Jump to content

Talk:Honda Ridgeline

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vehicle Platform

[edit]

Numerous credible sources state that the Ridgeline shares a platform with the Pilot and Odyssey. The first and second generation of Ridgeline were built on different platforms, but each generation's platform was shared with the Pilot and Odyssey in production at that time. Some of these sources include:

I have tried looking for anything that disagrees with the Ridgeline, Pilot, and Odyssey sharing a common platform, but I am unable to find anything so far. If you have found any sources in disagreement, I am interested and hope that you will share. Gabesj (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your efforts to contribute to this article. Second, what you are considering "credible sources" on the topic of "platforms shared" is in question. I agree that the second generation 2017 Ridgeline (Gen2) sharing the 2016 Pilot platform and meets Wikipedia's definition to be considered "related." However, to claim that both the first generation (Gen1) and the Gen2 share enough of the same parts with its large Honda counterparts is not correct, according to Honda. If you read Honda's own technical write-up on the Gen1 and read direct quotes from the Ridgeline’s Large Project Leader and Chief Engineer, Gary Flint (not the miss-quotes), they state that they took lessons learned from the engineering of the Pilot, Odyssey, and MDX but the Gen1 was built with only 7% shared components with 5% shared exterior components.[1][2]
For the Gen2, Honda states that it was based off of the 2016 Pilot; however it could be argued that an item-for-item parts number review may reveal that it does not meet Wikipedia's "related" definition, but a basic comparison of parts and per Honda's own admission it does meet the standard. As for the Odyssey, there is much less than 50% shared components which means it's not related.[3] A quick parts review suggests that only the Gen2 shares the same front bucket seats as the 2017 Odyssey, but that's about all I can find with a few hours of research.
How the press talks about the Ridgeline makes them want to compare it to non-trucks. It does not help that Honda talks about how they used the same engineering principles to build each of these vehicles' unibody frames (i.e. the ACE body structure), but that does not mean that the unibodies are the same. It just means they used the same engineering principles of crumple zones and rigid zones in each unibody design. I can go on and on about this, but I think you get where I'm going. In summary, the Gen1 is a unique vehicle that is not based or "shared" with any other Honda product but the Gen2 is based/shared with the 2016 Pilot (per the manufacturer) but not the Odyssey because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition and the manufacturer has never made such a claim (only the press). --McChizzle (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and explanation. I will concede that your statements on the Pilot and Odyssey being related/ not related are accurate by Wikipedia definition. However I will maintain that the three vehicles do share a common platform. I believe that the main source of our disagreement is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a vehicle platform is. Different vehicles developed on the same platform can diverge greatly in their design, use of unique components, and variation of common components. I have read your references in their entirety. While it is clear that each of the three vehicles is substantially different, including variations on the unibody structure itself, none of these references refute the fact that all three share an underlying platform. This is actually pretty common in the auto industry. For example, while the current generation of Jeep Cherokee is very different from the late Dodge Dart or late Chrysler 200, all three share a common platform. Automotive News is a very authoritative and professional source of information. I have subscribed to their publications for years and will admit that from time to time there have been minor errors, but they are always very quick to acknowledge those errors and update the web pages to reflect that once an error is brought to their attention. So if you disagree with their statements (or any of the other reference sources I have supplied), I urge you to take your case to them and dispute it so that it can be corrected. Until then, the sources that both you and I have supplied are all in harmony with the fact that the Ridgeline, Pilot, and Odyssey share a vehicle platform. Gabesj (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was raised early on by Honda's Chief Engineer in an attempt to correct the record with the automotive journalists who were miss-quoting his statements during a couple different interviews to no avail. I find it hard to agree that when Honda states the Gen1 has only 7% of its components shared with Honda's global light truck platform, that somehow equates to the Ridgeline being based on the Pilot and Odyssey. To follow your logic would mean that a Jeep Wrangler shares a platform and is thus related to a Ram 1500 because they share some body-on-frame designs. --If an geologist and an astronomer said the Earth was round but an overwhelming number of trustworthy journalists wrote that it Earth is flat does not mean the Earth is flat.-- If we're not willing to believe the manufacturer or its Chief Engineers about how their vehicles were built, then we have a bigger issue at hand. Because the automotive magazines you cited have proven to you to be trustworthy, which I agree they are, to the point where you're willing to blindly trust them and ignore the company that built the vehicle, then there's no critical thinking taking place as to the best source(s) that should be used in an encyclopedia article. You're not going to find a Honda publication stating a negative (e.g. According to Honda, the journalists are wrong...). That's not how Honda operates.
I've kept your addition, but add a qualifier to note this is what some journalists are saying, "According to some automotive journalists, ..." This way we don't misconstrued the facts and we can let the reader decide for themselves. Also, I updated your citations; you need to provide publishing dates and when you last accessed them; as you stated, some online articles get updated. --McChizzle (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://hondanews.ca/Content/hondanews.ca/d6f7e22e-e62f-43de-8221-bf62f2da4aa3/Brochure/2006HondaRidgeline.doc
  2. ^ http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/2006/honda/ridgeline/interview.html
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXmZeeHKp74

