Talk:Honda Civic/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Honda Civic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Predecessor?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but in the sidebar, it lists predecessor as "none." At least in the North American markets, we got a vehicle known as the "Honda 600," sold in coupe and sedan variants. It was smaller than a civic, but I would definitely list it as a predecessor. in fact, I'm adding it to the page until somebody disagrees. - Apocaplops 04:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

According to this, the successors to the N600 was considered to be the Honda Life and Z, which are also i love to eat cuntsha-class cars. The Civic is a much larger car, with the original having an engine almost twice the size as the N600. Therefore I don't think saying that would be correct saying they are related. --Zilog Jones 10:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Civic affairs

It's said the Alliston, ON, plant (which I notice isn't mentioned...) makes best Civics in the world, better than JDM lol, ... It also went into production of the Odyssey minivan in only 87 days, a company record. (BTW, Jim Kenzie of TSN's "Motoring" called the '73 G1 Civic "an Austin 1100 that didn't leak oil or blow up"...) Trekphiler 15:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, "best Civics in the world"? That's not completely opinionated at all! Anyway, they only make the coupes there now, which aren't exactly everyone's cup of tea lol, especially outside North America. --Zilog Jones 15:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Who said that? References are generally helpful...

Production dates

Why has someone re-ruined these dates, after I corrected them all!?

The new models of Civics did not come out at the beginning of every year - that is just stupid. The EF Civic started production in 1987, not 1988, even though the previous generation was still being produced for some time in 1987 as well.

And I don't care if those are the dates of US releases - we are talking about PRODUCTION dates of the car in general, i.e. when production started/stopped in Japan. I took those dates off the Honda website, and they are also the same as on the Japanese Wikipedia page, so they are undoubtedly correct lol. Don't do it again Mr. random IP address lol! --Zilog Jones 10:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD would people stop messing with the dates lol! I don't know how putting the production dates starting the year after they started makes any sense - especially with the new model - how can something you can buy today in Japan be in production starting next year!? That makes 0% sense lol. --Zilog Jones 02:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Model year my friend, model year. Using calendar year to mark production is overly pedantic lol, and something that next to no one on the planet uses. A model year 1987 Civic is assumed to have ended production in June-August of 1987, and a model year 1988 Civic is assumed to have begun production in August-September of 1987, even though it's known as a "1988 Civic". It's a universal standard employed throughout the auto industry. --93JC 18:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In this case I think we should list them both the production and model year lol.

Update Request

I think this page needs an update big time. The car at the top is like two generations old lol. My 7th gen civic isn't even on here lol, and the latest ones for 2006 aren't on either lol. Tertiary7 23:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

CRX=Civic?

Can some info on the CRX and CR-X del sol be included for this site? Or is the CRX a completely different car?

Technically, the CR-X was a spin-off of the Honda Ballade. --Zilog Jones 15:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And the Ballade was the original four-door variant of the Civic, and before the CRX came out already shared most of it's sheetmetal with the Civic aside from the front clip. The Ballade was more of a short-term experiment based on the Civic that formed the basis for the CRX work than the entirely-seperate vehicle platform you're implying.

What even the later ones that matched the styling of the newer Civic and were badged Honda Civic CRX?? 81.171.247.82 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section?

This is purely original research and should be deleted. Does anyone have any objections?--Folksong 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, most car sections have criticism, as long as they have fact and base that add to actual information i dont see the problem.

Honda Nicknames for the Civic

Just in case anyone's wondering, the terms such as "Wonder Civic," lol "Grand Civic" lol and others are terms used by Honda Japan and Honda Asia lol to describe each generation aside from the chassis code.--Folksong 01:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

I feel that we should keep the images that were removed by Karraman for now, to show the subject of the car better. A couple was rather poor quality but alot weren't but we can make replacements. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use fair use images in this article as they are not fair use as images can be replaced. I'm going out today and will take some photos and will add them if they are good. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

New Civic Pictures

Could someone get some pictures of the new Civic hatchback? The new saloon (what's currently there) looks mind-numbingly boring in comparison... --Zilog Jones 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

approaching Accord size?

Seems to me that many current Civics are considerably larger than my wife's old 1979 Accord. Both have grown quite a bit. Any measured size info available somewhere that could be incoporated

Popular brands are upsized over time. Accord went from compact to mid-size. Civic went from subcompact to compact. 205.174.22.28 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive photo gallery

Someone with a lot of patience ought to go through and drastically reduce the huge photo gallery in this article. I swapped some of the low-quality pics out of the infoboxes with decent ones from the gallery, but there is still an unmanageable volume. The better pictures should be illustrating the actual generations within their article sections, and the rest should be taken out of the page. IFCAR 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, people actually read that. Do show some patience and wait 24 hours before posting on the WikiProject talk page - it is used for more general issues. I will see about the gallery in a moment. Regards, Bravada, talk - 12:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't sure what the chances were that anyone would just happen to read the Civic discussion page any time soon. IFCAR 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

At first I thought of selecting the best pictures that comply with the guidelines, but then I saw that the article is already shorter than the infoboxes! One photo per infobox is fine - I only changed one where we have a better-quality photo - the rest should remain in the Commons. We can think of reinserting more pics when the article is (finally) expanded - until then, please restrain yourselves :D Still, we might use better pics for first and fifth generation - browse the internet, find a nice free pic, contact the owner, get the permission, upload! Bravada, talk - 13:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

someone should advise Bravada that mass refers to solidity of content, not size. 152.163.100.7

Would you say that this image is any better than the current photo of the 5th-gen Civic? IFCAR 20:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. That's funny, actually - I always thought of this generatio of Civics as fairly popular, yet there seems to be no decent photo of any of them! Bravada, talk - 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, I've been looking. When I do see them, often they aren't in usable shape. They're eleven years old at the newest, and eleven-year-old cars aren't typically in fantastic shape. IFCAR 21:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I found a 2nd-gen and 5th-gen hatchback parked side by side, which I thought was worth stopping for photos of. The lighting wasn't great, but are any of these usable? [1] [2][3] [4] IFCAR 00:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely worth stopping for! Too bad the 2nd-gen is so rusty, but fortunately the photo we have now ain't too bad. The 5th-gen is probably much better than anything we have now (I can see a bit of your car too :D ). I will also try to look around for some, I would have said those little hatchbacks are all around the place, but now that I need them suddenly they're all gone... Bravada, talk - 01:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Should I put one of the 5th-gen photos in the article in place of the existing one? Do you have a preference between the two? IFCAR 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found the following 5th-gen pic on Flickr: [5] [ It is licensed under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, so we can upload them to the Commons, and also crop and edit it etc. - do you think it is any better than what we have now? Bravada, talk - 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and how about this one for the current-gen (to make the article a little more "worldwide" and, frankly speaking, prettier)?

