text:
Talk:Car classification

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gregory Dododzah.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Executive car/mid-luxury car
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)

Soft Roaders
The examples of soft-roader SUVs given seem to be not very correct. The Porsche Cayenne for example has low range gearing, raiseable suspension, and all the other goodies you'd expect. Same with the BMW and Mercedes AFAIK. If you're going to call all unibody, indipendently sprung SUVs "soft-roaders" you'd have to include such formitable examples as the Range Rover and Mitsubishi Pajero. -- stewacide 09:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * There are probably better examples of soft-roaders than those. Reasons for including those - they were designed exclusivly for road use, and I've seen an X5 being towed from a muddy field by a very old Volvo estate.  I doubt that anyone using an 4x4 for serious off-road work would pick the X5 - but I'm happy to be corrected if anyone has heard of such a thing.  When I was working on this I tried to select some typical examples, but there is much to do, since I have a very UK perspective!  This article needs a lot more work I think. akaDruid 16:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll try and expand the class definitions and give a better runthrough of the variation within each class. More importantly I'll try and refrence standard vehicle and size classes as recognized by the industry and governments, and from a world perspective (e.g. A, B, C, D class car, "light trucks" in the US, "kei cars" in Japan, etc.). But I have to do some real (school) work now ;) ... -- stewacide 03:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * We should also note that these classes are blurry, and getting blurrier all the time (e.g. what's the Rx-8? A sedan? A coupe? A sports car? A GT?).

 * Also I wonder if we shouldn't drop the "midsize" and "full size" (etc.) labels, since they seem to differ by market. What I understand to be midsize sedans in Europe (e.g. the Mondeo) aren't very popular here in North America and are considered as somewhere between "compact" Focus/Golf/Civic sized cars and "midsize" Taurus/Accord/Camrey sized cars which are somewhat bigger (the North American Camrey and Accord are totally different than the European model). Those "midsize" cars which share platforms in NA and Europe (e.g. the GM midsizes) are stretched for North America (and generally dumbed down otherwise)...

 * ...now would it be better if I put all those if, ands, and buts under the general Midsize heading, or should we include European, North American, etc. classifications in seperate sections/articles? -- stewacide 03:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * We could have a mid-size heading with sub headings covering different markets. There are probably different names for these vehicles too.  For example, 'Compact' is not used over here in the UK, but seems to be common use in the US. akaDruid 18:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Smaller Minivans
I removed the sentence "They use more fuel than a family car, and are more dangerous in an accident, primarily to other road users." under ===Smaller Minivans=== because I'm not sure that's necessarily true. They're higher than cars, but not necessarily heavier, and their ride heights are often the same as cars. I therefore don't see that they're necessarily any more dangerous except for the (retained) mention that they're higher & thus harder to see around.

The aerodynamics of such a vehicle will be worse (in general) than a pure car of the same size, engine and weight, and thus the fuel consumption will be somewhat worse. However, the removed sentence implied that the fuel consumption of any small minivan is necessarily worse than any family sedan, and that's not accurate. —Morven 20:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Good move. Also I don't think they're any more top-heavy since they're basically cars with the roof raised a bit. -- stewacide
 * Maybe they're a little higher off the road in terms of center of mass, but not to the degree of full minivans let alone anything else. And minivans don't have a bad safety record.

 * An accident in a average sedan with a minivan or a 4x4 is much more dangerous as the same accident with another sedan (mostly due to the height of the vehicle - lorries are even worse). For example, I have seen a video of an MPV hitting the side of a VW Golf at 20mph (as a crash test).  The bulk of the MPV went over the window line of the Golf.  The passengers of Golf would have been in closed caskets in this case - had it been another Golf, they would have walked away.  The fuel economy suffers a lot due to the increased weight and increased drag - in the UK these vehicles are almost exclusively diesels for this reason.
 * The statement applies equally to all minivans. The reason for putting it under small minivans was a comparison between a small minivan and the sedans they are based on - since they are basically the same vehicle in terms of carrying capacity etc but with all disadvantages but none of the advantages associated with full minivans. I would say it is useful info to anyone trying to understand the differences between vehicle classes, different impacts, and different appeals.
 * I admit I'm a little biased here - I'm somewhat of a car enthusiast, and I tend to be overly critical of cars like these. For that reason I shall leave it to someone else to sum up the pros and cons of these vehicles. akaDruid 13:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem with putting it under 'small minivans' is that those vehicles, of all the non-car classes, show these tendencies the least. Especially since some very 'car-like' vehicles are included in the listing of that category, like the Chrysler PT Cruiser.  With a vehicle like that, the solid mass of the vehicle is definitely under the window-line of the average car by quite some way.  I think part of the problem is that that category applies to both 'blown-up cars' and 'shrunken minivans' and the behavior of both is (I suspect) quite different. I'm sure the video you saw involved a full size minivan/MPV.

 * I think that the sentence I removed would work better at the top of the whole minivan/MPV section, because before it looked like the smaller minivan was being singled out as being dangerous and thirsty while the full-size minivan was not. —Morven 17:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's probably a better way of doing it. The area is covered in some depth in the Crash incompatibility and SUV articles anyway, albeit with more emphesis on SUVs rather than minivans, since they represent more of a crash threat than minivans. akaDruid 10:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Page Structure
A lot of effort is going into this page but I think it's structured all wrong. Firstly instead of proviving a few examples of each vehicle type we should point to complete List of articles. Secondly we really need to make an effort to internationalize and standardize some of the currently very arbitrary size classes (I'm gonna' do some reading into letter size classes: e.g. C, D, C/D, etc.). -- stewacide 05:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I was thinking a while back that we could add information on where our divisions relate to certain standards, such as EuroNCAP and rental vehicle classes. The current structure was based around existing articles in the WP.
 * I agree that links to definative lists of vehicles would be far superior, but I don't know that any of these exist as yet. Perhaps as the lists expand here, they could be used to create list pages? akaDruid 10:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A really international classification scheme might be tough to do. I know that traditionally the categories used in the U.S./Canada were different from those of most of the rest of the world, and I suspect there may be other anomalies out there in the global market. It might be clearer just to note the differences and inconsistencies as they arise, as Stewacide suggests above, rather than try for the compleat system.

Just for discussion, here's the Detroit hierarchy as it was I got my license in the 70's--in those days any car freak could recite it like a liturgy:

 * luxury (including large personal luxury)
 * premium standard
 * standard, or full-size
 * intermediate, or mid-size (including muscle cars & smaller personal luxury)
 * compact (including ponycars)
 * subcompact
 * Corvette (it not being like anything else)

Since then the classes have become much less distinct, though still generally discernable. Trucks used to be just trucks, but now they have about as many categories as cars do, and some SUV's are even blurring that boundary.