Independent Suspension

[edit]

regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honda_Ridgeline&diff=prev&oldid=64242351 it seems that there are numerous publications who believe the ridgeline is the first pickup truck to receive independent suspension for all four wheels.

was this statement removed because it is false? Jrrs 06:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

size classification

[edit]

I saw this edit "11:37, 3 June 2006 68.106.47.223 (Talk) (Longer wheelbase and total length than Chevy Silverado makes the Ridgeline a full-size pickup)" and the field "Similar" listing Chevrolet Avalanche, Dodge Ram, Nissan Titan, & Toyota Tundra and feel this is incorrect. My Chevy 2003 s-10 crew cab 4X4 has a 123" wheelbase, so is my s-10 full size too? I think another qualifier needs to be used for class or compare crew cab to crew cab not silverado 2 door to 4 door crew cab as the key classifier.


Until someone comes up with an authoritative entry on Wikipedia designating sizes of trucks, I must contest that this truck is, in fact, a full-size pickup. The Ridgeline is bigger than the Toyota T100[1] (which, according to Wikipedia, is designated as a full-size pickup). Sorry about your "feeling," but the dimensions don't lie, and this truck is within a few inches in size of its same-class competitors. Additionally, it is referred to as a full-size pickup by MSN Autos[2], Consumer Reports[3], and The Auto Channel[4]. Show me another 4,500 pound mid-size truck and I'll call BS. Chimaera2005 07:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the initial comment, and thought I would provide information in the form of numbers. I hope it makes sense. From MSN autos: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Exterior.aspx?year=2003&make=Chevrolet&model=S10%20Pickup&trimid=-1 & http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Exterior.aspx?year=2006&make=Honda&model=Ridgeline&trimid=-1 & http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Exterior.aspx?year=2006&make=Nissan&model=Frontier&trimid=-1 

   2003 Chevrolet S10 crew cab 4X4 LS      2006 Honda Ridgeline RTS     2006 Nissan Frontier LE Crew Cab 4WD

Weight: 4019 4494 4451 Length: 205.30 206.8 205.50 Width: 67.90 77.80 72.80 Wheelbase: 122.90 122.00 125.90

This isn't my "feeling", that's Toyota's slogan (Oh what a feeling! Toyota!) This is exactly my point, comparing crew cab models with 4WD or AWD to crew cab models with 4WD or AWD. If one compares apples to twinkies then they could also then draw the conclusion that a Toyota Tacoma 2wd regular cab is a mid-size sedan/coupe since the 2006 Honda Accord EX V-6 Coupe w/AT weighs 3364lbs vs the Tacoma's 3180lbs. My 2002 F150 XL Short Bed 2WD weighed 3990lbs, does that make it a mid-size luxury sedan like the BMW 525i Sedan with a weight of 3450lbs? Now to list specs of trucks on comparsion list currently:

2003 Chevrolet Avalanche 1500 4WD 2006 Dodge Ram 1500 ST Quad Cab 4WD 2006 Toyota Tundra SR5 Double Cab 4WD Weight: 5654 5190 4965 Length: 221.60 227.70 230.10 Width: 79.80 79.50 72.80 Wheelbase: 130.00 140.50 140.50

So, you are correct. Dimensions do not lie. But does that make the apple a regular cab full-size twinkie (since the apple is heavier) or is the twinkie a mid-size crew cab apple?

from http://www.atvsport.com/output.cfm?ID=1048123 "The Honda measures 206.8 inches long by 77.8 inches wide and has a 122-inch wheelbase. Those figures place the Honda in the mid-size truck category (Dodge Dakota Quad Cab, Nissan Frontier LE Crew Cab)."

Towing Capacity

[edit]

statement 

 however recent reports in auto magazines show the truck struggling to pull even an 1500 lb pop-up camper trailer‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed].

I've been unable to find anything to back this up. It was added here but looked suspicious. Now that I've had the time to scour the net for references, I can't find anything to back it up, and an article on edmunds.com seems to contradict it ('.. hooked up both trucks to 5,000-pound trailers, the stated maximum towing capacity for the Honda Ridgeline.').


Honda has its hands in Edmunds' pockets, and they're not looking for coinage. Winding Road is the publication you were seeking, and good luck with the slant on the article; no amount of polish and innovative naming can put enough polish on this turd.