The 5th-gen photo is definitely much better, especially if it can be cropped. And considering how long the current-gen section of the article is, there should be space for a photo of the US and Euro Civic (the JDM model is already at the very top). IFCAR 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, there they are! I've done some lousy GIMP butchery on the Coupe, trying to cover up the antenna and the driveway in the background with fake grass and do something with the dirty driveway in the foreground (the car was so dirty I gave up after a few spots) - I hope the quality is not too shabby for the infobox at least, it's a placeholder anyway. The 8th-gen didn't come out as nice as I hoped, but both pics are CC-BY, so if anybody had more free time (and photoshop skills), feel free to play with them. Cheers, Bravada, talk - 00:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. I would also like to recommend you to browse Flickr's Creative Commons section, there are quite a fee good quality free pics there (remember to choose those that aren't tagged "non-commercial" or "non-derivatives")!

4wd?

There was a civic available with 4wd? Can anyone ad any imformation about this system? --Poody 23:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Civic Wagovan in the 1980s was availiable with 4wd. I know next to nothing about the system used, except that it became an automatic system in the late 80s[6]. Lack Thereof 10:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I had some passing acquaintance with one, but not enough to do a writeup. My main memory is that it was oddly truckish for a Civic, like they had transplanted the chassis from one of those little suzuki 4wds or something under the civic body. Gzuckier 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In Japan there was also a 6th generation Civic RTi which was an AWD (not all-time AWD) model and came with the D16A. The chassis code is EK5. --Tqless 11:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In 1988 Honda produced an AWD system called INTRAC (Innovative Traction Control system) that was an AWD and 4-wheel abs system. They stopped production in 1993.

I have seen two 1993 Civic RTi's in the U.S. and they were both Civic Ferio and the engine code is EH1.

2-doors are sedans?

The latest change replaces the phrase "2-door coupe" with "2-door sedan." Sorry, but in my book, 2-doors are coupes. Sedans have 4 doors. Will (Talk - contribs) 12:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a two-door sedan, believe it or not. --93JC 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I question that the Civics of the era were large enough. The article mentions the phrase "2-door sedan" in the portion of the article talking about the original model. That model was the smallest Civic ever released. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Large enough to be a sedan? There is no particular minimum size to qualify as a two-door sedan... --93JC 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

From the article you mentioned: "A two-door sedan is defined by the SAE as any two-door model with rear accommodation greater than or equal to 33 cubic feet (0.934 m³)". I question that the early Civics (or even the current Civic 2 & 3 models) have that much room. The article talks mainly about much larger coupes like "the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Ferrari 612 Scaglietti, and Mercedes-Benz CL-Class coupes are all two-door sedans." Will (Talk - contribs) 04:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! True enough. Serves me right for not reading that, eh?

Then again, it also says "In the popular vernacular, a two-door sedan is defined by appearance and not by volume—vehicles with a so-called formal roofline are called two-door sedans, while those with the more common sloping backlight are called coupes."

Which is what I was thinking of. --93JC 18:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dimensions (Metric v. Standard)

Was looking at this page while car shopping. Wouldn't the dimensions be easier for everyone to understand if they were in metric, rather than Imperial, given how few countries use Imperial? Nfitz 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, why does the 2Do list mention removing references to Kw as it is "irrelevant?" Metric measurements are very much relevant in most countries, all sensible ones anyway. IMHO measurements in Wikipedia should be given in metric with Imperial/"Standard" measurements given in parenthesis for our metrically-challenged readers.

"Trim Level: Honda Civic Coupe Si 2006" NPOV

This whole section needs to be rewritten. "This trim of Civic redefines the whole definition of "budget rides"? Please... This crap reads like a cheezy press release. --93JC 18:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I edited it a little bit, but it still sounds too much like a press release. Somebody else should tackle this... 06:41, 27 January 2006

I cut this section way down, removed the separate heading, and tried to keep nothing but the specifications, which I verified from Honda's website. I removed the NPOV tag. Bad ideas 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. --93JC 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

DX/EX/LX/...

Shouldn't this article contain some informaiton about the different verisions of civic such as LX/EX/DX (etc) and what exactly they mean?

don't forget hx

Different markets have different trims. --93JC 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are so many trims available throughout the world that it's just not worth it. From the RTi as I mentioned in my other posting to the GX, the natural gas model available in the US as a 6th gen and 7th gen model. --Tqless 11:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So then, why do we only have the US trim levels listed up there right now (along with the US chassis codes)? It makes it very confusing since there are so many other trims available throughout the world.. --Tqless 15:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Station Wagons and Doors

A station wagon (estate car here) is usually referred to as having the same number of doors as its Hatch equivalent, this is common sense as the openings are usually similar and definitely closer to hatch than to sedan (saloon car), therefore a wagon with two passenger doors and a luggage compartment door is a 3-door and one with 4 passenger doors is a 5-door. --81.171.247.82 13:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

EP, not EM?

I'm pretty sure the new model Civic is the "EP", and not the "EM" as shown in the article. Though I'm confused now - some sites seem to say "EP/EM" - what's going on? --Zilog Jones 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Your right it's EP not EM I think EM runs from 2001 or 2002 up to 2006 those are all EM labtekwon 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

i was wrong they're FG t(-_-t).tekwon 01:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, each generation uses several different chassis codes.

For example, 6G uses EJ (most US bodies), EK (most bodies in other countries), EM (US Civic Si, Canadian Civic SiR) and EN (US Civic GX)

7Gs also use EM (most US bodies), EN (US Civic GX), EP (US Civic Si), and ES (US Civic Hybrid).

8G uses at least both FA (US sedans), FD (JDM Hybrid and other?) and FG (US coupes). --Tqless 15:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

EP is the chassis code for the 2002-2005 Civic Si hatchback, EM is the code used for the 2001-2005 Civic Coupes.