RivGuySC 05:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

needs to be tightened up
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)

Sports, luxury, and mainstream cars
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)

Sub-compacts
Surely a sub-compact is just the US term for a supermini? A Ford Fiesta (listed as a sub-compact) is a definative supermini. akaDruid 10:41, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That could be true, but if so we'll definitely have to list both terms to make it comprehensible to a wide audience. I never heard of a supermini until I started reading this page. RivGuySC 18:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * OK I'll rework it to cover that. They are synonymous terms. akaDruid 14:00, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that sub-compacts and superminis appear to be the same class of car, simply named differently in North America and Europe. I think they should be brought under one heading but that we should explain the different names. 999 10:22, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've merged superminis and sub-compacts. Feel free to edit it if you don't like it. 999 11:39, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This has fascinated me as I have lived in different countries and formed a "scheme" in my own head. This might be total nonsense but I thought I'd share it:

 * microcars – e.g. Mitsubishi Minica, Smart ForTwo
 * superminis – e.g. Volkswagen Fox, Chevrolet Aveo
 * subcompacts – e.g. Volkswagen Gol, Seat Ibiza, Ford Fiesta
 * compacts – e.g. Ford Focus, Volkswagen Golf, Toyota Corolla
 * mid-size – e.g. Ford Mondeo
 * intermediate – e.g. Toyota Camry
 * full-size – e.g. Holden Commodore

 * The difficulty is the problem of the ever-growing automobile and that "my" classifications are marketing-based. Sometimes it's affected by engine sizes. Therefore, I would class the Fiesta as "bigger" than the Aveo, even if a tape measure might not. Stombs 23:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * You have forgotten the city cars, which are between 3.30 and 3.60 metres long. They are smaller than superminis but have seating for four (unlike the microcars).

 * The real problem is the standard/luxury distinction. In Europe, the sedan versions of small family cars are around 4,40-4.55 m long, while the large family cars are around 4.60-4.75 m. But executive cars like the BMW 3-Series, Audi A4 and Lexus IS belong to the "large family cars" category, although they are smaller... and have more powerful engines. This happens because they are luxury cars, they are parallel classfications.

 * And two cars with the same size may correspond to different categories. The Renault Mégane Sedan (small family car) is 4.55m long, and the Renault Laguna (large family car) 4.60 metres. So? The Mégane has less interior room but bigger boot than the Laguna. Besides, the building and material quality is inferior, and it has smaller engines.

 * The exact length or interior room may not matter, the categories are more related to the car as a whole: engines, building quality, interior room and boot... (More trouble will come after the sedan 1-Series is released...)

 * As you might expect, some cars are neither luxury cars nor standard cars. In Sweden, Saab and Volvo are as cheap and "not-much-appreciated" as Renault or Ford. Alfa Romeo and Subaru are in the same situation.

 * For a clearer sight, you can check the List of recent automobile models by type, where the standard/luxury distinction is a little clearer. NaBUru38, March 2nd 2006, 14:10 UYT

Example vehicles
Surely example vehicles should be classic, revolutionary or genre-defining examples? There are an increasing number of concept vehicles, limited production vehicles, or generally uninteresting types appearing here. An example should identify the class. It is also pretty pointless creating examples linking to pages that don't (and might never) exist, like the bulk of the microcar examples.

As a side issue to that, people seem to be using this page as a tool to promote their own favourite vehicles, including some really unsuitable ones. For example, the recently added section 'Convertables'. Convertable is a body style, not a class of vehicle.

Finally, my pet hate:- Does anyone object if we terminate references to the MX-5? It should be left as an example budget sportscar, but nothing else. This car is dull and insignificant - calling it  the standard-bearer for a new generation of convertibles  is POV, unencylopedic and non-factual. It's currently popularity stems entirely from it's cheapness and marketing, and there are even much better examples of cheap, well marketed cars - VW Beetle anyone? There must be an MX-5 forum on the web for the middle-aged hair-trimming zealots to air their opinions, and allow us to keep the WP to facts. end-of-rant, and apologies to any offended middle-aged hair-trimming zealots :) akaDruid 10:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There should IMO be a section on body styles too, though -- if nothing else because people will expect to see them here. Or at least a link to a corresponding page on them.  Coupe, convertible, hatchback, etc. are an orthogonal set of classifications.

 * As to the vehicle examples - we should be careful to give only a very representative set of very well known or influential cars. —Morven 11:45, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that examples should be class-defining and preferably well known and with a good article about them. As for body styles, we already have pages on coupes, convertibles, sedans, station wagons and hatchbacks so we don't need to do much on body styles, maybe just a little overview at top of the page with links to the main articles. If we do that though, we need to be clear that body styles aren't classes of their own. 999 09:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm thinking that we should have a seperate page on Car body style which is an overview of them. It should probably also serve as an index to older names mostly extinct now, such as laundaulet, tonneau, etc. that are old coachbuilding terms used for cars through about World War II but not used after.  There are also words like landau, brougham that have been used as model designations since the war but not accurately according to the traditional coachbuilding definitions. —Morven 16:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, good idea. You seem far more knowledgable on body styles than I am but I'll contribute to this new page where I can. Also, some pages like roadster and spyder could probably do with some work being done on them. 999 17:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Started work on such an article. Nowhere near complete yet, but take a look anyway ... —Morven 00:31, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Sports cars and GTs
Although grand tourers and sports cars can be defined within quite clear boundaries, in my eyes they do not appear to be classes in the same way as the supermini class for example. This is because, unlike superminis, not all GTs compete against each other. The BMW 6-series and the Bentley Continental GT for example, are both undeniably grand tourers but they are separated by £60,000 in purchase price. The same applies for sports cars. Because of this, I'm not sure whether or not these two types should be included in this article or not, and whether we need to create a subheading for every different class of GT and sports car. I'd like your opinions on what we should do, if anything. 999 16:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This is not a bad point, but if consistently adhered to I think it would work against a logical classification system. Minivans and sport utilities and ordinary sedans/saloons also sell in a broad price range and not all of each type compete with each other.  I think logically the physical type and intended use of the vehicle should trump price as the most important criteria. RivGuySC 00:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * RivGuySC makes an important point: is it necessary for this article to divide cars into strict market segments? Certainly not a bad goal, but I don't think that it's necessary either.  I have a feeling that you're (999) trying to set up each section so that the cars listed are true competitors, and you're wanting to get rid of classifications in which the cars are not necessarily competitors. —Morven 00:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Whilst I do still think that GTs, minivans and sport utilities could be divided into market segments (that undeniably exist), you have helped me to realise that it is not the aim of this article. Also, separating them could lead to endless nit-picking about what car goes where and would probably make for a less reader friendly article. Thanks.

 * PS. I apologise for taking so long to reply. 999 18:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * No problem. One of the issues in trying to divide by market segment is that different cars are in different segments in different markets.  E.g. in the UK, the Land Rover Freelander and Toyota RAV4 are competitors priced similarly, but in the US market, the Land Rover is more expensive and the RAV4 cheaper. —Morven 19:57, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Good point. Coming from a purely UK perspective (which is where is reside), that's something I hadn't considered. 999 21:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Having been brought up in the UK and moving to California getting on 8 years ago, it's very noticeable. Japanese cars in particular are 'voluntarily' restricted in numbers in the UK and are thus sold at a much higher price than they are in the US.  Thus they are automatically perceived as being more valuable cars, even if the same specification is sold elsewhere as a much cheaper vehicle.  At the same time, the cheaper end of manufacturers such as Mercedes and BMW are much more affordable cars in the UK (and they sell cheaper models that are not sold in the US at all).  The relative position of things like Fords are about the same, to my perception.

