream cars

message: What in the freak is a "saloon". I thought it had four doors. Does it mean a car with a roof? If so, the term is kind of antiquated to describe a sports coupe, for example. I changed it to Sedan. Alos the classification at the top sucks. It should be moved further down. CJ DUB 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the freak is a "sedan"? Just because you use a different word to describe it, does not mean that you should change it to your choice of word from that which it was. Just because you would prefer a more NA centric view of the world does not make it a suitable edit. If you wish to change it, please discuss which Wikipedia policy it was in contravention of before doing so. Nasty 21:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A sedan has a fixed definition; saloon car does not. Lets call everything a saloon then. That's not precise. Sedan is interchangeable with "Four-Door Saloon". So I'm suggested that. You can fix it. I never suggested a NA view, I favour a world view. At this time the page is too eurocentric, especially with regard to the examples. For instance, the link from "Sports Saloon" main article didn't go anywhere, until I changed it to "Sports sedan", then presto-change-o, it works. Also, you say MR2 is a Cabrio? Funny. Its a targa, like Porsche's designations: Coupe, Cabrio, Targa. CJ DUB 02:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if you look up the Oxford English Dictionary, you'll find a definition for saloon. Therefore, I don't see what is more precise about using sedan over saloon. The only reason to do so is to change the page to a more NA centric view. I think that you will find that the latest MR2 is actually a cabrio, though earlier versions were targas. If you can point me at the wikipedia policy that the page violated before you "fixed" it, I'll leave it as is. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to revert it back to its original language. If you really feel strongly about having a page which uses a more NA centric view (and lets be honest, that is why you changed it), write one and have two pages, the original and a "Car classification (North America)" page. It should allow for the fact that we would often use the exact same terms to refer to different types of car and we classify cars differently. Nasty 08:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  What am I saying? This page isn't Eurocentric at all. Haha. Almost all the examples are cars available in England (possibly available as some iteration in europe, Opel, etc.). I was not aware of the new MR2 Spyder, (god that's an ugly car). Cars are classified differently in the two main market areas, I have experience with both. I propose making a table for each description with Euro models and NA models. If you think I am so keen on making the page fit my North American standard then you are very short-sighted. Having saloon and not acknowledging "sedan" (especially when it is the more common) is also shortsighted, espcially when, saloon means a "closed automobile with a separate boot". Probably the most ambiguous definition I have heard, meaning Lamborghini Gallardo, Morris Minor, and Ford Mustang all have the same classification. Btw. I added the SUV catgories because they are a reality, not cause i'm a NA redneck. This can be a good page. But simply saying "our system of organizing cars is better in Europe" is not going to get you anywhere and certainly not to the level of Wikipedia standard, because people will keep editing it. CJ DUB 18:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was eurocentric, but that is no reason to change it to NA-centric. The new MR2 is ugly. I think that it would be a good idea to have Europe and Rest of World tables, giving examples for both. A saloon is loosely described as above, but in reality most people view a saloon as a car with 4 seats, a fixed roof, boot, and steeply raked rear windscreen, though there are some exceptions (original Volkswagen Beetle is a saloon). I would just like to point out, that just changing it to an NA centric view is no imporvement and just because it uses eurocentric language is no reason to change it. Nasty 20:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saloon 

message: :This discussion began at Talk:Vehicle size class
The present article (Car classification) and Vehicle size class contain much of the same information, and by keeping them separate we risk information becoming out-of-synch. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger by reason of duplication

message: Typically classified as utes or trucks/pickups, depending on whether they are based on a car-like unibody or truck chassis. SUV's are listed on the car index, even though many of them are built on what is technically a truck chassis. There needs to be some form of cross reference and clarification.
--Pauljs75 07:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a real problem throughout automotive articles on Wikipedia in use of the words 'car' and 'automobile' (which actually means "car").  We don't have an English word that means: "Cars and light trucks and SUV's - but not 18-wheeled trucks and not motorbikes and maybe not golf carts".  It is necessary then to be a little generous and/or flexible when using the word "car" and to allow things like light trucks and SUV's to creep into those articles.  I'm open to other suggestions - but we've talked this to death over on Talk:Automobile and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and nobody has a better solution. SteveBaker 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also like 90% of all people type car types/classes or car classification when they search this term and not automobile classification or vehicle classification, because vehicle also mean non-wheeled craft or bike etc. Car is a general term for all wheeled passenger road going vehicles, so it seams to me, it is ok to include SUVs, those are also type of cars in general scheme of things.IEEE (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open bed vehicles and light truck/SUV clarification 