Consolidation with Eighth Generation Honda Civic

The to-do list on this page states to "break apart the generations with more text into seperate articles". I strongly disagree with this point. Looking at this article, it appears far too clumsy and aesthetically unpleasant due to the fact that the templates are somehow longer than the raw text. Hence, I advocate a merge-in of Eighth Generation Honda Civic into this article and add more text into other generations without splitting separate generations from the main article. As it is, generations of car models do not require separate articles, as can be seen from even lengthier articles like Toyota Corolla, Pontiac GTO and Ford Mustang which are all presentable, acceptable and conslidated. The only occasion when it requires a separate article is when it becomes a major scion or new model line from an original model, like Toyota Camry Solara from Toyota Camry from, or Toyota Celica Supra from Toyota Celica. In this case, the Honda Civic Si can mantain its separate status, since it is a major notable variant rather than a minor unnotable spin-off, like the Subaru Impreza WRX STI from Subaru Impreza WRX from Subaru Impreza. In the absence of specific guidelines defining the situation and course of action, mantaining consistency is important and - as a bonus - definitely more practical. 211.175.217.194 08:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly advocate it, as well. The main article is too sparse on information, anyway. The key thing is that it is not neccessary to have separate pages on topics too closely related, I believe. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 18:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

99-00 Civic Si

I removed the line "Only the Si model offered a VTEC engine." The Si had a DOHC VTEC, and the EX had a SOHC VTEC. Also, I suggest someone post a different picture of the that year's Si. The grille on the current pic is not from the Si and makes the whole car questionable, as it could easily be an EX with the spoiler and stickers of the Si. --Cirilobeto 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The To-Do list needs work

For one thing, there should not be sub-articles about each generation of the Civic.Hondasaregood 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

For further reference:

http://www.hondacars.com/info/news/article.asp?ArticleID=2002082048053&bhcp=1&BrowserDetected=True

http://www.hondacars.com/info/news/article.asp?ArticleID=2003040241743

TimothyPilgrim 20:11, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

For references on vehicle specifications, I found the following site very useful:

This a Australian website just add what car and the year it was manufactured

Added by Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

TO DO LIST

I am Senators and I will be doing some of the issues that were brought up on the TO DO LIST within the next week or more and I am glad to be at assitance, if anyone else needs any help on a car article just tell me on my talk page. Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul.

I looked over what you wanted done, and I will try to do that the best as possible, and expand. I will still split it by generation. The Civic is sold all over the world with the same body style. Karrmann 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My brain's fried from ooverhauling teh Mercury Grand Marquis article. I'll do this tomorrow. Karrmann 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

NOW, I am ready to get some work done here. Karrmann 14:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Civic Type-R

I edited the material added yesterday (3/22/05) to clarify that the Civic Type-R was not first produced in 2001; rather, the EK9 CTR was first made in Japan in 1999. Also, I edited the added paragraph to reduce the level of breathless market-speak which was inappropriate for encyclopedic entries. --Ryanaxp 05:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I thought the Type-R first came out in '97? It was certainly available by the time Gran Turismo was released in 1997 ^_^ --Zilog Jones 23:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You're totally right—the Civic Type-R was indeed released in 1997 according this this press release from Honda. I'll go back and fix my goof... —Ryanaxp 18:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The 2007 Civic Type R will feature ESP, i.e. have a more playful variant of VSA - see e.g. http://www.channel4.com/4car/rt/honda/civic/1382/7 or Honda's own pages. The article currently says no ESP. Can someone correct please? Thanks. Funky (new to Wikipedia editing...) Funkdancer 03:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Sure if I'm going to say this but...

I'm not sure if I am going to say this or not but, is there a GPS device inside the '07 Honda Civic or not? IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise

I had to remove a sentence in the opening section of the article that was obviously inserted to promote the car. It was so biased, that it could have been right out of a Honda ad in a newspaper. I'm glad that people like to write and expand on wikipedia articles. Without editors, wikipedia would not be what it is. However, please refrain from promoting a vehicle. Understandably, people get excited about their cars and want to let others know how much they enjoy the vehicle. Expanding on the article about a car you love is awesome. But make sure you do it from a neutral stance. Text such as "regarded by most people to be an excellent value in style, power, performance, dependability, and depreciation, etc." is never acceptable on wikipedia. Those of you who are editing in good faith, keep up the good work, the article looks great! Chris01720 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the section on the 8th generation is beginning to look an awful lot like a brochure for the civic. I don't want to say that it has weasel words, because it doesn't, but someone wrote that while looking at a brochure with the the facts and features that they got at a Honda dealer. Again, those of you who edit in good faith, keep up the good work. Chris01720 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent specs

I fear some of the specs between the various generations are wrong, or at least inconsistent. For example, the "Honda E engine" article says that the 2nd generation Civic had EJ- and EM-type engines; this article says it was the older ED-type. (For what it's worth, I'm betting the engine article is correct.)

At the very least the specs for each generation need to be roughly checked and compared against other Honda-related articles or outside sources. 209.63.111.55 00:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Seventh Generation Civic Type R

The power specification figures and units are misleading. The unit for Specific Engine Output is Power/Volume (i.e. PS/litre), the unit for Specific Power is Power/Weight (i.e. bhp/lb).

Also, 197 bhp = 199.7 PS = 146.9 kW

and 199.7 PS/1.998 litres = 99.95 PS/litre

I can't find a figure for the weight of the 7th generation CTR, which is needed to work out the Specific Power.

This generation of the Type R was based on the 3 door hatchback model that was available in Europe. The body shape was not specifically developed for the Type R, as the article leads one to believe. In the UK at least (and maybe in other parts of Europe), there was a S-Type Civic, which shares most of the exterior modifications of the Type-R, but was fitted with a lower output engine.

There's an S-Type that parks in my street, I'll try to get a photo.

It's also interesting to note that the eighth-generation UK Civic 3 door hatches are only available in Type-S or Type-R specs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sunny dundee (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Pics

there aren't any pics of american honda civcs on the top, the american civic should be next to the European civic, Also, we need to add the Honda Civic si 4-door. there should be other pics of older sis too. Maybe a few pics of racing civics. And why is there a thing about Australian saftey? shouldn't there be american ratings too?

You sound like you're trying to make the article very US-centric. I don't know why only Australian safety was mentioned, but there's no particular reason that US ratings need to mentioned, in addition, any more than any other country. As for images, it would make the most sense to have primary focus on the JDM model, whilst also displaying the differences in versions from other markets. --85.210.50.158 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Civic is a very US-centric car. There are more than 300k sold per year in the US. How many are sold in Australia? BTW, the Australian rating could be confusing or misleading. Is Civic just "average" in it's segment? Or is it "average" among all cars? How is safety defined? Crash-worthiness, or death rate, or insurance claims? They are correlated, but not the same. For one thing, Civic is THE most crash-worthy small car in the United States, according to IIHS lol.

Shouldn't we have an interior photo? The new interior is highly controversial lol and could be of interest to readers.

