Talk:Honda Ridgeline

message: regarding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honda_Ridgeline&diff=prev&oldid=64242351
it seems that there are numerous publications who believe the ridgeline is
the first pickup truck to receive independent suspension for all four wheels.
* http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/040505.html
* http://db.theautochannel.com/db/ncbg/list_makes.php?stylename=Pickup
* http://www.autoweek.com/files/specials/2005_detroit/honda/ridgeline/ridgeline_info.doc
was this statement removed because it is false?
Jrrs 06:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Suspension 

message: I saw this edit "11:37, 3 June 2006 68.106.47.223 (Talk) (Longer wheelbase and total length than Chevy Silverado makes the Ridgeline a full-size pickup)" and the field "Similar" listing Chevrolet Avalanche, Dodge Ram, Nissan Titan, & Toyota Tundra and feel this is incorrect.  My Chevy 2003 s-10 crew cab 4X4 has a 123" wheelbase, so is my s-10 full size too?  I think another qualifier needs to be used for class or compare crew cab to crew cab not silverado 2 door to 4 door crew cab as the key classifier.  
:Until someone comes up with an authoritative entry on Wikipedia designating sizes of trucks, I must contest that this truck is, in fact, a full-size pickup.  The Ridgeline is bigger than the Toyota T100 (which, according to Wikipedia, is designated as a full-size pickup).  Sorry about your "feeling," but the dimensions don't lie, and this truck is within a few inches in size of its same-class competitors.  Additionally, it is referred to as a full-size pickup by MSN Autos, Consumer Reports, and The Auto Channel.  Show me another 4,500 pound mid-size truck and I'll call BS.  Chimaera2005 07:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  size classification 

message: According to MSN Autos, the Ridgeline competes with the Dodge Ram and Toyota Tundra, NOT the Dodge Dakota and the Toyota Tacoma. Thank you.Hondasaregood 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cite source  it will add strenght to your edit/assertion.--I already forgot 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus competitors 

message: This article reads way, way, way too much like advertising copy, and some of it (like the supposed "benefits" of the unibody...) reads like advertising spin, even worse.  Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the vehicle (other than its overall uselessness, too small a bed to be a truck, too small a cab to be a suv, too poor of milage to be a daily driver, too much horsepower, too large to drive on-road, too crappy of drivetrain and suspension to drive off-road, and too ugly to be seen in) to write an unbiased article about it...  Could someone go through and remove everything that sounds like blatant advertisement, aiming to make it a good encyclopedia article?  Bushytails 05:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're just being ethnocentric, or xenophobic.(Myscrnnm 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: nice buzzwords... too bad he's right, the article reads like copy for the vehicleOrbframe (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article tone 

message: This article strays far from Wikipedia guidelines in referencing. It contains lengthy editorial that is unreferenced and also severe WP:REFBLOAT. The statement "a class III tow hitch with a four and/or seven-pin trailer wiring harness was either standard equipment or dealer installed options" is followed by no fewer than six references. --Cornellier (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been careful about the over-linking so when you see it, it's because all are required to be look at together to justify the statement.  Let's look at the sentence you referenced.  The full sentence is, "Also, depending on trim level and model year, a class III tow hitch with a four and/or seven-pin trailer wiring harness was either standard equipment or dealer installed options."  The reason this needs so many references to back it up is the "depending on trim level and model year" statement for it changed throughout the years.  When I tried to detail each change over the years, the paragraph got quite long and seamed distracting.  So, making the general statement that encapsulated the information and has the appropriate references to back it up seemed appropriate. --McChizzle (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:ANALYSIS says "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." In other words don't use facts in references to draw conclusions. In any case as stated in WP:CITEKILL obvious and undisputed statements should not be over-referenced, if at all. This is not a trivial problem: "citation clutter ... can make articles look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode". Another example of this, followed by 16 cites is "These parings meant the prospective Ridgeline owner had little choice in the color of their truck's interior." --Cornellier (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the material - such as towing hitch with trailer wiring, center console operation. etc. - in this article is completely trivial and should be removed. There is absolutely nothing important or significant about the numerous detailed descriptions about most of the vehicle's features in this article. Just because there is a a citation for the particular piece of text does not make it encyclopedic. It would be significant to note if this truck had no manufacturer's rating for towing, but otherwise it does not need to be included in an encyclopedia article. It is reasonable to expect that a truck is capable of towing, but illustrating it pulling more that than its official rating is unethical. There is also no valid reason to include the manufacturer's animated images of the center console. A self-made picture of the interior would be preferable to using the manufacturer's studio shots/animations. This is also not the place for a cut-away of the body/frame drawing that was taken from Honda's marketing department. There is nothing unique about it, nor is this the first use such type of construction on a vehicle. Many images/graphics in the article have been copied directly from the manufacturer's promotional advertising and press release materials. These should not included. Moreover, all images should be default size, not "blown up" to highlight their importance. It is also not significant whether certain options were available on particular combinations of model, year, or trim levels. All the material concerning colors is non-encyclopedic. These paint combinations were not limited production nor do they represent unique availability (such as the Model T's "any color you want as long as it is black" or the few shades that came each year on the Prowler). In summary, Wikipedia is not a marketing brochure, buyer guide, nor an operating manual. Just because there are multiple references, this does not make them encyclopedic. In short, this article ends to be significantly culled to contain only the most significant and reasonably notable encyclopedic material. CZmarlin (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: McChizzle, you're entering the realm of WP:SILENCE. Yay or nay? --Cornellier (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of references 