 * Pricing of cars is a question of charging whatever the market can bear, rather than a mechanical percentage on top of production costs; witness in the US the huge profit margins on SUVs and 'luxury' pickup trucks, simple vehicles that don't actually cost all that much to build. —Morven 00:24, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering where Coupés fit into this classification system - I'm thinking of sporty cars with a two-door bodyshape that are primarily based on a standard sedan/saloon underpinnings like the Ford Probe, Ford Puma, Opel Calibra, Opel Astra Coupé, Rover Coupé, Fiat Coupé, Nissan 200SX, Hond Civic Coupé, Mazda MX6, BMW 3 Series Coupé and many others. They're not Sports Cars by the definition on this page (i.e. not "lightweight" "performance" models as such) and they're certainly not Grand Tourers or Supercars - perhaps with a little editing they could be combined with the Personal Luxury Car ? I don't have any North American specific examples. Also - could some mention of Roadsters be put into Sports Cars as a sub category for lightweight open top cars which as noted includes distinctly non-performance ones like the Suzuki Cappachino and Ford SportKa to the medium performance Mazda MX5 and Rover MGF through to TVRs, Porche Boxsters and Lotus Elise ? Dagdaireland

Vote for deletion
I think this page is a total loss. There really are no lines anymore separating categories. What Wikipedia needs is simply a list of articles about perceived vehicle types (e.g. Sport utility vehicle, Muscle car, etc.). Perhaps this page can be salvaged into an article on the European vehicle market or something like that? -- stewacide 03:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just reread the article for the first time in a while, and I don't think it's a total loss. It's not perfect, but a good bit of thought has gone into it and it does have both sense and organization to a considerable degree.  Just because it needs doctoring is no reason to put the poor old thing down, IMHO.  RivGuySC 02:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * A possibility is to make two articles, one for the Northamerican car classification and another one for the European.

 * By the way, why were some links deleted and removed from the list? (in black) - NaBUru38, March 2nd 2006, 17:55 UYT

Saloon
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

A "saloon" seats six passengers in the rear in, usually, facing seats, two or three in the front (but usually just the chauffeur). -- anon. usa

I made the first step towards rectifying the blatant European bias by dumping in a lot of American and Asian cars revising the "hot hatch/sport compact" section--there are plenty of cars, especially cars sold in America, that meet all the criteria for hot hatches except the hatchback. What would you call a Honda Prelude? A Chevrolet Cobalt SS? A Nissan Sentra SE-R. "Sport compact" is a much better descriptor than "hot hatch" for this class of car, as many prime examples of the class (such as the Sentra SE-R) have trunks. Also, I added a section for full-size vans. We're already dealing with body-on-frame SUVs, so this article already covers trucks. Might as well cover all the trucks. And no, full-size vans aren't just for businesses. Many American families use full-size vans as their primary vehicles. A few people even live in decked-out vans. Pickup trucks should also be added, as they are by far the highest selling vehicles in the US market, which is the largest in the world (the Ford F-150 sells 900,000 units per year, while the highest-selling sedan, the Toyota Camry sells only 450,000). I think some Japanese Wikipedians might want to take a look at this as well. There is plenty of reason to change this, because it not only has Eurocentric language, it practically ignores the existence of car markets outside Europe.--70.146.175.68 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger by reason of duplication

 * 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  13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a mess, isn't it?
This article is all over the place. What's the point in separating hatchbacks and saloons/sedans like it is now? There's both saloons and hatchback in most car categories, from superminis to large executive cars, so it's a bit silly and confusing to make them the primary categories. Also, I don't think we should try and group classes from different regions together when they're not very similar, e.g. K-cars are a specific category in Japan with specific dimension and engine size restrictions, whereas "city car" isn't really a standard class and generally include engines up to 1 litre (K-cars are limited to 660cc). I also wholeheartedly agree to the merger with Vehicle size class. --Zilog Jones

 * Also a lack of separation between the Microcar and City Car. The Smart ForTwo is mentioned as well as pictured as a Microcar, but it is a City Car according to its individual Wikipedia page because it is one; "performance edition city car"-Brabus version(http://uk.smart.com/smart-fortwo-brabus/3fa78500-f0a8-585f-be94-d688d2ff59b6). Next they're going to tell us that the original Mini was a Microcar!—Preceding unsigned comment added 21/4/2012

Fewer, Better Examples?
Perhaps we should use less but better examples. For instance, for Supercar, we should list a few cars which are least likely to cause contention. Eg: There are too many examples, and it dilutes the article.
 * 1) Ferrari 250 GTO
 * 2) Mosler MT900S
 * 3) Porsche 959

Also, the examples should probably be chosen to give a broad spectrum in terms of country of origin, era, and manufacturer. Nasty 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and thinned out the examples per Nasty's suggestion (although it was reverted). I feel that having long lists of examples defeats the point as one might as well list every car that fits the category.  Having three or four good examples that represent different manufacturers and countries would be best in my opinion.  Any comments.Daniel J. Leivick 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I totally agree, this article should describe car types, not list cars; we already have List of recent automobile models by type, which could be expanded with new articles with models from the 1990s, 1980s and 1970s. This article should focus on differences between segments, and show three or four examples (in the same line, maybe). -- NaBUru38 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd like to know if there is any consensus for changing the examples to include vehicles older than the last 10 years. The examples are largely modern vehicles and I feel that this is not how an encyclopaedic article should be. We would never consider having an article on famous artists and only include those of the last 50 years. Additionally, the examples should probably be the more iconic cars for their classification. For example, the Mini is one of the most important cars in history and one of, if not the most, iconic small car, but is nowhere to be found on this page. Unfortunately, I feel that this might make the examples a little US and Euro-centric, as their automotive industries formed earlier, but I still think it is the right thing to do.

Open bed vehicles and light truck/SUV clarification
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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

Australian classifications
In almost all wikipedia car articles I see the North American classifications are used, yet in the Australian media no specific set of terms are used. I seem to remember growing up with "large family car" being a common term. Does Australia have its own set of classifications or can the writer choose which one they use? Is the use of North American classifications a recent trend? - Diceman 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * As of December 2006, no article describes any Australian car classification system in detail. Some information is spread in articles like mid-size car and full-size car, but these may be inconsistent. I can't help because I don't know very much about the Australian market, but if you do you can add it.

 * If the terms are the same as in North America or Europe, you just describe the usage in that article. If there are other words, you can do one of two things. You can create new articles, like supermini car, small family car, large family car, executive car and compact executive car, which didn't exist a year ago. Another option is to merge the info into another template, if that segment is very similar to one of another region; for example, compact executive car and entry-leel luxury car describe almost the same cars, so both are into the same article. Good luck! -- NaBUru38 23:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * There is an authoritative source, at the website of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries. We should be trying to incorporate this into the table at the top of the article I should also be adding the Japanese classifications from JAMA as well. --DeLarge 11:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Need for a shorter list of models
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)
 * 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)
 * I'll prune these down myself just now. --DeLarge 11:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

What are the 'Segment' names?
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)

 * 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)

c-class is not "d segment" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.88.104 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Table
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)

Speedster Classification
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)

Russia and Middle East?
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)

-Full size sedan or large cars

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

November 2012 changes
Hi, here is an explanation for the changes: Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The definition of "sports car" isn't clear, it's more a loosely-defined marketing term.
 * 2) "Muscle car" and "Pony car" are most commonly used to describe American cars.
 * 3) 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".
 * 4) Unreferenced "car show class definitions" section removed.