Bogus competitors

[edit]

According to MSN Autos, the Ridgeline competes with the Dodge Ram and Toyota Tundra, NOT the Dodge Dakota and the Toyota Tacoma. Thank you.Hondasaregood 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you cite source {{citeweb}} it will add strenght to your edit/assertion.--I already forgot 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what MSN Autos think? Honda themselves cite the Chevy Colorado & Avalanche, Toyota Tacoma, Dodge Dakota and Nissan Frontier - [5]

Article tone

[edit]

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

Maybe you're just being ethnocentric, or xenophobic.(Myscrnnm 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
nice buzzwords... too bad he's right, the article reads like copy for the vehicleOrbframe (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this quote should go in to counterbalance the marketing spin. --24.222.120.113 (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of references

[edit]

This article strays far from Wikipedia guidelines in referencing. It contains lengthy editorial that is unreferenced and also severe WP:REFBLOAT. The statement "a class III tow hitch with a four and/or seven-pin trailer wiring harness was either standard equipment or dealer installed options" is followed by no fewer than six references. --Cornellier (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Use of ®

[edit]

Prose should not contain legal symbols like "®". (An R with a circle around it). It's not up to WP to enforce Honda's marks. They should be removed as they are an impediment to reading. --Cornellier (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article too long

[edit]

This article is too long according to WP:SIZESPLIT and is difficult to read, especially on a mobile device:

--Cornellier (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by saying you are probably right, it's too big. I will look at reducing some of the technical descriptive information today. After reviewing the guidelines you referenced, I do not see how this article violates the WP:INDISCRIMINATE or the WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTHOWTO. The information contained on the page is not indiscriminate but is specific to the point it is trying to make about the vehicle. I see no instructions on how to operate or do something with the vehicle on this page; it talks about the existence of things and some of them function, in general terms, but not how to operate them. The information contained on the page is factual and do not contain subjective type information, such as "best vehicle ever built," etc. which you would find in as brochure. So I will work at reducing the article by removing some of the technical descriptive information which should help alleviate some of the concern. After that is done, take another look at the article and let me know if there are still concerns. --McChizzle (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few examples: listing features that all modern cars have like "power adjustable side mirrors", "Front-door map pocket". For WP:INDISCRIMINATE, captioning a picture with "...towing a 2005 Sea Ray 220 Sundeck[114] via a 2010 Karavan trailer". Or the fact that it had a metric speedo for Canada, that's a given. As for WP:NOTMANUAL I'm talking about the animations. --Cornellier (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
McChizzle, you're entering the realm of WP:SILENCE. Yay or nay? --Cornellier (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all,
I have added two templates which kind of sums up the issue. This article needs to be completely redone. It's way too long and sounds like an infomercial. Thanks, Kaio mh (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kaio mh, thank you for sharing your opinion, but the world disagrees. Wikipedia can be a series of articles giving general information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject (the definition of an encyclopedia). This article has been recognized by automotive journalists and other user forums as one of the better automotive articles on Wikipedia with some, such as Jalopnik, saying, "It’s deeply nerdy and lovely and wonderful." and has been positively endorsed by readers in non-English speaking countries such as Norway and Sri Lanka. Great effort has been put into its over 230 citations as to not be an advertisement but to be technically and factually correct in its information, to include journalist criticisms. Attempts to force this article to be downgraded to the lackluster and uninteresting versions of all the other automotive articles on this platform is the wrong way to be looking at this. The digital public as spoken—from journalists, Reddit, Facebook, and other online forums—Wikipedia needs to look at this article as an example of what a singular subject automotive Wikipedia article can be and should potentially look like; striving for accuracy, good detail, and fairness is something all articles on this platform should strive for. There is much more that could be written about the Honda Ridgeline, but what you see is based on user forum input, questions that have come up about the vehicle, and content added by other editors over time. In summary, your opinion is noted but it's just that, your opinion, and other readers disagree. --McChizzle (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. That said, it's still rather long. Do you think we could split this into two new articles titled "Honda Ridgeline (first generation)" and "Honda Ridgeline (second generation)", and make this a summary article? That way, the details are kept, but now it would be easier to navigate. Just a suggestion. Kaio mh (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kaio mh, I will give that some thought. Being "rather long" is a subjective point of view (eye of the beholder). When you look at other Wikipedia articles, such as "Religious symbolism in the United States military," its length does not appear to be a problem for readers and was celebrated on Wikipedia's homepage. My preference would be to make the existing article easier to navigate, so I would love some advice towards that end vs attempting to dumb it down or break it apart. To that end, is the table of contents, at the beginning of the page, not organized sufficiently for the page's contents?
The idea of creating separate Honda Ridgeline articles for each generation makes sense to me once a third generation is released, but while there's just two that idea doesn't work very well. The Gen2 section, in particular, is written with the reader's knowledge gained from the Gen1 section, that way definitions, technical descriptions, etc. are not repeated; so it requires the support of the previous sections. --McChizzle (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there are several issues with this article (but kudos to McChizzle for putting it all together). Some of the comparisons between the two generations and similar trucks are WP:SYN: The sources support the facts that are presented, but we need to find sources that actually make the comparisons or describe the changes as advantages/disadvantages. –dlthewave ☎ 23:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary-sourced excessive detail

[edit]