message: The model examples lists are getting too big. If the reader wants to see more examples, then go to the relevant article or category, or just click on the list of recent models by type. We should keep three or five models for each classification, and I would even suggest to convert the bullet lists to prose text. What do you say? -- NaBUru38 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thinned the examples down to three per class a while back, but like many things on wikipedia they grew back without me noticing.  I would just cut them down again trying to leave a few examples that show the range of a particular class. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll prune these down myself just now. --DeLarge 11:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - three per class is about right.  I added a third City Car - so now there are three of every class. SteveBaker (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for a shorter list of models 

message: The article doesn't make clear what the 'Segment' column in the table at the top of the article means.  Is that the EuroNCAP name or something? SteveBaker (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's used in many European countries, although it seems not by the general public. You can figure it out: each country has many languages, and each one has different terms. I've heard Argentine motor journalists using it too. Articles in other Wikipedias also feature the A-F segmentos: :de:Fahrzeugklasse, :es:Clasificación de automóviles (I wrote most it, of course), :fr:Segment automobile, :nl:Autoklasse, :pl:Szablon:Autosegmenty, :ru:Классификация легковых автомобилей по размеру. It seems that the French sometimes change C and D to M1 and M2 (moyenne) and E anf F with H1 and H2 (haute). In many places, they use even more letters for off-roaders, minivans, sports cars and vans. -- NaBUru38 (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the 'Segment' names? 

message: I've added the Original Research tab to the table as it seems to be taken for granted that it shows some universally agreed set of relationships. It doesn't which is the reason half the links in it are redirects rather than stand alone pages. Different cars are grouped together for different reasons and they vary even within national boundaries, this whole categorization thing is subjective and because of that, varies from source to source. It is nice to have a comparative chart, but not when it doesn't have a single reference to support it's validity. My own view is that it should not be used on any other page (if at all).Mighty Antar (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: I think there should be a classification for speedsters in addition to roadsters. Although there are many cars of a roadster design named or branded as speedsters, true speedsters are generally characterized by an "open-wheel" design with no erectable roof or soft top, and a low profile or even non-existent windshield. Two examples include the Callaway C16 Speedster and Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren Stirling Moss. The Porsche 550 Spyder could also be considered a speedster despite the fact that Porsche named it a spyder. It is possible the terminology did not exist at the time Porsche produced the car.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.77.143 (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedster Classification 

message: Very large cars for Russia and Middle East market than other area?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia and Middle East? 

message: OMG, now that's some funny stuff. Wow. 96.238.148.17 (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Car show class definitions

message: Hi, here is an explanation for the changes:
# The definition of "sports car" isn't clear, it's more a loosely-defined marketing term.
# "Muscle car" and "Pony car" are most commonly used to describe American cars.
# Structure: Hatchbacks, sedans and station wagons are separate classes, I don't see the reason to group them. Also, "hot hatch" is better located within "hatchbacks".
# Unreferenced "car show class definitions" section removed.
Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2012 changes 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Car classification's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Hilliers":
From Station wagon: 
From Hatchback: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that there are no differences in the quoted text. Only minor things in the format of the actual reference itself. CZmarlin (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Car classification]] 

message: This is a term I hear a lot - where does it fit? Tilapidated (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: smart car

message: I have the idea of separating the examples into two categories Historic examples and Modern examples, before I edit this article, I would like to know if anyone has any thoughts on this idea. 
Seqqis (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Separating Examples

message: 4 May
82.1.229.3 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit request doesn't have any actual change request. If you are interested in making formerly rejected changes (the very reason that this page is semi-protected) please use this talk page to explain and discuss your changes and why they should be made. Contentious changes should generally only be done with consensus WP:EP. Nasty (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 4 May 2013 