Orphaned references in Car classification
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)

 * 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)

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

Separating Examples
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)

Edit request on 4 May 2013
4 May

82.1.229.3 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC) 5 May

 * 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)

Porsche Panamera a luxury car?
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)

 * How do reliable sources classify it? Bahooka (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 * 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)

The German president told me that it is an alternative to the Ford Taurus/Lincoln MKS, but with rear-wheel-drive instead of front-wheel. :lol: --2602:306:CDB2:4130:8C55:787D:CC2:2421 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Lame. Is this the best you can do? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Errors and limitations in the Car classification article
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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

Neutrality and statistical relevance
Hello, I open a new discussion, because I am not sure that a previous one is really dedicated to this subject (I raised the problem in [].

It is a fact that some people use Wikipedia as a products placement web site. The dozens of articles in many languages where "compact cars" is replaced by "Golf-class" (!) prove that easily. As well as non alphabetical order putting systematically VW Golf, VW Passat at the top of the list of rivals in many articles about another car... Etc. It is a statistical fact that GM/Opel/Chevrolet/Vauxhall, Ford, German makes are much more often cited than they statistically should be cited. As a proof, why showing twice photographs of the Opel Insignia ? Or even more excessively, why citing in the text of the MPVs section 3 Ford models (!), 2 Opel models+1 photo and 2 Seat models that are rarely bought -even not in the top 10 of the segment- whereas the leaders of this segment are even not cited ? Citroen C4 Picasso II and Renault Scenic are usually the best sellers. There is a serious problem of neutrality. Is there anybody who would like to contribute to improve the quality and neutrality of the content on Wikipedia ? Thank you for your help. PS : if you want me to tell you more abuses that I noticed, just ask, even if it rather dramatical, you may not prevent yourself from laughing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I suggest these improvements for MPVs :
 * Ford B-Max
 * Citroën C3 Picasso
 * Opel/Vauxhall Meriva => Nissan Note
 * new photo Opel/Vauxhall Meriva
 * SEAT Altea => Peugeot 5008
 * Opel Zafira Tourer
 * photo Opel Zafira B => photo Citroen C4 Picasso
 * Ford C-MAX => Renault Scénic
 * Mazda5 + photo Mazda5 => photo first generation of Renault Espace (history interest)
 * Ford Galaxy => Ford S-Max (new model)
 * SEAT Alhambra

So 2 Ford models, 1 Opel + 1 photo, 1 Nissan, 1 Citroen + 1 photo, 1 Seat, 1 Peugeot, 1 Mazda, 1 Renault + 1 photo. With the "trace" here the contributors could measure the changes and eventually find back the previous version on the 2014-07-31.

What would think to replace one of the 2 BMW photos by a Mercedes photo or by the Citroen C6 (and its legendary Hydractive suspension) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I suggest these improvements for superminis: Change on the 2014-07-03:
 * Text 1 Ford + 1 photo, 3 GM (Holden Barina, Opel Corsa, Tata Indica Vista), 1 Fiat, 1 Austin Mini, 1 Daihatsu.
 * Text 1 Ford, 2 GM (Holden Barina, Opel Corsa), 1 Citroen, 1 Fiat, 1 Austin Mini, 1 Daihatsu, 1 Peugeot. Citroen 1 photo (3 doors), Renault 1 photo (5 doors). Notice that Renault Clio and Peugeot 207/208 are the leaders of this segment, so it is strange to not mention them.

And statistics about the market shares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Please read the talk here User_talk:CZmarlin. I point out and prove with some quotes from some Wikipedia articles how some non-neutral contents exist for years on Wikipedia. Why it is like that ? It is obviously and simply '''because some of the oldest contributors and even with some "awards" let do that. But they erase some contributions that increase the neutrality'''. And this terrible problem exist also systematically on the other Wikipedia languages.

CZmarlin erased some relevant texts and photos without participating to the discussion, just stating without any argument "no need to increase the number of examples and images in each category". False statement. Not acceptable behaviour. I added 2 photos for different segment sizes of MPV and without removing the previous photo to respect the previous contibutors. Useful then to add some photos for sub-segments and it enables to improve the diversity of the content to better show the diversity of the offer. One photo has an historical interest : the first MPV Europe the Renault Espace I and one photo for the current leader.

To erase alone, without any discussion, without any argument does not respect "assume good faith" by the way.

 * I believe that I proposed the 3 examples (with a picture of a car that is usually not in the example list) being enough and I stand by that idea. The problem with more is that the article will just become a very large list of examples (it's mostly there already). Unfortunately, there is no easy way to pick the examples. I propose that we should have examples to satisfy the following criteria:

* Popularity (numbers sold)
 * Historical significance (Mini, Ford Mustang)
 * Diversity of size, shape, style, layout, country of origin, markets in which sold
 * To meet these criteria, I would personally like to see the following generally followed:

* Cars from all eras * No two examples in a segment from same country (excepting where significant majority of possible examples are from that one country) * No two examples in a segment from same parent company * Focus on cars no longer in production as much as those in production * Segment defining cars to have greater prominence
 * Unfortunately, many people want to see their car, cars they like, or just cars that are currently made or sold in "their" country on this page. In my opinion, CZmarlin seems to have been doing a good job of keeping this article in check. It is very hard to stay completely objective with an article like this as very few people seem to have a good global overview of cars and associated history. I suspect that changes which are properly summarised or explained in advance will be much more likely to be kept. Nasty (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

=> Hello. The "rules" given above are not respected, and the people who claim that they make an excellent job don't correct obvious "errors" : for example the Golf is cited in the list and has also a photo in hot hatch : so this is a proof that the people who present themself as "good patrols" erase arbitrarily some car models, but don't correct and don't respect their own "rules". As usual the VW/Audi/Skoda/Seat/etc. fan boys make the articles not neutral, and nobody "correct", but they remove the brands that are already under-cited, like Renault. It is obvious that Toyota is also under-cited. The Hilux is the most sold pick-up and yet, it is not cited in the table. Volkswagen and its group is over-cited (Volkswagen itself is cited 9 times in the table), GM and its brands (Opel, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Holden, Pontiac) are over-cited, BMW is over-cited. Someone added recently Jaguar in the list and it seems fair, because it is rarely cited, what does not respect the statistical neutrality.

I will complete the exact statistics as soon as possible. Thank you to not make an edit war, but to participate to this discussion. Statistics are neutral.

Note that instead of fighting against a better statistical relevance, some "administrators" could for example create some aliases between Citroen DS3, Citroen DS4, Citroen DS5, and the official names DS DS3, DS DS4, DS DS5. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

They are not rules, they are suggested criteria and thanks for the input and work. Can I suggest, speaking as a statistician, that statistics might not be appropriate in this case and that we should look to classification defining examples and example sets which are broad and cover a large amount of the global market. If you do use statistics, it would be good to account for market size inflation and rather than deal with total numbers of units sold, instead deal with % of market share. This will reduce the chance that the list will unfairly favour more recent cars. Even at that, this is essentially primary research, and may be better suited to a different forum than Wikipedia. Referencing existing sources would be more useful. Nasty (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Don't know if this discussion is still alive, but the Golf "defined" a category and the Golf GTi another one. Similarly, the Renault Espace should absolutely be in, as well as the Dodge Caravan.  Mr.choppers |   ✎  02:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

improving car list
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)

Anyone in the automotive business?
I would say someone in the business with some common sense need to clean up this page, many cars competing at too different types of customers were regarded in the same class, and many examples are just wrong. Nissan Maxima is full size car? The person who wrote it either never drove/sit in the car, or never knew what a full size car is, and absolutely no one in the world besides this article considers it as full size sedan, not Nissan, not the dealer, not the customers, and especially not EPA. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/36288.shtml

And who wrote the section of Flower Car? It's for funeral purpose. I would assume many people in professional vehicle business may get old to the point that Internet is irrelevant, but the article has to make some sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.177.139 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * It's somewhat debatable in a worldwide perspective. In any case, I'm not that sure either it's the best example and as I said it's a really debatable one, so I personally don't mind if you remove it (or change for a better contemporary example), but please add an edit summary explaining your changes and do not enter into edit warring if other editor reverts you. I'm opposing more other changes you made...