Large portions of the article are sourced to primary sources such as owners manuals, OEM part specifications and installation instructions: [6][7][8][9][10][11]. We generally require secondary-source coverage to ensure the accuracy and significance of the content; encyclopedia articles should not contain exhaustive lists of available equipment and accessories. A car review would be a better source for the relevant details of trim levels and accessories. –dlthewave ☎ 21:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far too detailed. It reads like a sales brochure, too, which is plainly inappropriate. This article needs to be chopped down to be an actual encyclopedia article. PS, "sport utility truck" is not a category of vehicle, it's a PR euphemism. The Sport utility truck link isn't even a redirect to the proper category of pickup truck anymore. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your point on the use of "SUT" makes sense, despite what Honda officially calls it.
The level of detail is a matter of opinion and one that is not shared by readers and journalists who have commented to the contrary. This is the only moder vehicle article on Wikipedia that has been celebrated in the press because of its detail, use of accurate and credible source information, and pro and con cited views. To quote automotive journalist David Tracy, "It’s deeply nerdy and lovely and wonderful." As discussed on my talk page, we need to rethink how we police these automotive articles. In my opinion, most of these auto-wiki articles are not worth a reader's time for it's not consolidating/summarizing the information needed. There is a lot more detail that could have been put into this article but was omitted because this is an encyclopedia, which is defined as "information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject." If the size of this article is bothersome to you, talking about breaking it up by generation is more appropriate. --McChizzle (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the size, though. The promotional tone and use of Honda PR material (anything from hondanews.com) is problematic. –dlthewave ☎ 23:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great care was used, and continues to be used, to not have a promotional tone. If you find that, please reword it given the correct and accurate information is not changed. Wikipedia talks about using reliable sources. When discussing technical details, there is no better authoritative source than the people who built that technical thing. Secondary sources are prone to misquotes and putting their own spin on things (i.e. not authoritative), so we must be careful about the secondary sources that are used to cite technical factual details. --McChizzle (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although this material is of value, it is way too detailed for an encyclopaedia entry. I cannot think of any other automobile page that goes into this much detail. I would suggest that most of this work needs to be published off-Wiki and then used as a reference where appropriate. Shritwod (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The level of detail has been celebrated by readers and journalists alike; this is the only auto-wiki article that has. No we do not write articles to impress readers or journalists, but it is telling that this level if detail is being celebrated while the other articles are not. For me, the other articles we have are just not worth reading due to there lack of valuable information, yet there is no reason it needs to be that way. Some editors, such as Bahnfrend, thing the detail in this article is good and that we should try to do more articles like this so they are of more use to the community.
This information already comes from published sources, otherwise it could not be used. It's just not summarized anywhere except here on Wikipedia—there is a lot more detail that I could have put in this article, trust me. Remember that an encyclopedia can have "information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject." Would it help if I broke the article up into three separate articles (into, Gen1, and Gen2)? --McChizzle (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citing an owner's forum

[edit]

@McChizzle: While I can understand your point about context, these cites are are not only WP:UGC, they're also WP:PRIMARY. A acceptable reliable source covering this type of thing, such as a major newspaper, magazine, etc., that states "reports from Ridgeline owners indicate ..." would be acceptable, but citing actual forum posts is not (in my opinion). If that were considered acceptable, the same types of forums/websites could essentially be used as reliabvle sources for all kinds of articles by simply qualifying it as "User's of the (article subject) report that ...". It might be possible to use something such as this if it an official website operated by Honda, but it doesn't appear to be. I'll post something at WP:RSN to see what others think, but I don't think this website should be used for sourcing purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of the difference between a reliable source and a caveated statement. As I read your statements, I could conclude that all journalist statements on a particular subject could not be referenced or cited on Wikipedia because it would not meet your definition. Wikipedia articles are full of statements from journalists and the ones I've read are properly caveat as such. Again, context matters as does proper citations and caveats. The rules you are citing to justify your actions leave room for the correct usage (i.e. WP:UGC) or do not apply (i.e. WP:PRIMARY) because it is used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further specialized knowledge." --McChizzle (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, a forum post is not an acceptable source. The bit about the coin holder also has WP:TRIVIA and WP:WEIGHT issues. –dlthewave ☎ 04:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
McChizzle, "journalist statements" published in reliable newspapers and magazines with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors are 100% acceptable as references. As for "owner's forums", these user generated comments are the exact opposite of the type of reliable sources that we use on Wikipedia. Some of these forum posts may be valuable to the readers of these forums, others may be complete baloney, and none of them should be cited on Wikipedia. Never. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@McChizzle: Regarding As I read your statements, I could conclude that all journalist statements on a particular subject could not be referenced or cited on Wikipedia because it would not meet your definition., it's not my definition, but rather the definition established by the Wikipedia community. If these forum posts are being reported on by journalists of reputable publications (paper or online) which have a strong reputation for editoral control and accuracy, then such reports would probably be considered OK to cite for Wikipedia's purposes. Any interpretations of the forum posts, etc. made by the author could be attributed to him/her so as to ensure they were not in Wikipedia's voice, and it would be seen as a secondary source commenting on the subject. People posting comments about a car they own on an online forum are certainly primary in nature since they are bascially making claims based upon their own experiences. If a well-established expert on the subject of automobiles in general or on the Ridgeline was posting about this type of thing on their blog or website, then it possibly could be used per WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:SPS as an exception to WP:UGC; however, a typical individual car owner posting on an online forum about car-related matters is pretty much never going to seen as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article about cars in general or a particular model of car for the same reasons that a typical fan posting on a online forum about their favorite movie, band, actor, team, food, etc. is not going to be seen as a reliable source of for Wikipedia articles about any of those things. Moreover, any attempt to try and interpret these posts either individually or as a group is likely going to be seen as WP:OR and possibly even WP:SYN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would also fall foul of wp:sps, I see no reason why it cannot be used as an SPS for their (attributed) opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good arguments. Okay, I will remove the citations and the information they support.
User:Cullen328, I am being very specific in referring to journalist opinions (to use another word), which are not "fact-checkable" (to make up a word) for they are personal opinions, yet we allow them on Wikipedia. I like it when we cite them appropriately as journalist opinions but when something can be easily verifiable by multiple people but do not allow that fact to be put on Wikipedia regardless of how appropriately caviated it is, I think we have a problem. --McChizzle (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be accurate here, McChizzle. You did not refer to "opinions" but instead you wrote "all journalist statements on a particular subject". Assertions of fact by reliable journalistic sources are statements, but they are dramatically different from "opinions". I hope that you can see the difference. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