message: Prose should not contain legal symbols like "®". (An R with a circle around it). It's not up to WP to enforce Honda's marks. They should be removed as they are an impediment to reading. --Cornellier (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it to be proper to use the "®" when it is called upon to do so by the grammar rules and law.  The idea that the use of "®" is an impediment to reading is a subjective comment and one that goes against the grammar rules as I understand them, plus I do not find it to be an impediment but in fact act as a way to focus the reader on some unique aspects of a vehicle that the manufacturer has created which has also been discussed in the media. --McChizzle (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If the above were true then media like Consumer Reports use "R" marks and they do not. Can you cite where grammar or the law requires this? I don't see any other WP articles doing this? Being an impediment to readability is not subjective. Nobody needs to be reminded 24 times in this article that Bluetooth or anything else is a registered mark. --Cornellier (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "®" has been removed from the article. --McChizzle (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of ® 

message: :The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
----
Should there be 2 images of the car in the infobox here or just one? –Davey2010Talk 20:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (There's a disagreement between myself and  over whether their should be 2 images or 1 in the infobox, I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#2_images_in_the_infobox and was told there no policy for 1 or 2. –Davey2010Talk 20:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is off subject but I suspect after removing much of the fancruft these articles could be merged into one.  However, other than the obvious marketing fluff, I guess I would rather err on the side of excessive details that only car enthusiasts would care about vs, a strict diet of only the most mundane mainstream facts.  Still, that Earth Dreams V6 engine needs to go![] Springee (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

text: *Eddaido - To clarify are you supporting 2 images in the infobox or just the one image?. –Davey2010Talk 14:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Two Eddaido (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Eddaido do you have examples of where this format is used?, Maybe it's my lack of sleep but I'm having trouble grasping what you actually mean, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, way way back in say 2011 I was forbidden to put two images in the infobox. In fact the powers that be made it impossible. So its changed — that is nice.Its nice because when I'm on the road I spend a lot of time looking at the behind of the car in front. i think that is almost as much a means of recognition as the front of the car. For that reason I have always been strongly in favour of 1. front and side and 2. rear and side. How could I give examples when the Gestapo deleted them? Please give more detail about your unsatisfactory sleeping arrangements and I'll see what can be arranged long distance. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point but in the 6-7 years of being here I've never seen such pictures in the infobox (I've seen 2 fronts added by newbie IPs but other than that nothing else), Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 18:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

text:  It is not the purpose of the infobox to show comparisons — only an example of the subject of the article.  The article subject is "Honda Ridgeline", not "Comparison of Honda Ridgelines".  Likewise, the infobox in each generation section should show only a vehicle from that generation, not comparing it with another. If you want a side-by-side comparison, you can make it a separate image with a caption, but place it somewhere in the article where a comparison is discussed.  --Vossanova o< 19:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

text: The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
*Many thanks for closing this , FYI to everyone = I've gone ahead and removed the first gen image - All car infoboxes 9 times out of 10 have the most recent one only with previous generations/facelifts being in a gallery within the article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about 2 images in the infobox