 * Are your words implying you are working/worked in the automotive industry? Does that mean you're working or worked before at one of the companies producing/selling the cars you keep adding? If you have a conflict of interests, you need to make that public in Wikipedia. As for the article, if you think you can improve it, you are free to do so, but please understand you need to follow policies/guidelines (please start by reading WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:MOS). This is a collaborative project, so you need to gain consensus to bring major changes, especially for high-importance articles like this one. You can be bold and introduce the changes without seeking consensus, but you can be reverted, so you need to come here and explain your changes. That's simple. And please use edit summaries. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Nissan Maxima is intended as an upscale larger sedan competing against old rivals like Toyota Cressida, or Mitsubishi Diamante and as time goes by, it's the only remaining model in production. It was never going to compete against larger offerings like Dodge Diplomat ( even though it was a smaller car in its class ) or Chevrolet Impala, because it was aimed at the buyers looking for a car at a more manageable size. Only Toyota Avalon was designed as a larger sedan aimed at Chevrolet Impala with roomy interior besides traditional full-size sedans ( Ford Crown Victoria, Buick LeSabre etc )

Lexus LS wise, it has a stunning start but the later generation was more or less depending on the previous reputation while Lexus is more focusing on ES series and more profitable crossover/SUV models. By compare, Lincoln Town Car has a higher sales number worldwide in 2004 as you mentioned for the specific year ( Yes, many limousine companies in the world often choose Town Car in different trim levels ) thus Town Car is more representative than Lexus LS ( even though it has very limited technology ) culturally and in the actual application. In the world-wide application as a popular limousine and chauffeur luxury cars, the last generation of Town Car was specifically equipped with export turning signals and larger license plate area.

I'm in the section of the industry around mid-west US, and the article needs to reflect the fact where certain models of luxury cars are still highly popular in this big region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.177.139 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Improving representation of different varieties / Luxury cars
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

External links modified
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)

If this article covers trucks and vans should it be called "Car Classifications"?
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)
 * 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)
 * Then why are they covered in this article? Springee (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No, because the common name of this subject is 'car classification'. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

Body styles as a subset
, thanks for the message on my talk page. I understand what you are saying about wagons being a subset of classifications (full size sedan and full size wagon are both full size automobiles). What we unfortunately have here is a case where we don't have a nice trace down categorization system. If nothing else this article includes some things that are US market "trucks" like most SUVs and vans yet doesn't mention any pickup trucks, even small ones (Ford Ranger etc). Personally, I would rather the article include more categories even if they aren't mutually exclusive vs fewer. I would also argue that in practice body styles are a category since many car search websites offer that as a search criteria (body type: 2 door, 4 door, hatchback, etc). I will grant that my argument isn't foolproof as they also offer color and transmission type as search options and I don't think anyone here would support "red" as an acceptable classification. Anyway, I personally think it should be left in and perhaps all of the body style material could be folded into this article as well. However, your concern about redundant material is legitimate. Maybe we should just merge the articles? Springee (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Hi . Now that you mention it, I agree that body styles could be viewed as a subset of classifications. Yet it could also be viewed as a separate thing, because "classification" usually means market segment or legal category, and is usually the same for all variants of a given platform. Whereas body style is the shape of the roofline, number of doors, etc. My preference would be to leave them as separate articles, because back when they were merged it was quite awkward linking to them from other articles. Also the article size becomes quite unwieldy. (as an aside, personally I find it easier to understand the minefield that is car terminology if you think of classifications and body styles as separate things)
 * The question about whether to include SUVs, vans and pickup trucks is also a complex issue! Even just the question of whether an SUV is a car or truck is a tough question.... My 2 cents is that it goes back to the definition of "car", which are primarly designed to transport people (compared to a commercial vehicle or truck, which are designed for cargo). And which side of the fence does a Ford Ranger sit on? I've no idea!
 * Further adding to the confusion is that some words are used as both classifications and body styles, e.g. roadster, hatchback, minivan and coupe. Anyway, all of this is just my very long-winded way of saying why I think that Station Wagon is a body style but not a classification! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 * You make a good point. This classification issue just becomes a mess because at some point we are trying to decide which arbitrary features should be listed.  Certainly classifications that are size related should be since the EPA and other regulatory bodies care.  Perhaps the best option would be to remove but add a section at the top of the article listing other related classifications that are commonly used and links to their articles/lists.  Springee (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, it could very easily get out of hand. The different types of sports cars are an example of a subjective area (although I think the ones here are commonly used so they are worth including).
 * The link at the top of the article to Car Body Styles is a good idea. There is actually already one there, but perhaps it needs to be more prominant. What do you think of replacing it with this?
 * Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Car classification
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)

 * Thanks Mr/Ms Bot. Your first guess is correct! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Examples discussion 2021
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: 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)
 * 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.

Original Research!
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)

Scope
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)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Car classification


text:
Wikipedia:Village pump/March 2004 archive 2

Archived 10th March 2004

Requests for help and comments
I have been very impressed with this whole site. I have yet to find an article suffering from a lack of NPOV. Of course I know they are out there, but so far so good. I was pretty skeptical about this in the beginning. (Good to be wrong once in a while.)COMPATT 21:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Sennheiser has created a WikiProject Space and he would like to invite Astronomy and Space Exploration enthusiasts to join his new project.
 * 2) TUF-KAT has created Wikipedia talk:Infobox for all taxobox/infobox discussion to be centralized
 * 3) Belizian is willing to take photos of plants and animals in the jungle for wikipedia, he requests your help in identifying species at Plants and animals of Belize
 * 4) For those who enjoy writing and editing: Articles requested for over a year, RC patrol
 * 5) The Association of Members' Advocates is an intra-Wikipedia voluntary association looking for new members who are interested in assisting users with the dispute resolution process.
 * 6) If you voted to remove an article to Featured article candidates but have not raised a formal objection to it, please do so now. Bmills
 * 7) Wikipedians are encouraged to make use of this public domain site, see Wikipedia talk:Porting Vectorsite articles
 * 8) Multilingual? Or need a foreign-language wikipedia article translated into English? Check out the newly created Translation
 * 9) Rholton (aka Anthropos) suggests that every Wikipedian take the time each day to find a home for one of the many orphaned articles.
 * 10) WikiProject Ethnic Groups has gone live, seeks more participants.
 * 11) Jengod would love it if you would adopt your birthday (April 7, November 22, etc) and keep it updated, so the Selected anniversaries people have more material with which to build that section of the main page.
 * 12) Optim asks for feedback at MediaWiki talk:Nonsense

How to deal with rampant POV?
-->Talk:Asymmetric warfare

Neutrality dispute blackmail
-->Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Old English markings
I am reading a book, a 1972 reprint of the 1925 book "Brunel and After, The Romance of the Great Western Railway", by Patrick Stevens. Throughout the book it has the "st" and "ct" of every word joined with a half circle over the tops of the letters. I have never seen such markings before and hoped there might be someone who could tell me what they are and what they signify. A particular pronunciation? Ross Lambourn rossandlesley@yahoo.com