Minor errors regarding Eigth-generation features

Feature list included should be cross checked with http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=2005082954805, an official honda feature list. Certain features, such as audio jacks on LX models are incorrectly represented, but I'm not so great at wiki, so I dont feel confident making the changes.

Also, the 2008 USDM version now includes a EX-L model that comes with leather-trimmed seats, steering wheel, front center armrest, and heated front seats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.67.22 (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Civic RS?

Well i've recently been looking around on different websites and found that there is a trim level for the honda civic called RS. I don't know much about it but my guesses are that it is a trim only available in Japan and Europe, it seems to be the trim level right below SI, and it probubly stands for RalliSport. if someone could make a section about it I would appreciate it, i can't find very much information about it on the internet anywhere and i'm interested in learning about it. 71.98.155.89 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)RS mean Road sailing

The Civic RS more known as the Civic Vi-RS (EK3) came out in Japan in 1999. It came with a 3 stage VTEC and I believe an automatic transmission. It was a 4-door. And had a badge on the grill that said RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.231.105 (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

8th Gen section a mess

"Trims and models" section should be put under North America of Worldwide Distribution as it is entirely about the American and Canadian model. I would do it myself but there is quite a bit of decent information on the Si in the North America section that I don't know where to put. The number 3 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Non redundant Si info should be merged into the Civic Si sub page. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

honda civic's

what's is a 98 honda civic coupe called is it a ek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.244.40 (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

European Civic/Domani

Does the European Civic/rebadged Domani deserve its own section in here, even a subsection alongside the other Civic with which it is was sold alongside? Alastairward (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Del sol

the del sol should be in here.. it was considered the civic del sol till 1995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.8.34 (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Edmunds.com

Big chunks of the C1\/1c article matches that of the Edmunds.com Civic Generations article mentioned in the references section. As an example, compare the two blerbs on CVCC. Is there plagiarism goin on yo? Lavenderbunny (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Honda's are also made in Thailand

I noticed the info wasn't correct about the civic's point of manufacter. They have also been made in Thailand since 1984 and in Malaysia since 1969. Check this info out http://www.asianhonda.com/en/asa_opr/asa_mls.htm# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.194.254 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

European Civic

Why does the European Civic not get a mention? The Type-R models are based on the European models, and the new 2006 hatchback is far more interesting and better designed than the U.S. Civic.

true, otherwise it'll be confused by some people who are looking for a new civic (people trying to buy one). Since ther eis no mention that it's an European car, people will think it's the american civic

Agreed. That section doesn't come across too well - Lindsay Haus

Yes. The European Civic definitely deserves it's own article. Please, address this.

No. Hell no. The Civic hatchback gets its own section in this article. --93JC 14:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? You posted no link as you suggested, and I just searched for the hatchback, and there is no article. Please point me to the article you are talking of.

I believe it was the third generation (E-AT ?) Civic that was built by MG Rover (badged as a Honda) at their UK Longbridge plant. Of course this was built alongside the Rover version. Therefore "Assembly" should include Longbridge UK. Cabinscooter (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Demerger

This Civic page is too long! We want this page demerged like the Toyota Corolla & Volkswagen Golf. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So why not do it yourself?--Flash176 (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Definately needs a demerge! Andman8 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright I will do it. --Leivick (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Options??

There were no options listed for the 88-91 Civics lol. Could we have somebody list the options that were available on this car lol, and the others also. 70.187.75.72 (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Someone vandalized the whole page and they replaced anywhere with the word honda to hondana and i edited about half of them out. If someone could please fix it, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felliph3 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why in the world are the section headings given by manufacturing date?

Is an advertized "2006 Civic" the September 2006 Seventh generation or the March 2006 Eighth generation? The article gives no clue and is going to confuse most visitors, no? The subheadings really need to be by model years and not manufacturing dates, as the text in the body can easily accomidate details like manufacturing dates. What do you all think? Habanero-tan (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Model years" are only really used in North America - using model years without explicitly saying that they are model years are just confusing to most of the rest of the world. I think their use as the most prominant dates should be avoided outside American vehicles for this reason. I think the best way to avoid this problem is to use months and years, but these are hard to hard outside the production start dates, and internationally sold cars like the Civic can be sold in different markets for significantly different periods. --Zilog Jones (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

5th gen

um don't think that the codes are right, i mean i've not seen an eh hatch, i always thought they was egs so i'm gonna change it and if wrong sorry t(-_-t).tekwon 13:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC) "Yea no one has ever seen a eh hatch, they only come in eg hatchbacks for those years." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmechillin05 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The blue Civic is an Si, not an SiR (updated)

An anonymous user changed the caption from "Civic Si" to "Civic SiR," which is incorrect. I uploaded the picture, which is of an acquaintance's car, and happen to know that it is in fact a U.S. Civic Si (not a Canadian SiR, which was substantially identical to the U.S. Si but branded as an SiR for various reasons).

An anonymous user changed the caption of the picture of this car to "Civic SiR" with the rationale that b16a-equipped Civics are sold as the SiR in all non-U.S. markets. Although this is true, it is nonetheless irrelevant regarding the caption of the picture because this particular automobile is not an SiR, but rather a U.S. Civic Si.
If a contributor wishes to contribute a photo of an actual SiR from a non-U.S. market, it would likewise be incorrect to caption such a photo as "an Si," for similar reasons.
--Ryanaxp 16:30, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

yea the si blue is blue metallic and they have it in the us —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmechillin05 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Honda Civic MA 1, 2, /MB 1 - 6?

What happened to the MA/MB's why are they not mentioned?

Are they not also 4th or 5th gen?

Okey they are made in GB but they are still Honda Civic's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.126.106 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Grassroots section

I can't find any evidence that there is such a car as a "Chrysler Civilian." Further, the footnote link supporting this section doesn't list a "Chrysler Civilian" anywhere. Lastly, the same link seems to list several other cars aside from Civics winning whatever race that's being discussed. 68.48.229.230 (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Efficiency

In the eigth generation section, it states the fuel economy for the diesel engine is 8.3 MPG. This must be an error or prior vandalism. Anyone have the correct figure?--MartinezMD (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the fuel consumption is less in city than on highway - usually it's the other way around. Also, what's "lite"? Tupsumato (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure "lite" is "liter", maybe from someone who was not a native english speaker. I'm thinking the figure could be 83 mpg or there could be a missing 100 in front of km. It's hard to say. We just need reliable information.--MartinezMD (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

does anyone know why the link www.kplayground.ca was taken down?