A recent edit restored some of the content that I and another editor had removed for sourcing, trivia and NPOV reasons. I have some specific concerns with the reversion:

  • "Too detailed" and "Advertisement" templates were removed by the article's primary contributor without discussion
  • The passage describing the In-Bed Trunk, Dual-action tailgate,Flat truck bed, Flat cabin floor and All-wheel drive as "unique features not found in other mid-size trucks" seems to be sourced to a Honda press release. These claims should not be included unless they can be sourced to an independent, reliable secondary source.
  • Features such as cupholders, storage areas, sun visors, vanity mirrors, map lights, glove box, etc. are unremarkable and arguably trivial. It's unclear which source is supposed to support the standard equipment section, but the sources provided consist of Honda promotional material and owners manuals, and none of them seem to mention the items in this list unless I've overlooked something. In any case, this section has the same self-published source issue which I mentioned above.

The reverting editor mentions "checkout this article's talk page" in an edit summary, however recent discussions on this page primarily concern the excessive level of detail and poor sourcing which are rampant in the article. I invite McChizzle to discuss the substance of these concerns and restore the templates until they are addressed. –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...and poor sourcing which are rampant in the article." I challenge you to identify the specific items and poor sourcing you are referring to so I/we can correct those errors vise making such broad and unsubstantiated claim. I'm very happy to correct factual mistakes, but the details in the article have been celebrated by readers and journalists alike. This is the only moder vehicle article on Wikipedia that has been celebrated in the press because of its detail, use of accurate and credible source information, and pro and con cited views. To quote automotive journalist David Tracy, "It’s deeply nerdy and lovely and wonderful." As discussed on my talk page, we need to rethink how we police these automotive articles. In my opinion, most of these auto-wiki articles are not worth a reader's time for it's not consolidating/summarizing the information needed. There is a lot more detail that could have been put into this article but was omitted because this is an encyclopedia, which is defined as "information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject." If the size of this article is bothersome to you, talking about breaking it up by generation is more appropriate. --McChizzle (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did list specific items in the post to which you've just replied. Please also see the example sources in Talk:Honda_Ridgeline#Primary-sourced_excessive_detail above. These concerns have been raised by a number of editors and have yet to be addressed. This article relies heavily on sources which do not meet our sourcing standards such as online store listings, Honda press releases and owners manuals. We write articles to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not to impress the automotive press. –dlthewave ☎ 23:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "Cleanup" tags to several sections of the article which rely heavily on Honda press releases, brochures and other promotional material. Please discuss these issues before removing the tags. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted about 90% of your edits, just not all of them. As you can see, my statement was directed at more than just one editor of the article.
Looking at your most recent edits on the article, I see your point. But I struggle with the somehow forbidden use of simple math on Wikipedia. If Gen1 has "X" and Gen2 has "Y" then X-Y=Z; if that is somehow not allowed because a journalist never stated it, that is very disturbing and wrong. We need to re-examine our processes and focus on the best source of facts.
As to your sourcing complaint, I struggle with the concept that if a manufacturer publishes information that their vehicle has multi-link suspension but a journalist incorrectly states it has leaf springs, that the journalist's statement is the only one to be treated as fact and is the only one that can be used on Wikipedia. Citing the most reliable authoritative source of a specific detail is very appropriate so the truth about a specific thing is correctly portrayed, not a journalist's misquote; measurements and equipment are not thing that can be argued over (it has "X" or it doesn't). As for opinion statements, a secondary source must be used; I have no argument against that and completely agree. --McChizzle (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot, I agree that we do not write to "impress the automotive press" and this article was never written to do that—an analysis of its history and the journalist articles will confirm that fact. It was edited to address complaints from readers and editors about the massive incorrect information being portrayed on the article and over many years lead to the version you see today. Writing to impress Wikipedia policies and guidelines while forgetting the primary mission of Wikipedia is not appropriate either, which is to be an encyclopedia, as Wikipedia itself defines it! --McChizzle (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be split