No, it's a typesetter's device called a ligature. See Ligature (typography) Adam 09:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

cvfd
Take a look at Candidates for vfd and vote at Wikipedia talk:Candidates for vfd. Do not reply here; your comments on Village Pump will be ignored or moved to the talk page. Optim 18:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merging Accounts
If it is at least frowned upon to have multiple accounts, is it possible to have them merged somewhere (given that such thing already exists for IP addresses)? -- Dissident 19:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * See: Changing attribution for an edit --Kokiri 10:09, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Trademark symbols
-->Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/archive2

List of en.wikipedia.org pages with more than 1000 hits in February
For those curious to see which parts of the English Wikipedia see the most traffic, I've put a list of Pages from English Wikipedia with more than 1000 hits in Feb 2004 on meta, generated from the webalizer stats. -- Jeronim 02:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) -->Talk:Pages from English Wikipedia with more than 1000 hits in Feb 2004

Username or Real Name? Which should I use?
Moved to User_talk:Skyfaller and Wikipedia talk:Username

links stand out
I'm reading some very intersting articles about middle and old english when I start to get a little frustrated with all the links within the article. I love being able to instantly connect with relevant articles, but the links stick out so much that they are difficult to pass them over when one is trying to actually get all the way through an article (I tend to wander to other pages). Anyway, my point is, has anyone ever thought of making the links more subtle? If Wikipedia continues to grow, and just about anything has an associated page, then every article will be covered with links! Can you imagine trying to read a whole page of blue, underlined words?

Just thought I'd add my two cents.
 * The Manual of style says that you are not supposed to link every word. You're only supposed to link important ones. So even as Wiki grows (assuming people follow the guideline) I don't think we have to worry about anything. →Raul654 05:46, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

There was a Link style vote on Meta in which, sadly, a large majority chose to keep the current, underlined link style (really the browser default). If you are logged in, you can disable the underlining in your preferences.—Eloquence 06:51, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * Or, if you have a browser with good Cascading Style Sheets support, you can use your own style sheet to choose what you want links to look like. -- Wapcaplet 00:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Overlinking defeats its own purpose. It's done with a good heart so it's crotchety to complain. I dare not de-Wikify, though I itch to. Wetman 15:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


text:
European long-distance paths

The European long-distance paths (E-paths) are a network of long-distance footpaths that traverse Europe. While most long-distance footpaths in Europe are located in just one country or region, each of these numbered European long-distance paths passes through many countries.

The first long-distance hiking trail in Europe was the National Blue Trail of Hungary, established in 1938. The formation of the European Union made transnational hiking trails possible. Today, the network consists of 12 paths and covers more than 65,000 km, crisscrossing Europe. In general, the routes connect and make use of existing national and local trails such as the GR footpaths.

The paths are officially designated by the European Ramblers' Association.

title: European long-distance paths


text:
Talk:Toothed whale

Untitled
There are two genera of sperm whale (Physeter and Kogia). Some authors consider them to belong in the same family (Physeteridae), others put Kogia in a separate family, Kogiidae. I chose the first option (very much arbitrarily, I confess :-) and hence I removed the indication that there is only one species in family Physeteridae. The alternative would have been to add Kogiidae to the list (which is surely perfectly fine, but heck one has to choose one way or the other). Tjunier 09:49, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

 * Hi Tjunier. You did the right thing. Could you please cast your eye over Sperm Whale family. Thanks. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, I just looked at Cetacea and there I found that Kogia is listed under Kogiidae. I thus chose option  #2 (add Kogiidae to the list) in order to have a coherent taxonomy.  Oh well... Tjunier 10:44, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

Sotalia
I have edited Sotalia (the Template:Sotalia taxonomy) to include the species Sotalia guianensis Costero. If you click on the edit tab of Sotalia you will see this edit, however Sotalia guianensis is not appearing in the taxonomic listing. Does somebody know why, and can they fix it and/or let me know how to fix this. For justification, look at the Tucuxi and Costero pages. Killidude (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy section
I am interested as to the usage of templates for the taxonomy section of the article. Unless one knows how to edit the templates it becomes very hard to make usefull additions and corrections. for example while this is the main article for Odontoceti there is no mention at all any extinct members of the family. I was going to add family Kentriodontidae to the taxonomy but I have no idea what to do to add it. I would also not this is the only wiki article which I have come across which uses this format. --Kevmin (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Extinct taxa
Here are the families of extinct Odontoceti, per The paleobioloy Database and including incertae sedis taxa, which are missing from the taxonomy section. Infraorder Delphinida
 * Superfamily Delphinoidea
 * Family Albireonidae
 * Genus Albireo
 * Family Delphinidae
 * Subfamily Delphininae
 * Genus Delphinus
 * Species †Delphinus baltringii
 * Species †Delphinus delannoy
 * Species †Delphinus domeykoi
 * Subfamily Orcininae
 * Genus †Arimidelphis
 * Genus †Hemisyntrachelus
 * Subfamily Stenoninae
 * Genus †Astadelphis
 * Subfamily incertae sedis
 * Genus †Anacharsis
 * Genus †Australodelphis
 * Genus Lagenorhynchus (syn. Electra, Sagmatias)
 * Species †Lagenorhynchus harmatuki
 * Family †Kentriodontidae
 * Subfamily Kentriodontinae
 * Genus Belonodelphis
 * Genus Delphinodon
 * Genus Incacetus
 * Genus Kentriodon (syn. Grypolithax)
 * Genus Macrokentriodon
 * Genus Microphocaena
 * Genus Rudicetus
 * Genus Tagicetus
 * Subfamily Lophocetinae
 * Genus Hadrodelphis
 * Genus Liolithax
 * Genus Lophocetus
 * Subfamily Pithanodelphininae
 * Genus Atocetus
 * Genus Leptodelphis
 * Genus Pithanodelphis
 * Genus Sophianacetus (syn. Mediocris)
 * Subfamily incertae sedis
 * Genus Sarmatodelphis
 * Genus Kampholophos
 * Family Monodontidae
 * Subfamily Delphinapterinae
 * Genus † Denebola
 * Family † Odobenocetopsidae
 * Genus Odobenocetops
 * Family Phocoenidae
 * Subfamily Phocoeninae
 * Genus †Australithax
 * Genus †Lomacetus
 * Genus †Loxolithax
 * Subfamily Phocoeninae
 * Genus †Piscolithax (syn. Piscorhynchus)
 * Genus †Salumiphocaena
 * Subfamily incertae sedis
 * Genus †Haborophocoena
 * Genus †Numataphocoena
 * Genus †Septemriocetus
 * Familia incertae sedis
 * Genus †Delphinavus
 * Genus †Graamocetus
 * Genus †Lamprolithax
 * Genus †Miodelphis
 * Genus †Nannolithax
 * Genus †Oedolithax
 * Genus †Oligodelphis
 * Genus †Palaeophocaena
 * Genus †Platylithax
 * Genus †Protodelphinus
 * Genus †Sinanodelphis
 * Superfamily Inioidea
 * Family Iniidae
 * Genus †Goniodelphis
 * Genus †Ischyrorhynchus
 * Genus †Saurocetes
 * Family Pontoporiidae
 * Subfamily Brachydelphininae
 * Genus †Brachydelphis
 * Genus †Protophocaena
 * Subfamily Pontoporiinae
 * Genus †Pliopontos
 * Genus †Pontistes
 * Subfamily incertae sedis
 * Genus †Stenasodelphis
 * Superfamily Lipotoidea
 * Family Lipotidae
 * Genus †Parapontoporia
 * Superfamily incertae sedis
 * Family †Agorophiidae
 * Genus Agorophius
 * Family †Patriocetidae
 * Genus Patriocetus
 * Family †Simocetidae
 * Genus Simocetus
 * Family †Xenorophidae
 * Genus Albertocetus
 * Genus Archaeodelphis
 * Genus Xenorophus
 * Genus †Heterodelphis
 * Genus †Pachyacanthus