Acoach (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be an advertising link, not the kind of link normally used in WP:External links. The fact that it was being added to a bunch of pages by a new user support this. As the message on your talk page says, if you believe it is appropriate discuss it here with the other Honda experts. Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

hum i dont believe it is spam... as the company is legit and have very good reputation. they also offers great info on the diff 8th civic modifications available..so it make it alot easier for civic fans to know the trends and all.. overall they are great.. providing awesome info to expand the knowledge base for car enthusiasts,adds great value and great products too.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoach (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fans can do a Google search for additional product information; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can read WP:ELNO for the policy on links.--MartinezMD (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

well yeah fans can google.. but wikipedia is the place to go to for many pple to get answers.. its sure does make is handy to have a company like kplayground here.. so pple can know where to go to get answers.. imho.. convenience and ease of use ( just click a link).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoach (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the link does not meet WP:EL. It is a commercial site whose main goal is to sell a product. --05:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Honda Civic/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Gave the article a "C" rating due to substantial length, lack of adequate references, and significant need of cleanup. High importance due to car's usage by numerous people.--Flash176 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Side air bag

A little confusing when the side air bag became standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.226.225 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Honda Civic. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId%3D68272
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014091318/http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/ucsr to http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/ucsr
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318012629/http://www.btcc.net/html/generalnews_detail.php?id=2598 to http://www.btcc.net/html/generalnews_detail.php?id=2598

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Honda Civic. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

10th generation paragraph goes under 9th generation

The last paragraph under the description of the 10th generation looks as though it was meant to conclude the 9th generation instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:FFC0:46:2C09:F3BE:6C27:203 (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Honda Civic replacement

Hey Charles, Saw you made a replacement of Vauxford's example. I totally agree with your edits, unfortunately dark coloured vehicles do emit a lot of reflections.

I have a proposal of another image, this time however its a sedan. Also please note, background is important in achieving a successful image. I've proposed the following to be used. I've not had the time to take photos, due to other commitments and my camera is getting serviced in 3 days.

Your one, but what I find it is very skewed. A further analysis reveals the background far looks to be very busy. Also angle is very poor.
The proposed one. Its a sedan, yes, however that doesn't matter. As long as the image is of good quality and is at the correct lighting, then it means it can be used. Doesn't matter if its a hatchback or sedan, either way both are equally fine. Also sedan was released first in 2016, then the hatchback, so the 'tradition of Civics' is not a good excuse for reverting or replacing
I may be self advertising myself, however I do not think that mine is that excellent. With the vehicles in the background its very distracting. I am very picky with background choices, however this would be a secondary proposal.
Whilst this has the best background, its very reflective. Look I understand what we are going to say, its bad? However Vauxford claims this isn't much of an issue , so we can always assume the best. I think this is a good hatchback model one.

Out of these, which of the three you think would be most suitable. Please be evaluative, do not think yours is better just for the sake of it. Okay, please let me know. If I was in your shoes, I'd do the Brazillian version due to less distractions :). All are welcome to choose, including Vauxford. Also note, Charles did the replacement, so I thought I bring it up :). See diff.

Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

EurovisionNim The previous image which you (probably intentionally) not listed was fine. There is no distinctive tilt in it and the reflection isn't that much of a problem. --Vauxford (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No I was doing it to another one mate, not yours. It was my example. You may have made a mistake :) It was to replace my blue sedan one :). The problem Charles and I have with yours is the background. Also technically dark colour cars tend to emit blindspots, as Charles spotted so it was not me who did that replacement. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford. I've added yours, please see out of the four, which is better. Apologetic for my mistake --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Last edit was done by Eddaido, Vauxford, please see why others do not agree with your image :). See I'm not the only one who belives yours is bad, Eddidao replaced it mate. Now we need to discuss it, which I've placed it there. I think the Brazillian one is good, the person IMHO is not going to be such a big deal, as he is confined in the background. Please feel free to disagree with me Vauxford --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't use this as in the context of "Ha ha, you're wrong I'm not the only who think so :)" Well my defence with the infobox picture is Charles's example is literally in a ditch, it pretty much a side shot and it has same amount (if not worst) background distraction, the reflection isn't that much of a issue and personally Nim you should take Charles critique too literally like you do with everything. I just found out you used a edit warring template, do you know how hypocritical you are right now since you done it FAR worst on 3 separate occasion. --Vauxford (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. However mate, you need to understand that these mistakes were made, and I've learnt my lesson. YOU on the other hand are just being a pain. If someone disagrees with you, don't be so defensive. I want to now work to make sure we are collaborating. So what if it happened yesterday? I don't actually care if I'm a hypocrite, I've learnt my lesson and want to on this day move forward to becoming a good editor. Doesn't matter if i'm taking something too literally, I want to be a valuable editor for 2019. You need to understand that calling me a "hypocrite" [7] is unacceptable. I've changed, I'm matured and now I want to be a good editor. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Excuses coming from you, you haven't learnt your lesson one bit and attempting to set me up, using the revert which was a error on my behalf since both Honda are the same colour combining it with this separate dispute with Eddadio and Charles as a reason to have the audacity to put a edit warring template on my talkpage ever since Davey mention the following of a block from your previous edit warring. --Vauxford (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Eddaido Any particular reason why you thought the blue one was "remarkably ugly"? The last revert you did (if I'm not wrong) was more to do with the conflict between me and Nim then it does to the actual article which I find isn't a valid reason to revert. The problems I have with you is that you revert things based on personal preference rather then actual things in the picture. --Vauxford (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry do you mind on elaborating what you mean? I'll get Eddaido to further explain. Its a nice car, but the reflections are marring the quality of the shot. My suggestion to avoid these is to stick to brightly coloured cars, like yellow, red, white, silver, light blue etc. as opposed to dark colour cars as these create blindspots. Also your X3 example, has a lot of blindspots, but its QI, so its no biggie. Sometimes even vehicles with the showroom shine can produce blindspots. :) Correct me if I'm wrong , but I'm slowly learning about these, as I never got told these when OSX was there --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

4th Image (edit conflict) - I don't think Vauxfords image is the problem ... I think the main problem is that it's generally an ugly car .... I think Vauxford's image just shows its uglyness more!, Maybe it's just me but I honestly think it's an ugly car, Either way I think Vauxford's is the best as it shows the front and side as opposed to the side, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 12:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Fairo, I prefer the 2nd one as it doesn't have too many distractions. With the person in the background I don't think he is affecting the image wholehardly. But remember this is opinion based, so doesn't matter :). Davey2010, also mate what about the 2nd and 3rd one, we are also thinking of using either of the two for the article, so we are basing these two examples too mate --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

EurovisionNim I didn't personally ask you, you had your say in the beginning. and again I would advise not to take Charles's "blindspots" too literally.--Vauxford (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm allowed to say what I wish. Anyway, what does he mean by "blindspots"? I'm extremely confused and thought you'd be kind enough to elaborate for me. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

He meant blindspots as in you are unaware of your flaws, not as a noun like "reflection" or "blur". Also, it impolite to answer other people questions, especially when they are directed to that person. --Vauxford (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't intend to be rude, but thankyou. Can't he just be simple enough. We are not scholars, we are just simple editors --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd would be my second option but the third image wouldn't even be an option, Image 4 is miles better tho. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 13:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. The third one is very distracting with the cars behind. Why do you not think image 2 would be the better option? Please elaborate :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The camera postilion, the angle it was photographed, also for me there looks like whitish light around the headlight on the 2nd image, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 15:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010 As well as the fellow doing his garden chores.