[edit]

Everything from "According to Honda and" to the TOC box ("with reported sales in over 20 countries") needs to be split into sections (or a section) as at present the lede is waaaay too long,

Truth to be told as much as i'd love to be bold I really wouldn't even know where to start,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Incase anyone is wondering why the images are blue - I don't know what's at Commons and what isn't so to save potential copyright issues cropping up I figured blanking would be better. –Davey2010Talk 17:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Good idea. I broke it up into overview, design, production and sales, awards, and references. --McChizzle (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davey2010, You have made some good points on how to make this overview better and I have worked to incorporate them. Where we disagree is in the use of images in the infobox. The guidelines defined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Images say nothing about only one image and that imaging beging used must somehow to the newest version available. You are creating your own rules and trying to force them on others. The guidelines talk about appropriateness/relevance of the imagery to support the primary point(s) of the article. Given this is an overview of two generations of a vehicle, showing one image of each generation that are complimentary to one another in the infobox is very appropriate; again there is no rule that forbids it and purpose/intent of the article must always be considered. If you want to create a new rule/guideline that forbids this, take it up with the aforementioned WikiProject. --McChizzle (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure if there's a real guideline on this (the WikiProject Automobiles "Conventions" page is labeled as an essay), however I would support having a 3/4 view such as [12] or [13] which give a better overall view than the current frontal closeup [14]. Guideline or not, I also support the common-practice approach of only including a single current-generation photo in the main infobox. This is a good way to avoid cluttering the top of the page, especially on mobile devices where the images are displayed as a stack. –dlthewave ☎ 02:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks McChizzle for splitting the article it's very much appreciated,
McChizzle & dlthewave - I did change the slideshow to a gallery and did try to include different angles[15] although admittedly the different angles were generally different for each year if that makes sense,
Generally speaking for automotive articles the images only show the front and rear - some do show the side but it's not that many,
For the infobox issue admittedly I know of no policy that states 2 images cannot be in an infobox however I've removed 2 images in the infobox on many articles and I've never been reverted and I've also seen editors (veteran editors in good standing) remove an image from the infobox if it has 2 - If you look on every car model article here you won't see 2 images in one infobox - It's generally the most recent model with older models or pre-facelifts as galleries or thumbs,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like your suggestion about a better 3/4 view and fits with one of the suggested guidelines. The ones I've used are not quite 3/4 view and the Gen1 you suggest works well for that purpose. The Gen2 image you suggest is more than a 3/4 view (just like the others are less) and since we are being sticklers for that and the fact that your suggested image is already being used on the Gen2 infobox—I would like to use something different on this overview—I thing this one is a better choice[16]. This Gen2 image fits with the generally bland and unexciting Gen1 version and is of the opposing 3/4 view, so one does not overpower the other.
Every format edit I do to these pages I also check and edit on both desktops and smartphones (checking things in "Mobile view") to make certain it displays well and is not confusing. As is my practice, I have done so with Gen1 and Gen2 images in the infobox and I've not seen a problem. –McChizzle (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about 2 images in the infobox

[edit]

The consensus is that there should be only one image of the car in the infobox. Editors who supported one image argued that the infobox is for a summary of the subject and for identification purposes and that one image is sufficient for that.

The infobox currently contains two images. There was no discussion in this RfC about which image should be retained and which should be retained, so I encourage editors to discuss this.