Infraorder Eurhinodelphinida
 * Superfamily †Eurhinodelphinoidea
 * Family Eoplatanistidae
 * Genus Eoplatanista (syn. Zignodelphis)
 * Family Eurhinodelphinidae
 * Genus Argyrocetus (syn. Doliodelphis)
 * Genus Ceterhinops
 * Genus Eurhinodelphis
 * Genus Iniopsis
 * Genus Macrodelphinus
 * Genus Mycteriacetus
 * Genus Schizodelphis (syn. Platyrhynchus, Cyrtodelphis, Schizodelphis pseudodelphis)
 * Genus Squaloziphius
 * Genus Vanbreenia
 * Genus Xiphiacetus
 * Genus Ziphiodelphis

Infraorder Physeterida
 * Superfamily Physeteroidea
 * Family Kogiidae
 * Subfamily Kogiinae
 * Genus †Aprixokogia
 * Subfamily †Scaphokogiinae
 * Genus Scaphokogia
 * Subfamily incertae sedis
 * Genus †Praekogia
 * Family Physeteridae
 * Subfamily †Aulophyseterinae
 * Genus Aulophyseter
 * Subfamily †Hoplocetinae
 * Genus Diaphorocetus (syn. Hypocetus, Paracetus, Mesocetus),
 * Genus Hoplocetus
 * Genus Idiorophus (syn. Apenophyseter)
 * Genus Preaulophyseter
 * Genus Scaldicetus  (syn. Scaldicetus crispus, Eucetus, Physodon, Eudelphis, Palaeodelphis)
 * Subfamily Physeterinae
 * Genus †Idiophyseter
 * Genus †Orycterocetus (syn. Gargantuodon)
 * Genus Physeter (syn. Meganeuron, Catodon, Orthodon, Megistosaurus, Cetus, Physalus)
 * Species †Physeter antiquus
 * Species †Physeter vetus (syn. P. antiquus?)
 * Genus †Physeterula
 * Genus †Placoziphius
 * Subfamily incertae sedis
 * Genus †Brygmophyseter
 * Genus †Ferecetotherium
 * Genus †Kogiopsis
 * Genus †Prophyseter
 * Family incertae sedis
 * Genus †Acrophyseter
 * Genus †Zygophyseter
 * Superfamily Ziphioidea
 * Family Ziphiidae
 * Subfamily Berardiinae
 * Genus †Archaeoziphius
 * Genus †Microberardius
 * Subfamily Hyperoodontinae
 * Genus †Africanacetus
 * Genus †Ihlengesi
 * Genus †Khoikhoicetus
 * Genus Mesoplodon
 * Species †Mesoplodon longirostris
 * Species †Mesoplodon tumidirostris
 * Subfamily Ziphiinae
 * Genus †Aporotus
 * Genus †Beneziphius
 * Genus †Caviziphius
 * Genus †Cetorhynchus
 * Genus †Choneziphius (syn. Proroziphius)
 * Genus †Izikoziphius
 * Genus †Messapicetus
 * Genus †Ninoziphius
 * Genus †Tusciziphius
 * Genus †Ziphirostrum (syn. Mioziphius)
 * Genus Ziphius (syn. Petrorhynchus, Aliama, Diodon, Hypodon, Ziphiorhynchus)
 * Species †Ziphius compressus
 * Subfamily incertae sedis
 * Genus †Anoplonassa
 * Genus †Belemnoziphius
 * Genus †Eboroziphius (syn. Ziphiopsis servatus)
 * Genus †Nenga
 * Genus †Pelycorhamphus
 * Genus †Pterocetus
 * Genus †Xhosacetus

Infraorder Platanistida (sny. Squaloceti)
 * Superfamily Platanistoidea (syn.Squalodontoidea)
 * Family †Allodelphinidae
 * Genus Allodelphis
 * Family †Dalpiazinidae
 * Genus Dalpiazina
 * Family Platanistidae (syn. Susuidae)
 * Genus Platanista
 * Species †Platanista croatica
 * Genus †Pomatodelphis
 * Genus †Prepomatodelphis
 * Genus †Zarhachis
 * Family †Prosqualodontidae
 * Genus Prosqualodon
 * Family †Squalodelphinidae (syn. Microcetus hectori)
 * Genus Medocinia
 * Genus Notocetus (syn. Argyrodelphis, Diochotichus)
 * Genus Phocageneus
 * Genus Squalodelphis
 * Family †Squalodontidae (syn. Mesoceti)
 * Genus Eosqualodon
 * Genus Phoberodon
 * Genus Squalodon (syn. Kelloggia, Rhizoprion, Crenidelphinus, Arionius, Macrophoca, Priscodelphinus validus, Phocodon, Smilocamptus)
 * Genus Tangaroasaurus
 * Family †Waipatiidae
 * Genus Sulakocetus
 * Genus Waipatia
 * Family incertae sedis
 * Genus †Sachalinocetus

Infraorder incertae sedis
 * Genus †Atropatenocetus
 * Genus †Austrosqualodon
 * Genus †Imerodelphis
 * Genus †Pelodelphis
 * Genus †Scaptodon
 * Genus †Saurocetus

Some of the genera have articles, most of those are stubs to "one liners", and with the exception of Ziphiidae (in part, I think) none are mentioned in relation to the related taxa or in the taxonomy section here at Odontoceti --Kevmin (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