message: Yeah, sorry. But the Porsche Panamera was never meant to be a full-size luxury car. It is considered an alternative to the Lincoln MKS in Europe. So, I think the Panamera should be in a class where the Avalon, Taurus, etc. are at. --2602:306:CDB2:4130:5850:9BFC:F6EB:D9F7 (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How do reliable sources classify it? Bahooka (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy is just a troll ignore it. It goes around claiming all sorts of front-wheel drive cars are the "same" as completely unrelated RWD models. It goes under several different AT&T IP addresses from Texas. This troll is annoyingly editing cars based on what it "thinks" must be right without third party sourcing or even just common sense as justification. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Lame. Is this the best you can do? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porsche Panamera a luxury car? 

message: Hello, I am a journalist, so I write about any cars and any brands and I noticed some errors in this article.
1/ For example, a huge error in an article explaining precisely what are the cars segments, it that the Fiat 500 is NOT a supermini/subcompact car, but a 3 doors only CITY CAR that is 45cm shorter (13% !), 11cm less wide than a classical subcompact : the first Fiat 500 & the Mini were described as "micro-city-car" 40 years ago, known today as "city cars" : official segments for Fiat 500 is A0 and now the classic Mini is A1 (Mini countryman can be put in the B segment = subcompact). I work with constructors associations and their data, and the Fiat 500 is definitely NOT in the same segment than Opel Corsa = subcompact.
2/ If you say "Renault Clio" or "Peugeot 208", then 3 billions people UNDERSTAND IMMEDIATELY WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE SUBCOMPACT SEGMENT, because they have been SOLD FROM 10 MILLIONS TO 20 MILLIONS IN AT LEAST 80 COUNTRIES. The same for Citroen C4, Peugeot 308, Renault Mégane, Renault Scénic, Renault Duster etc. These cars should appears in the table obviously and also text parts. Renault Scénic, Citroen C4 Picasso etc. are not cited whereas they are more sold than Opel Meriva that is yet cited ? Not logical. Mathematics are neutral. The same for Peugeot 5008, more sold than Opel Zafira Tourer (long version of Zafira). Etc.
As example : in 2011 in the world : 26 Renault Clio 460,805 sales; 27 Opel Astra 457957; 35 Buick Excelle 388,657
Is there any fair reasons to prevent to cite these cars that are sold in large quantities ?
4/ Some cars that are NOT PRODUCED for almost 30 YEARS are cited like Peugeot 304 (now it is 308) or Citroën Saxo VTR, whereas citing the Citroen DS3 Racing that won recently 4 World Rally Championships, and the Peugeot 208 that won the Pikes Peak race in USA in 2013 would be relevant, for example.
5/ May I add and correct this article without having my modifications removed ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the consensus is that we should have 3 examples. I believe and I feel the consensus is that the examples should reflect the diversity within each classification, which includes the historical and even less popular examples. The article is an international one and should reflect this in the examples. If you have better examples, please make the changes and explain them in the edit summary (probably best to do one edit for each change). Making sure that the examples do not particularly favour one group of cars (by nationality, market, era, etc.) would probably be a good idea too. Nasty (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a mess. Having previously been Eurocentric (reading through the talk page) it is now dominated by US thinking on car classification. The plain fact is that Americans think of cars (and classify them) completely differently to everybody else, because of their different automobile history and cultural preference for huge gas guzzling vehicles. It's simply impossible to produce a single internationalized article which categorizes different cars in an uncontentious way. We need separate articles, with North America and the rest of the world as an absolute minimum. It was hilarious reading comments from an American editor who clearly had no idea what a 'saloon car' was :) --Ef80 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only reason any Americans know what a saloon is is because of Top Gear.  I know that's true for me, anyways... I started reading this talk page because I was annoyed with euro-centric car classifications listed on the individual car pages.  For this purpose it would be simpler if we had entirely separate wikipedia sites for each country... not really sure how to solve this.  The only thing that comes to mind is listing classifications for each country/zone on each car's wiki page as well as splitting up lists of car types.  Having the table here that maps them between zones would be helpful still. Nathan (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors and limitations in the Car classification article 