Cunard (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should there be 2 images of the car in the infobox here or just one? –Davey2010Talk 20:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(There's a disagreement between myself and McChizzle over whether their should be 2 images or 1 in the infobox, I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#2_images_in_the_infobox and was told there no policy for 1 or 2. –Davey2010Talk 20:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • One - it's extremely rare to have 2 images in the infobox, With all vehicle-related articles the most recent generation-image goes in the infobox with previous generations going in a gallery at the bottom of the article, I don't really see why this article should be ay different, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one - I agree that sticking with the format used for most other articles the current generation goes in the box, others are added in sections describing each generation. GM's Chevrolet_C/K article as an example. Incidentally, those Honda articles have way too much trivial details such as the complete list of standard equipment. Nothing remarkable about that. Springee (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pick one - People usually lean toward the latest model in the head photo, unless an older one is significantly better (they're pretty close in this case). There should also be First generation and Second generation sections in the article, summarizing what is in the generation articles, with a Main link in each instead of both at the top. Oh yeah, and the articles should be moved to "(first generation)" and "(second generation)" instead of having years in the title. And weed out the fancruft and excessive details. --Vossanova o< 20:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is off subject but I suspect after removing much of the fancruft these articles could be merged into one. However, other than the obvious marketing fluff, I guess I would rather err on the side of excessive details that only car enthusiasts would care about vs, a strict diet of only the most mundane mainstream facts. Still, that Earth Dreams V6 engine needs to go![[17]] Springee (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One - it's schizophrenic to have two - it looks like the editors can't make up their minds. Note that the automobile project conventions state that there is no preference for the latest model or any other particular model.  Stepho  talk  22:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One - No need for more than one image in the infobox, especially considering the "Multi-angle views of the Honda Ridgeline" section which shows both generations from several angles. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One - There is no need to show multiple generations in the lead infobox. There's two in this case - what happens when there's three? The infobox is supposed to show a concise summary of the subject, which to my mind means a single image. Long-standing consensus is that the lead image is supposed to simply be the best quality image available, barring it being of an obscure or low-volume variant. While there's never been formal consensus on image quantity per se, that's largely because it's never been widely discussed. Using multiple images defeats the purpose of the infobox, as I see it. --Sable232 (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two - 1. front and side and 2. rear and side. I always did this until forbidden to do so some years ago and thereafter the infobox would not accept two images. Someone's fixed it for me! Eddaido (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, way way back in say 2011 I was forbidden to put two images in the infobox. In fact the powers that be made it impossible. So its changed — that is nice.

Its nice because when I'm on the road I spend a lot of time looking at the behind of the car in front. i think that is almost as much a means of recognition as the front of the car. For that reason I have always been strongly in favour of 1. front and side and 2. rear and side.

How could I give examples when the Gestapo deleted them? Please give more detail about your unsatisfactory sleeping arrangements and I'll see what can be arranged long distance. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but in the 6-7 years of being here I've never seen such pictures in the infobox (I've seen 2 fronts added by newbie IPs but other than that nothing else), Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 18:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One - Keep it simple. Maintain consistency with standard practice. There's always opportunity for multiple views in the gallery or inline images. Jojalozzo (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One - If front and back pictures are added in the infobox, then the next demand will be for adding a side view of the vehicles and then also of the interior. Moreover, this article (and its associated generation articles) contain way too many images. There is also too much text for general encyclopedia articles, as most of it belongs in a fansite for these vehicles. These Ridgeline articles read more like manufacturer's copy and a puff piece full of advertising Boastful Superlatives (BS). CZmarlin (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two (in this context...only) When going through the infobox template, the second picture is intended for an interior image (although many do not meet image standards). I do have a caveat or two about putting two there, however. If done, it should be a "side by side" comparison of two generations (or facelift) of a vehicle; that is the only reason to do it this way. When doing this, two similar images should be used (roughly the same quality, same view of vehicle, etc.); I'm not a fan of the bold-text captions, but that's a matter of opinion for me (and can also be changed...). --SteveCof00 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the purpose of the infobox to show comparisons — only an example of the subject of the article. The article subject is "Honda Ridgeline", not "Comparison of Honda Ridgelines". Likewise, the infobox in each generation section should show only a vehicle from that generation, not comparing it with another. If you want a side-by-side comparison, you can make it a separate image with a caption, but place it somewhere in the article where a comparison is discussed. --Vossanova o< 19:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Many thanks for closing this Cunard, FYI to everyone = I've gone ahead and removed the first gen image - All car infoboxes 9 times out of 10 have the most recent one only with previous generations/facelifts being in a gallery within the article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article split cleanup

[edit]

Now that the article has been split up (rather than a disambiguation, a parent article and two sub-articles), this article is now in major need of cleanup and reformatting. Currently, the parent Ridgeline article goes into major detail about its design details. For the most part, this page does not need that anymore, as it is now a priority of the two sub-articles. The lead section can be expanded somewhat as a synopsis of the vehicle (though not into the level of previous detail), with a section describing each successive generation and (with a SINGLE image...and a link!); currently, the only link to the articles is at the top of the page.

