Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) at 18:38, 28 June 2013 (→Flagship_car#Automotive or Flagship#Automobiles?: denial). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	Lexus has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 17, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 8, 2009 Good article reassessment Listed
Current status: Good article

Automobiles GA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is a selected article at the Cars Portal.

Brands GA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Long article?

Isn't this article way too long? It seems like some new pages should be split off from it. I realise it would be some work. Don't know if there are official guidelines for this. --81.179.93.205 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some sections could be split off... Octave8 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oceanea ...

...is noit a part of Asia. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Lexus/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps project.

There are some dead links that need to be repaired: 95, 96, 125, 126, 131, 165, 193, and 203. I fixed some overlinking issues. The writing is fine, the images are good with Fair use rationale where necessary, the lead is solid. Overall the article is great! If it weren't for all the deadlinks I would pass it without hesitation. I will hold the article for a week pending work on the references. If you need to contact me please do so at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and suggestions; the links have been fixed or replaced. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good, the article is GA. H1nkles (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Current quality issues

The current issue on the accelerating and brakes of Certain models has been more that reported. there has been a nation wide recall on certain Es and GX models for Lexus. Many people are panicking, they need to realize that it is not all Lexus models being recalled. However, it is a very serious issue. if your vehicle is one of the models that has been recalled your dealer will be sending you a notice, you will need to take your vehicle in for repairs. If you have any further questions you can call (800) 255-3987. Do you think current safety and quality issues, the car accelerating out of control, should be reported? http://my.is/forums/f104/stuck-accelerator-lexus-kills-family-398078/ http://www.justicenewsflash.com/2009/09/01/runaway-lexus-kills-4_200909012035.html http://kansascity.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/toyota-denied-customer-complaints-on-sudden-acceleration-problem-for-more-than-5-years.aspx?googleid=274028 http://www.autosafety.org/again-nhtsa-probes-sudden-acceleration

--Aizuku (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Very sad accident, the wrong floor mat was used (added to the ES article). SynergyStar (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to IP 134.154.170.210 for your information, aside from the floor mat fix, the ES has not been further involved. Also help phone #s and dealer service info probably would be more helpful elsewhere, because this page is not intended for general discussion. Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Listing of awards and slogan in lead

I notice there's a listing of awards in the intro paragraph. Is there reason to include them, and if there is, why are they included in the introduction? Would it be more appropriate to have the list of notable awards included in the Marketing or other section? Toyota marked cars, and many other makes have received many similar recognitions yet do not have them included in their article intro. Seems like an NPOV issue that so much weight is given to them in the intro.--Retran (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also why is there a little orphan sentence regarding the "motto". That should definitely be included in the Marketing section!--Retran (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, the awards and slogan have been there for quite a long time, and if you look at a number of company articles, the slogan is included (e.g. Volkswagen, Gillette, Continental Airlines). However, the slogan has been removed from other articles, so I don't see a problem with removing it here. As for the awards, the reliability awards stand as a U.S. record which no other auto brand has come close to achieving (14x), but it is not a major part of the article body anyhow, per WP:LEAD so makes sense to integrate them into body. It would be helpful if the guidelines on slogan integration were more specific too. Assuming good faith, thanks.SynergyStar (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SynergyStar for the work on updating the discussion ideas into the article; but now you have me convinced that there is something notable enough about the awards to include a mention in some way in the intro. I would agree its notable to achieve a reliability record that none other has achieved, and that fact is beyond marketing hyperbole. Perhaps integrating that fact as a sentence in one of the intro paragraphs, then relying on it being expounded upon (as it already is) further in the body would do the would keep a mention of the reliability record consistent with WP:LEAD. Retran (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Retran for your suggestions, it's possible a sentence could be added, however readers can now find the reliability references in the production section, and the slogan in the marketing section, as suggested (incidentally, it used to be that Template:Infobox company had a slogan field, but no longer--also showing the lead section details can change). With the lead having the basic summary points, some details can be saved for the body. Thanks again for your comments, SynergyStar (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Flagship_car#Automotive or Flagship#Automobiles?

Possible WP:COI. Please check recent history. Thanks.   M aurice   Carbonaro  06:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you mean my reversion. I dont' understand some things about your reversion of my reversion "Undid revision 561670080 by Stepho-wrs (talk) I read User:Stepho-wrs presentation page: possible wp:COI. Please consider wp:3rr & opening comment on talk page as wp:AGF. Thanks.)":

1. What conflict of interest do I supposedly have? I have neither increased nor decreased any point of view and the link appears and works exactly the same to the readers.
2. Who are you saying is supposed to be assuming good faith? My edit summary said "REvert good faith edit. Fixed ] instead." I.e. I explicitly said yours was a good faith edit but that I found another way to fix the problem (which naturally I think is better, see below).
3. Which talk page has the relevant 'Opening comment'? Neither yours nor mine seem to say anything relevant to this topic.
4. Why did you mention the 3RR rule? I reverted only a single time because I fixed the problem through a different (arguably better) method than yours.
5. Where did Flagship_car#Automotive come from? The contention is over whether ]<nowiki/> or <nowiki>]<nowiki/> is the better link. I contend that 'flagship car' is better because if we ever get a separate article about flagship cars/automobiles then 'flagship car' can either be the article or a redirect to the new article - simple, easy and very hard to have hidden problems. Whereas 'Flagship#Automobiles' requires us to find every article that uses it (winnowing out the other articles that link to plain 'Flagship' or its other sections) and change them one by one - tedious, error prone and very easy to miss some. Note: 'flagship car' originally pointed to plain old 'flagship', my fix was to make 'flagship cars' point to 'Flagship#Automotive'. ~~~~
   

Hallo there  Stepho  talk ,

thanks for writing me back and being open to discussion.