message: I am trying to make the car list more presentable by listing under titles by usage then car shape and size. If you want o remain a mess the it should be deleted. If you disagree with what car type under what tile then you can change it with a good reason. Lukeblake (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  improving car list  

message: Presentation of different models from the world has to be fair and representative. 
Full-size luxury / Grand saloon
See also: Luxury vehicle and F-segment
Jaguar XJ
Also known as full-size luxury cars, grand saloons, or premium large cars, while "Oberklasse" is used in Germany. Typically a four-door saloon (sedan). These are the most powerful saloons, with six, eight and twelve-cylinder engines and have more equipment than smaller models. Vehicles in this category include some of the models from the flagship lines of luxury car brands, as Cadillac CT6[20], Lincoln Continental and Maserati Quattroporte.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.177.139 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact you wanted to bring some kind of balance to the article through mere examples really made me uncomfortable. As you say that you have the knowledge, I think it would be better if you make some work improving the article first, changing the examples as part of an overall improvement process. As it seems, you do have the intention to make changes in the article, so I'll try to bring the attention of more editors towards this issue to know their opinions. In the past, the people changing the examples have been limiting their edits here to just doing that, without bringing real improvements, and the examples have been a source of edit warring for a long time. I didn't add any of the examples used here (you can check that on the article's revision history), but I prefer to keep the version that is somewhat stable. If you simply add the examples you like, it will be carte blanche to more edit warring... --Urbanoc (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: When you add supporting references, could you take care to do them similar to other references in the article. A bare URL isn't that much help to a reader when the link breaks in the future (as they inevitably do). Whereas a reference with the author, title and date can be typed into a search engine and its new home can be found. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  23:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving representation of different varieties / Luxury cars  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Car classification. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041101190606/http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/10000/10000/10041/096ppr.pdf to http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/10000/10000/10041/096ppr.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is "car" the appropriate name for an article that classifies vehicles that include trucks, SUVs and vans? Springee (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Trucks are covered at Truck classification. SUVs and vans are cars. This article was created at car classification, and the main article is at car. The common name is 'car classification'. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then why are they covered in this article? Springee (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be because there is some overlap between cars and trucks, and because that distinction is often based on commercial v. private usage? 06:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldn't it be better if we had just one article that covered basically all "light passenger vehicles" rather than just a subset that somehow includs non-cars? Springee (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the common name of this subject is 'car classification'. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  That didn't mean much since you don't know the context of those references.  Are you counting books that use the term to classify both cars and trucks or just types of cars (sedan, wagon, etc)?  Perhaps we should use common sense here.  Either "cars" means all light passenger vehicles (pickups included) or it's "cars" only.  Springee (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this article covers trucks and vans should it be called "Car Classifications"? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Car classification's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "roadandtrack.com":
From Sports car: 
From Hot hatch: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mr/Ms Bot. Your first guess is correct! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Car classification]] 

message: The criteria used to determine which examples should be used need to be explicitly enumerated. In fitting with the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for a global audience, I think that the following are a starting point:
* Diversity - the examples should demonstrate the diversity of examples within any given classification. This includes diversity of country of origin/market, body style/shape, era, etc. There is no need for all examples to be current and examples should reflect the global nature of Wikipedia.
* Notability - the examples should favour notable over less significant examples. Some examples essentially defined the class and as such should probably exist in the list of examples. Such may not be the first car to actually fit the criteria for that class.
* Accuracy - cars which may not be widely accepted as examples of a class should generally be left out.
Hopefully we can come to a consensus so that future reverts will be fewer and less likely to be redone. Nasty (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples discussion 2021 

message: As per the heading, there seems to be an awful lot of WP:OR and personal opinion in this article. Complete sections with no references at all to back up various statements, which may or may not be true! 46.69.29.124 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research! 

message: IMO this article should cover the taxonomies, not particular focus on the categories within.
The current sections 'Minivans', 'Luxury', 'Sports' (etc) are all categories of particular taxonomies that should be covered in this article, whatever they may found to be. These taxonomies should be the headed sections. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope