Talk:A-segment

Carsalesbase.com

There's a discussion of the source carsalesbase.com at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Carsalesbase.com. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

History section

Hello Cornellier. Below are the reasons why I disagree with this edit.

• "Prior to the A-segment being formalised...": is helpful to provide context to the history section (I put the "when" tag there, so that hopefully someone can provide the date, because my own search was unsuccessful)
• 1920s to 1970: The removed text is a neutral and broadly accurate history of the segment. Sure, the referencing needs improving, but in this case I think that tagging (rather than deletion is a better) would be more suitable.
• 1980s to 1990s: As per previous point.
  However, I think the South Korean section has an unbalanced amount of coverage here, so I agree with removing the sentance "These Korean cars...", plus condensing the first two sentances of the paragraph.

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The article presents no evidence that the term existed before 1999. How can it go on to describe vehicles before that time as being in that segment?--Cornellier (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cornellier. I think it is appropriate for the history section to also cover earlier models that weren't called A-segment at the time. It provides context to the reader and prevents the topic being split over several articles.
Yes, I agree the text is currently a bit sloppy in that historical vehicles are sometimes called A-segment without noting how they were classified at the time. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. It's true that, for example, we apply the term Hundred Years' War retroactively. However, putting vehicles that predate a classification by 70 years is problematic because it will be hard if not impossible to find proper references, and there's no formal definition for the class. These segment classes exist mainly so that motoring journalists have pigeonholes into which to put things. No one is saying "We just had a kid and we need to trade our B-segment car for a C-segment one". They say "let's trade in the VW Polo for a Golf". Go take a look at the manufacturers' websites. The segment terminology is not in use there. Maybe this is a bigger question that needs discussion at WikiProject Automobiles --Cornellier (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point. A thought just occurred to me... it seems like these history sections are written from the perspective of one country, rather than a worldwide perspective. So perhaps the history sections would be more suited to the article for cars in that country? (of course, the great slabs of unreferenced text are an issue, regardless of which article it's in)
PS Sorry that my initial respose was perhaps accidentally influenced by WP:OWN (I didn't write the text, but I have put some work into trying to clean it up a bit). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the History section should have been moved to Automotive industry in the United Kingdom. If you read the paragraphs they clearly discuss the whole European automotive market, not just the UK (it even says "European market"). If there is a "Automotive industry in Europe" or "History of the automobile in Europe" article, I could see it going there. Otherwise, why not leave it here for now? --Vossanova ^o< 23:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge from City car

I see that City car was merged into this article, after some consensus. However, I don't see any of the page's content (see [1]) here. Looking through the history, it seems it's been mostly deleted. Can we reincorporate at least some of it? --Vossanova ^o< 23:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Vossanova. The text in Automotive industry in the United Kingdom is what started out as the text from the City Car article. Regarding the question above about the best location for this text, although it says Europe a few times it seems to focus on popular cars in the UK, so it isn't a balanced perspective for the whole of Europe. Cheers, 1292simon

Introduction photos

1. Two cars as an examples of segment, including A-segment and all other Europe segments, are not best way to represents decades of battles between manufacturers. We have more than two models and brands who are often change for the best in class with every new generation of model. Four best-selling models are not too many and not too few to include as best in class at a first glance. (best brands and their best-selling models are appropriate examples of the segment class)

2. Yes, we can see same cars again in gallery, but that is not argument against posting more examples. Why first time user cannot see best-selling car in the class as first example? And why to include 5th selling car as example of segment if only two cars are limited for examples?

3. This is introduction examples for segment of cars. It is obvious that photographs of cars are included to explain car segment (as introduction examples and latter as list of highest selling cars in segment). And as all other segments include introduction photographs, this segment are in line with other car segments in Europe.

4. You can ask professionals what they think about design, and especially ask women (who mainly buy this and next class of cars) what they think about this dispute. I ask them.

Please do not delete numbers of right align photos.

P.S. We should include Fiat Panda as best selling car in class. And Fiat 500 (2007) as just few thousand less sales to be first. Also Toyota Aygo, as 3rd in sales, just anounce new model and are buying stake of joint venture from PSA (who are pulling from segment). And 4th photo are just to be in harmony with all other car segments in Europe.

New Heaven & New Earth (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)