Also I think it fair to say Eddaido is refusing to state why he reverted it. All he said was that the car was "ugly" which isn't really constructive reason and more of a personal opinion and thought me and Nim was having a cat fight.--Vauxford (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Just to add I've reinstated Vauxfords image simply because it was added back in November and no objections were raised at the time, Images should only be changed after a discussion not before. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay no worries. I don’t think this works likes that, editors have the right to change images whenever they wish, but considering a lot of bad images out there on Commons, Vauxford along with myself and others are working to achieve HQ shots. Ok consensus is finalised we will be using Vauxfords example. Also image quality can change thereby by allowing bold edits we are to ensure the best out of everyone images :) Remember Davey, see WP:BOLD, editors have the absolute right to replace images whenever they wish. QI examples, must not be changed unless it can be superseded by another QI example, its a practical common sense guideline, we want the best quality where possible —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 23:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Before I go quiet again, I have tried to say silent. ("I've reinstated Vauxfords image simply because it was added back in November and no objections were raised at the time") I have Many objections to the (often very) poor quality images being inserted by this pair who have been "having their Cat Fight" (whatever that is, I thought it was two women) for far too long with complete disregard for the time trouble and effort of other contributors which they destroy to please themselves and not "to advance the project". I have been waiting for them to wear themselves out. I hope we all get there very soon. I applaud the extraordinary patience of Davey2010 and company. Eddaido (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Theres no point edit warring mate. Leave as is, I'll try and get a better picture as soon as I can Davey2010 & Eddaido, i've just had other commitments that were more important. Have a good one :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

And funny thing is, this reminds me of a couple of friends who were fighting like a catfight. This'd be a female version, but the male version would be called 'banter' 🤪 – however you should probably wait 24 hours, then reinsert the image. Again, doesn't matter sedan or hatchback, either of the two is equally fine. In Australia, the sedan sells better than the Honda, but sales aren't recovering well, since the ninth generation. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

EurovisionNim There is no need to take another photo, the one on there is fine without any problems, again why do you need the urge to replace it with your own? "QI examples, must not be changed unless it can be superseded by another QI example" What the betting when you start roaming the street again, you gonna ram your photos to try and get them promoted to QI as a sorry excuse for them to be used, there is many images that been rated QI but does suit best to the article that you (yet again) missing the point. --Vauxford (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I can picture whatever I wish. Again, this will be discussed via consensus. Eddaido complains about your images, and I thought this be better to use. Why are you so intent on being defensive of your images. Its not like I'm going to just jam it on there, I'm going to bring it up for discussion. If an image is QI, do you replace it? No, because QI images was discussed by community consensus. Actually not really of my own, but to elaborate the sun soaked walls is of problems with Eddaido. We will get Eddaido to further elaborate. 2019 is the time for me to make drastic improvement with my images. Also point raised, I did not do the image replacement on the last one. I will be doing it now in suburban areas, with friends. So I can do it if I wish, but I think as you suggested, I'll bring it up to discussion. Everyone can choose. If Pil56 told you on the Italian Wikipedia to stop replacing images with your own, then I think as a suggestion you should do that for all wikis. Look, the majority of your photos are good, but you need to heed to other users replacements. Charles01 is just being a pain, hes worse than me, he intends to replace blurry examples, with perfectly fine ones :). I'm allowed to as per WP:BRD, and if others disagree (besides you), thats no problems, I will of course improve my photos on and on again. Remember we don't need full UK examples, I may sound like a hypocrite, and I do apologise, however everyone has a right to make a contribution as per WP:BOLD. Take care --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You are annoying enough people as it is with these RfC on a daily basis, stop saying "2019 is going be the year I'm improve" like you expect any less complaints from how you edit, you are a big problem hence why I made the ANI about you. Now it seem you going to be using Eddaido as a pawn to your biased and grudged-filled justification. This is has nothing to do with how many photo from that country that all from you and OSX. --Vauxford (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia is not owned by anyone. Again, I may sound like I'm a big hypocrite by doing these own articles, however not a lot of people can help. This is why (and I will be doing these from now on), to prevent further conflict its best to photograph cars that do not have too many reflections. Also theres no need to use a range top example all the time. I may consider my edits fine, but I don't have to stick to what I can do. I will picture, assess and upload what I know is good. I know I'm annoying, and am not proud of it. If you want non "sun drenched" shots from me, you'd have to wait till March. I can do what I want, after all Wikipedia has no set rules on how I upload my images. I'm allowed to do whats necessary to improve --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yet, you seem so shocked every time someone called you out, even what you said, this is just gonna cause more problem and make other editors restless because of you. It likely, and he done it in the past, Eddaido doesn't want anything to do with what you planning of using him for. He not a pawn, he not a asset, he not object which always agrees with you to make yourself feel better of yourself. --Vauxford (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Big deal, this happens a lot. If they get tired of me, thats no problem. I'm here to edit, and I shall edit, as long as I'm not violating Wikipedia policies. Thing is, I'm allowed to upload what I wish, but what I have an awful dislike of (and forgive me), is the author reverts back to his own image. You were told by Pil56 that this wasn't acceptable to think in your own mind that the image that YOU took is better quality in your opinion. I apologise again if I'd make a mistake. If you were not being difficult by ignoring my messages, I wouldn't have to discuss with you :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Bringing in users from OTHER Wikipedias isn't going to do you justice, stop including him in your discussion, he has nothing to do with English Wikipedia. --Vauxford (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

2019 Honda Civic VTi-S.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Honda Civic infobox

Alex Neman decided to change the infobox on the Honda Civic article. I disagree with this change but due to my topic ban I can't revert it. Keep in mind before Alex's edit, Carfan568 previously replaced the infobox picture with a blue saloon image. I believe the previous image before these was perfectly fine and it was involved in another dispute on this talkpage where people prefer it over the others. I find the long standing image, although slightly reflective due to the colour but at a better angle and less distraction such as cars in the background. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Alex Neman's proposal
The change made by Carfan
The previous, long standing image

None of the three are particularly good. The one added by Carfan is, to put it bluntly, unusable.