First of all it should be clear that both links mentioned above take to same article/section. Once made this statement I will try to answer to your points:

1. I found written on my talk page that "(...) Since the use of Flagship#Automobiles is under contention, it might be worthwhile to hold off for a little while on using that link on articles such as Toyota Cressida. (...)". Fine then, could we please both try to provide a citation for this claim? Maybe adding the "Citation needed template first of all? Regarding the possible wp:coi if you maintain a website with lots of Toyota info as you stated in your user page probably editing Misplaced Pages on Toyota could lead to a Conflict of Interest... Or not? It's a bit like a physician married with a pharmaceutical sales representative... what kind of healing is this going to provide to someone that is ill? Huh?
2. I am supposing that we are both assuming each other good faith
3. I guess this talk page has the relevant 'Opening comment' ... and I hope it will have the closing comment as well leaving everyone happy :D
4. Both links take to "same place" i.e. the same "article/section". Please check yourself: Flagship_car#Automotive and/or Flagship#Automobiles
5. AFAIC Flagship#Automobiles will be automatically redirected to the same "place" as mentioned above even "if we ever get a separate article about flagship cars/automobiles". Please note that both links take exactly to same article/section... and there are bots that will take care of changing all the redirects in case.

I have mentioned the wp:3RR because I was interested in commenting the change on the talk page as we are doing right now. But if you are still unsatisfied with my explanations we could always kindly ask for a third opinion about it. Please have a nice day.   M aurice   Carbonaro  09:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is concerned about the above claims, please review this permalink which shows User talk:Maurice Carbonaro at 07:24, 10 April 2013. Searching that page for "11:40, 23 March 2013" shows comments similar to those on this talk page—comments which were mentioned in the "Blocked" section. Further discussion is unlikely to be productive. The explanation by Stepho above is correct—it is standard procedure to use a precisely named link despite it currently being a redirect to a section in another article. I have restored this article to how it has been for some time. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To Whom it May Concern, after taking time in visiting and reading the above permalink kindly suggested by Johnuniq (talk) please consider also visiting this other "permalink" that shows confidential comments regarding the admin that blocked me at the time have been sent directly to Arbcom emailing arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org. IMHO there is "nothing similar" in my comments. Thanks.   M aurice   Carbonaro  10:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't show that the "confidential comments" had any justification. (I think I'd say that even if you were a generally helpful editor.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of this is just side issues. I will simply state that I deny all accusations of deliberate wrong doing on my part and that I assumed edits to the article were done in good faith by both parties. If you feel I have done an injustice then please call up an administrator.

The real issue is whether flagship car or flagship#Automobiles is better. As both Maurice and myself have stated, both links look the same and go to the same place - at the moment. On the face of it, there would little to choose between them. flagship#Automobiles has the minor advantage that it goes directly to where we want without a redirection but the typical reader won't care about that. The real difference comes in the future if we decide to rename the flagship#Automobiles section (say, to 'Vehicles'), or perhaps shift that section to another article (say, Halo product) or even to its own article. In that case we would need to either construct a bot or manually edit every use of flagship#Automobiles. Constructing bots is still not a trivial issue. And even just finding the links manually requires looking through a few thousand pages (6 pages in groups of 500) to separate out the plain flagship links. Whereas flagship car does exactly the same job now but it is so much easier to change where it points to - just change the redirection and we're done. The maintenance is so much easier and can be done by almost anybody. Simple solution. Why do things the hard way?  Stepho  talk  14:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

AFAIC the (hopefully) constructive dialogue has come to an end. And BTW let's consider the interesting side of the whole comments section: we got to know each other. FYI Arthur Rubin (talk), which has participated to the comments above on this very same talk page, IS an Admin (account created on 16 August 2005 at 00:35). XOXO -   M aurice   Carbonaro  09:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your 'constructive dialogue' consisted of slander and avoiding the main issue. I think I was happier before I got to know you. Time to stop feeding the troll.  Stepho  talk  14:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I do apologize to everyone. Sorry. I believe you are honest in saying that "you were happier before you got to know me." Maybe I am in torment and causing distress to everyone else. I do apologize again.   M aurice   Carbonaro 

Probably denial, rather than torment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Engineering and technology good articles
• GA-Class Automobile articles
• High-importance Automobile articles
• GA-Class Brands articles
• High-importance Brands articles
• WikiProject Brands articles