When did odontoceti diverge from general cetacea?
If anyone knows, please add to article.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.231.2.183 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Orca
The article says 'The toothed whales (systematic name Odontoceti) form a suborder of the cetaceans, including sperm whales, beaked whales, orca, dolphins, and others.' but Orca are dolphins, so why are they listed separately? Also, does the classification of 'toothed whale' mean that dolphins are whales?--90.216.59.168 (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Melon
They have a "melon" in their heads? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.44.9.54 (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "Toothed whales' brains have a poor connection between the two hemispheres and an organ called a melon on their heads is used as a lens to focus sound" appears to imply a link between the poor connection and the melon organ. 2.27.105.152 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does "Phocodontia" redirect here?
Term not mentioned in article. Is it an obsolete synonym? 109.157.79.50 (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Webster's dictionary: A group of extinct carnivorous whales. Their teeth had compressed and serrated crowns. It includes Squalodon and allied genera. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy
The taxonomy section should include information on the group's classification history (Aristotle recoginzed tooth whales vs baleen whales) and its evolution. There should also be some pictures sprinkled throughout the species list so it doesn't look so dry. LittleJerry (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm against that picture idea; you have to remember that many people use mobile devices to view Wikipedia, and a bunch of images would just be stacked up, one on top of the other. This would hinder the usefulness to that audience. Dunkleosteus77   (push to talk)  00:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I added a small "research history" section a little while back. Is this good enough, or does it need further expansion?  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it could use some mention of Flower, 1869 who is credited with classifying Odontoceti. Also, didn't Aristotle recognize the difference between toothed and baleen whales? LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I only found Flower 1891 at this link User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I suppose you could add some information on their evolution. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I added a small one, should it be expanded with more detail on Archaeoceti, or is it good? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, just mention where they split from baleen whales. LittleJerry (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did (where it says "This occured around 34 million years ago", second sentence)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. In all honesty, I'm not a fan of the towering text listing all the species. It makes the article look dry and ugly. I think it would look better if replaced with text that lists the different families and a description of their general characteristics (plus mentioning the number of species). Maybe you could also have someone make a cladogram for you, linking the families. Thats just my opinion though. LittleJerry (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll get started on the cladogram (but there's a lot of species so it may a little while)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean every species, but the families. LittleJerry (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm posting what I have done so far. It's not complete, a couple of species are still missing (but I have no idea which) and there's an error saying there's more than one "2" parameter but I have no idea where that is . I basically copy/pasted the cladogram from the Pinniped article and filled in names with cetaceans (but I had to add a lot more parameters which is where things went wrong), and this is not yet accurate in terms of phylogeny. Each little subgroup is its own genus (for example, all 15 species of Mesoplodon are grouped together).   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toothed whale. 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/20081007174536/http://www.wdcs.org/submissions_bin/rmsreview.pdf to http://www.wdcs.org/submissions_bin/rmsreview.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) 00:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this term entirely made up???????
Once again, I have to question an article with no, or almost no, cited sources. I've caught other pages attempting to create terms out of whole cloth.

When I look online for terms of "toothed whale", the few sources I see have no references of their own, or ultimately SITE THIS PAGE.

That forms a kind of circular knowledge dependency, which is dangerous in encyclopedia land.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 * It’s times like these I like to turn to the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals and would you look at that? There’s even an entire section called “Toothed whales: an overview.” We can also try this out at google scholar and it looks like 17,400 results. I appreciate your concern, but the term “toothed whale” is used everywhere in both casual and scientific publications.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 * "Everywhere"? You're overstating, I will take a look again, and am sorry for my previous hyperbole.  BTW, 17000 hits for "toothed whale" are not useful because toothed can be used as an adjective, not a taxonomy, which is my original complaint.  Terms do seem to form in and out of here, and wikipedia as a result is becoming its own cited reference, albeit several layers deep.  Thank you for the reference, I'll look further.  Note: All I get from that listing is a page in the middle of a chapter without preamble.Tgm1024 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Ok, I'll yield, though we do need better sources. A **real** encyclopedia has an entry for it: https://www.britannica.com/animal/toothed-whale, and that's good enough for me.  I'll fold up my foaming mouth rant-box and carpet bag along with apologies.Tgm1024 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding to "Life Cycle" section
I plan on adding to the life cycle section to talk about the presence of post-reproductive life history strategies in 4 species of odontocetes (Killer whales, short-finned pilot whales, beluga whales, and narwhals). You can find the article here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-31047-8 and a supporting article here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534798013263. My goal is to include the importance of older female assistance in raising calves--Hgthacker (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgthacker (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Toothed whale


text:
Aviadvigatel PS-90

The Aviadvigatel PS-90 is a Russian high-bypass commercial turbofan rated at 16000 kgf (157 kN, 35,300 lbf) thrust. It powers Russian airliners such as the Ilyushin Il-96 and the Tupolev Tu-204/Tu-214 series and transport aircraft such as the Ilyushin Il-76. It is made by the Russian aircraft engine company Aviadvigatel, which is the successor of the Soviet Soloviev Design Bureau. "PS" are the initials of Pavel Soloviev (Пáвел Алексáндрович Соловьёв).

Design and development
With the advent of new generation of Soviet airliners, Aviadvigatel developed the PS-90 to satisfy the demands of economy, performance and exhaust emissions. It represented a huge advance over previous generations of 1960s era Soviet engines. The PS-90 is almost double the efficiency of those engines and is reasonably competitive to western engines of the 1980s such as the Pratt & Whitney PW2000.

Design features
It incorporates many firsts in a one-of-a-kind Russian engine with advanced technology features such as
 * High-bypass turbofan design for economy
 * Integrated exhaust with exhaust mixer for good efficiency
 * Acoustically treated exhaust duct for low noise
 * Full-authority digital engine control (FADEC)
 * Long service life based on on-condition maintenance
 * Modular design for ease of maintenance

It was first certified in 1992 and has been in service since.

Variants

There are several variants: the basic PS-90A, the PS-90A-76, and the improved PS-90A versions. The latter include the PS-90A1, PS-90A2, PS-90A-42 and the PS-90A3 engines.

PS-90A
The PS-90A engine is the initial variant and is standard equipment for Ilyushin Il-96-300, Tupolev Tu-204-100 and Tupolev Tu-214. For the first time, it allowed Russian airliners to achieve similar performance and economy to their western counterparts. PS-90A is rated nominally at 16000 kgf (157 kN, 35,300 lbf) thrust, 13.3% less than the Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 engine (which is also offered on the Tu-204), and the fuel consumption is 8.2% less than it.

PS-90A-76
This variant is a modification of the basic PS-90A engine. It is rated nominally up to 14,500 kgf (142 kN, 32,000 lbf) take-off thrust.

By replacing the D-30KP on the older Il-76, the service life of the aircraft can be extended. Fuel efficiency, and performance will be markedly improved and noise pollution reduced to comply with the new strict requirements. With the large fleet of both civil and military Il-76 aircraft still in operation, a potentially large market exists for engine replacement. An example of such a modified version is the Il-76MD-90. The PS-90A-76 is the standard on the newly built, modernized versions of the Il-76, such as the Il-76MD-90A and the Il-76MF.

PS-90A1
This variant is also a modification of the basic PS-90A engine. It was certified in 2007 and is offered as an option on the IL-96-400T aircraft.

PS-90A2
The PS-90A2 is an advanced derivative of the PS-90A, developed in cooperation with Pratt & Whitney. It has a fair proportion of western components from France, Germany, Sweden and the USA. It is also lighter than PS-90A and features improved FADEC. These features improve the performance and reduce maintenance costs by 40%. Fuel consumption is on par with current western engines, and its noise levels are below the current regulatory requirements. The PS-90A2 is the first Russian engine to be ETOPS-180 min rated. It is offered in newly built aircraft and is completely interchangeable with the PS-90A, allowing simple upgrades on present airliners.

It has the same thrust rating as the PS-90A, 16000 kgf (157 kN, 35,300 lbf) thrust. It is also capable of 18000 kgf (176 kN, 39,600 lbf) thrust.

Future American involvement in engine development has been put in doubt after attempts to block sale of PS-90A2 engines to an Iranian customer.

PS-90A-42
This is a version of the PS-90A2 intended for the Beriev A-42 search and rescue aircraft.

PS-90A3
According to the manufacturer, it is a modification of the PS-90A2. It was certified in January 2011 and intended to power the Tupolev Tu-204SM aircraft. It is unclear whether the US and European components of the PS-90A2 remain or whether they have been replaced by Russian ones. If the US components have indeed been replaced, then this engine could be fitted to the Tu-204SM ordered by Iran Air and its subsidiaries.

Gas Turbines

 * GTE-25P, GTU-25P unit
 * Gas turbine PS-90GP-2 derivative of PS90A2

title: Aviadvigatel PS-90