I don't have time to browse Commons, but a quick glance through this and the generation articles, the best quality image I can find is this one:

While the current formal consensus is that timeliness is not a factor, I've noticed that recentism seems to have unfortunately won out in practice - and in this particular case, I don't know that the early models are the best representation (although I wouldn't oppose this image on those grounds).

!votes

I'm thinking that this is a better option than the three in question, and seems to be the most acceptable of all the more modern incarnations.

--Sable232 (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I definitely think the original image is the best of the three. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

("original image" meaning Vauxford's blue one) Toasted Meter (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Toasted Meter. Vauxford, your picture is definitely the best out of these three. The angle is right, with a reasonable amount of focal length. Illumination is fine as well. The background could be better (but not a big problem), however, it comes with a lot of reflections. Eurovision Nim's picture doesn't come with enough focal length and I'd say its's overexposed, in Lightroom, I have to crank the Highligths slider down to -40 before the overexposure warning indicator comes off. Thesupermat's picture is definitely not good. The angle is completely off, the picture looks distorted, the background is busy and there are plenty of nasty reflections. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 and I agree with Toasted Meter and Johannes - Yours is the best out of the 3, The white one looks too white and the other one has all the reflections on it and isn't taken from the best angle either,

~~I have often wondered if Alex Neman is a sock of EurovisionNim as it's not the first time they've done this.~~ –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 10:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing sock accusation by myself which turned out to be incorrect entirely.

Codswallop, take a look at the GPS coordinates of Euovision Nim's and Alex Neman's pictures. Why would Eurovision Nim travel all the way from Australia to Indonesia? Also, compare their writing styles. I seriously doubt that there is sockpupetting involved here. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Johannes Euro was a frequent visitor to Indonesia and Malaysia and did often take pictures of cars there so it's certainly plausible. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 12:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you say so. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I do although quite clearly Alex isn't Euro. Struck. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 13:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The image of the white car labelled "Alex Neman's proposal" is much the best and clearest and cleanest and has the great bonus of missing out on the obstructive violent blue colouring of the first two with their many obscuring white reflections. I have often wondered if the possibility of a sock involvement is raised in a discussion by a sock laughing up its sleeve knowing how marvellously clever it is. Eddaido (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I too vote for the "Alex Neman proposal", although I also disagree with the recentism. Don't have the energy to find a better pic of the 1987-1991 Civic (my fave) to propose, and I don't think adding more chefs to this broth would be much use. I would love a rotating infobox image, with three or four options changing at random. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW at this late stage - while none of the images are ideal, the white car, labelled 'Alex Neman's proposal', looks like the best option. It contrasts well with its background, which, while including parts of other cars, is fairly uniformly dark; also, it doesn't suffer so badly from the distracting reflections - it's the better image, in my view. Obviously the best one from an aesthetic perspective would be the 1976 version, but I agree that we should probably bow to recentism here. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Well it clear cut consensus with the long standing blue one (3 users prefer it). So could someone replace the current one with that please? --Vauxford (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford should not be attempting to rush this decision by sending his chum Davey a request to replace the white car image within a day.

The blue car image from Vauxford has already been inked to wikipedia articles in 16 different languages. It's really not THAT good! I assume it has been linked to wikipedia entries in sixteen different languages not by a neutral wiki-contributor but by himself. In other words, we are back to the Vauxford problem.

It is great that Davey wants to help Vauxford with his issues. But Vauxford should not be trying to steer Davey like some sort of a "special friend".

There are several hundred pictures of Honda Civics on Commons. No one (except Vauxford, when it suits his purposes) is wedded to the idea that you should always show an image of the latest model in the top infobox.

None of which would matter if the picture of the blue car were a superb picture. It's not. Messy background and excessive reflections.

Please can Davey avoid carrying out Vauxford's request till we've had time to think about it? We know already that Davey does not always mind so much about backgrounds, when it comes to pictures of cars. Maybe he doesn't share my opinions about excessive reflections on the paintwork either. But there is clearly the image of another car and some sort of building reflected in the paintwork of the blue car: no problem if it was the only picture available, or the others were all massively worse. But that ain't how it is. Please let us not be rushed into endorsing a pretty indifferent choice here. Please?

I would not be inclined to restrict the choices to the three images that Vauxford has helpfully proposed. But of the three, the white car image on the left is, by my judgement, more or less competent. (It would be better if the photographer had found ways to compensate more effectively for the familiar "white car in bright sunlight" challenge.) The two blue car images both have more serious issues.

But please can people look at commons for themselves and not let themselves be led by Vauxford over this? Because one of the pictures involved was inserted by Vauxford in the first place!

Also, although he will blur the distinctions and push the boundaries with his characteristic enthusiasm, I am not at all sure whether Vauxford's contributions here fall within the restrictions to which he is, in theory, subjected following his lengthy involvement in the admin noticeboard discussions of his choice. Or is this just a matter of interpretation? Vauxford's and everyone else's?

Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

(Just to clear up any confusion from outsiders - Charles was talking about this message that Vauxford left me whilst I was out. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 16:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC))

Discussion between Vauxford and Charles

Charles01 That not what I was trying to do. I thought it was clear cut consensus as per my topic ban. This has nothing to do with making Davey a "special friend", I could of chosen anyone else to do the task. It like I can't go anywhere without you belittling me, you got what you wanted right? Is this what you going to do every time I proposed a picture related to mine based on my sanction, if that the case then I won't put up it. It is clear people want the blue car image and so I thought it was safe to ask for it to be added because I cannot do the edit myself. If you actually read the history on those other Wikiepdias, I did these WAY before I knew it was problematic, there is no "Vauxford Problem" because I haven't done that sorta editing since!--Vauxford (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford - Consensus needs to build first and I'd rather leave it for another week or 2 before closing (or letting someone else close). –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 15:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010 Waiting one or two weeks for whatever edit I try to do when it comes to pictures that aren't mine seem tedious and time-consuming, I thought when they meant "clear cut consensus" on my talkpage I thought they meant it take less time for a decision to be made.

Of course Charles is too high and mighty to reply to a peasant like me (sarcasm). He thinks everything I do there some malicious side to it and did it enough for people to think bad of me. The problem is, he highly respected in the community so he end up getting a slap on the wrist for stuff I would got a lot severe, don't deny it, despite the policies that all editors are treated equally, it has happened in the continuously but are hard to spot. --Vauxford (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I used to reply to you more than I do these days. When I reply to you, you tend to misrepresent what I write and become very upset and more time consuming than ever. So yes, it generally seems easier (and far less time consuming) to ignore most of what you write. Sadly, I do not always find myself able to ignore everything you do, however. Sorry you don't like it. If you wish to infer disrespect from that, I cannot stop you from doing just that. But disrespect is not what I wish to communicate, if simply I can't think of a useful answer to everything that you write, every time you write something. As for me, I find I don't always get unqualified respect from .... Davey, to take an example not quite at random! I'm sure there will be others! Truth is, we're all individuals. We all think for ourselves. Differently. Inevitably, we each of us find some wiki-contributors more fathomable and some more unfathomable. I'm not sure how far respect needs to come into it, though mutual respect is a courtesy which you should attempt to apply at all times. So should the rest of us, me very much included. But please stop trying to see wikipedia contributors as one amorphous blob of disrespect, targeting Vauxford. You really are not the most important thing in everyone else's lives, even if you do seem to have an unerring talent for swallowing up a disproportionate amount of other folks' time. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 I just want you to stop with the condescending attitude you have with me, you can't go without mentioning something personal related to me or this "Vaxuford Problem". I'm not doing this to make myself as the centre of attention nor I'm doing it to waste people time. Right now you seem to be labeling me as some bad guy who like to waste people time, yeah, I am not that important but I still don't like being treated like rubbish. This discussion was sound and neutral until you stepped in and throw in all these baseless assumption for why I made this talkpage discussion, it pathetic and sad.

Davey2010 No, I refuse for this to be swept under the rug, I'm sick and tired of Charles01 hounding me and labeling everything I do as something malicious, what the point of utilising my topic ban if I'm just going get stuff like this bludgeoning the discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

To be fair Charles has a point - There's no need to rush it, Most RFCs continue for well over 5-10 days and this should be treated the same,

Charles (understandably) was annoyed with you trying to rush this and coming to my talkpage to have it closed instead of just waiting patiently,

Vauxford you run the risk of being blocked so please stop immediately, don't reply to this, don't reply to Charles, don't reply to !votes ... just don't reply to anything .... Just let people !vote and comment and just ignore everyone .... life's much more quieter that way, Happy editing. (also please don't ping me anymore here, thanks) –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing another digressive bit involving (this time) Dave and Charles

Apologies Charles01 for the now deleted rant - I thought you were saying I was !voting for Vauxfords image because we're mates - I didn't realise you were referring to his message to me (which I still haven't read), Had I read it first it would've been declined anyway as I prefer consensus to build first.

Vauxford - Consensus needs to build first and I'd rather leave it for another week or 2 before closing (or letting someone else close). –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 15:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No harm done, Davey (though I did take the opportunity of going back and reading your deleted contribution. Probably a mistake by me. And ... wow!) Anyway, you seem to have deleted Vauxford's request on your talk page so presumably you read it at some stage. As often happens where Vauxford is concerned, we seem to be getting digressive. Maybe I'll put this in another of those little parenthetical concealed boxes....

Back to content creation? Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 I was kinda hoping you wouldn't of read it to be honest :), Again I do apologise for that outburst as I said I had completely misread everything,

Agreed this whole discussion should be collapsed but there we go lol,

Anyway onwards and upwards as they say, I look forward to editing constructively with you certainly in better conditions than today!,

Happy editing! :), –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 16:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I would request for closure but looking through, I don't know what to do if it a tie (3 prefer the white car and 3 prefer the long standing blue one) Not to sound narcissistic but does my vote for the previous blue car counts? --Vauxford (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

While I still think the first and fifth generation images are of better quality, if there's a tie to be broken I'd say that the image of the blue car is easier on the eyes than the white one, which is so overexposed that it's a bit hard to look at when at full-screen size. --Sable232 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The white car labelled "Alex Neman's proposal" is my vote out of those 3, due to it having less reflections. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
For me, I also agree with 1292simon and the others, my vote goes to the white car photo labelled "Alex Neman's proposal", as it has more angular look to it. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Type R

There are no mentions whatsoever of the Type R for the last gen. civic and there is only an horsepower rating for the first gen. type r, not even an engine code. Still, there are mentions of the type-r concept...

US Civic Si gauges

the 2006 civic si's gauges aren't "more reddish," they are red (I agree with the aggressive comment, though), while the civic EX/LX/DX has blue gauges. I haven't seen the inside of a Hybrid to comment if they are different.

addendum... details re: added mileage stats on June 9, 2008

I bought this car new and have the documentation and track record for the car. It has always effectively achieved the mileage numbers they advertised at the time. That is the reference cited for the information. There is no web link for the owner's manual / dealer information as far as I know, but it is nonetheless accurate. Other generations of the Civic in this Wikipedia article include mileage ratings, and the only information provided here for the second generation was specifically for the FE model. The standard model needs to be represented as well, and since 1) it is not always easily found on the web, 2) the EPA site only goes back to 1985 models (as of this writing), 3) I have the information in print, and 4) it is useful information for the Wikipedia to have, especially adding the consistency and comprehensiveness of the other information here. Beyond the written reference I cited above (which is not online, since it is in the owner's manual / dealer materials), there is however an online reference as well, in the Honda Civic Gas Mileage - 1978-1985 section, row 46, the third to last entry for 1983 Honda Civic (4 cylinder - M5 - Manual - 34city - 47highway), at this site: http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/16/honda-civic-gas-mileage-1978-2007/ .

Editing References (Dumb Question)

Reference #45 is incorrect now that the SCCA has changed their web site from a .org to a .com domain. The link to the 2011 Solo II Rules would be correct if the .org was replaced with .com. When I attempted to edit the "References" section, all it said was: "Reflist|2" It seems that it is referring to a list maintained elsewhere. Can anyone tell me where this list may be found (and edited)? Thanks...

Nevermind - found it. The actual reference is stored in the section of the article where the reference is cited. (ps. I told you it was a dumb question.)

Safety Rating Table Abbreviations HBK and SAB

What do the abbreviations HBK and SAB represent in the Safety Rating table? Door is straightforward, but I am assuming HatchBacK and Side-AirBag, but I'm not sure. Would it be possible for someone with knowledge in vehicle safety find an authoritative source or annotate with their best guess? I couldn't find anything on the NHTSA safecar.gov site. Thank you.