While these vehicles have many more than two generations, these automotive articles serve as a good format to consider for a parent article here: Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, Volkswagen Golf. --SteveCof00 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • What was the intent of the split? In looking at the now three articles on the Ridgeline it seems that we should have just a single article and if we removed a lot of the marketing material that was sourced directly to Honda the whole thing would nicely fit in a single article. For example, in the second generation article the Equipment section [[18]] is sourced to Honda ABOUTSELF material. Per ABOUTSELF this is just marketing material and shouldn't be included in the article. When looking at the list of citations well over half are sourced to Honda or other vendors in some form or another. Just cutting the long list of equipment packages which are cut and paste from the marketing material would be a big improvement. Springee (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@McChizzle:, since you have been the editor responsible for most of the Ridgeline content I wanted to ping you with regards to my concerns. Looking at the articles there certainly is some good content that can be included beyond just the basics but things like listing the content of each option package is a ABOUTSELF problem. So much of the content is just statements out of the marketing material. Things like that, well we can link to the marketing material and let people read it there. Still, I think things like a discussion of why the Ridgeline's chassis is rather unique etc (when sourced to 3rd party sources) does make for interesting information. I'm a big fan of reading about oddball engineering solutions (see the Corvette Leaf Spring article) but three articles for this vehicle seems way overkill. Springee (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Springee. I don't like the fact that there are three articles either, but there were too many complaints about having detailed information in one long article. It was recommended to break it up, so I did. I know the two main articles do not conform to the lackluster articles of the other mid-size trucks and there is nothing wrong with that for the information has proven useful and educational by those that have thanked me (and probably others) and praised by other automotive journalists. None of the information in these articles are "cut and paste," unless it is a quote from a document/journalist and those are highlighted as such.
As for sourcing, Wikipedia talks about using reliable sources and in legal terms taking information directly from the one who built it about how it was built and designed is more reliable than someone who regurgitated that same information from the manufacturer. —Of course opinion based information (best ever, best in class, etc.) are not good things to quote from a manufacturer but from automotive journalists that have actually compared/texted the vehicle.— Checking facts, where possible, is always good. In doing so, I have learned that Honda's publish information on the Gen1's technical aspects of the vehicle are quite accurate and the journalist articles of that time period are riddled with miss-quotes and opinions. For example, quite a few journalists have written that the Gen1 was based on a minivan; there is no information from the manufacturer, its employees, nor in parts lists that state or suggest that the Gen1 was based on a minivan but was a uniquely engineered vehicle that conceptually started life as a hacked-up MDX SUV until they figured out what and how they wanted to build the Ridgeline. Honda has stated—which can be verified by reviewing parts—that the Gen1 shared only 7% of its components with other Honda vehicles.
As for the "Equipment" section in each article, it started life as a comparison of Gen1 equipment highlighting the differences between the Gen1 and its 2006 competitors, but other editors did not like the sources being used where not editorial but lists. The best I could do to address their complaint was to stick to Honda equipment. For the Gen1 Ridgeline article, the trim level details, particularly in other countries, is not well known given the vehicle's age; the same holds true for the Gen2 when it comes to what is sold in other countries. Also as the "Updates" section was created for the Gen1 article, it helped to have an "Equipment" section; to best understand what changed it helps to know what it had. —One of the common themes I found in user forums that ask questions about the Ridgeline is what particular Gen1 Ridgeline came with what features and colors because it's not advertised anymore, so I and others point them to the appropriate Wikipedia article to get educated. It has become a very helpful encyclopedic resource where inquirers can get educated.— For the Gen2 article, making the "Equipment" section more summary based vs a list of features makes sense to me and is something I will work on. I can do the same for the Gen1, but again that information supports the "Updates" section quite well and the "Updates" section of the Gen1 has recieved more praise than any other information in the article for it is not easy to find and summarize.
As for this new overview article, I would prefer that it be deleted for it is not needed (only two generations exist). Your suggestion on what to do with this overview sounds great; please hack away at it. --McChizzle (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
McChizzle, how would you feel about a goal of cutting enough material from these articles so they could be merged back into one article? There is a lot of overlap between the two articles such as mention of the hybrid nature of the chassis (part unibody, part ladderish (my term) frame) and the tail gate and bed trunk etc. Other parts like the list of options does violate the unduly promotional part of ABOUTSELF. I actually used these as examples of unduly self serving in a recent WP:V discussion [[19]]. I don't see why we would need to highlight differences between the features lists and certainly it's not at all encyclopedic that a vehicle launched after 2000 had power mirrors or power locks. Even thought I think it relies a too much on marketing material, I do like the more extensive description of how the AWD systems operate. I feel the same about the chassis sections. I'm more OK with the material on specifications and capacities but I think that could be put in a table rather than text. The 1st to 2nd gen differences are interesting but we should limit that to significant differences but many of those are more detailed than needed. Also, if we have a table that says (in effect) [Transmission: auto 5spd; auto 6spd] then readers can quickly see the difference. The same is true with the changes to the V6. Most people will care about differences in displacement, power, torque and perhaps direct injection etc. That would keep most of the information you have listed but make it both more readable and allow the article to return to a single page. It should also make the article read less like Honda add copy and more like an actual encylopedic article. What are your thoughts? I want to recognize that you have put a lot of effort into this and I don't want to come across as just trying to wreck your work. It may not take too much effort to transform these three articles into a single Good Article. Springee (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your table idea for the Gen1 vs Gen2 differences is a good one. It would make it easier to read. I recommend you look at the base model mid-size trucks offered in 2006 before concluding that power door locks and power sideview mirrors were normal—they were not making the base model Ridgeline very well appointed compared to its competition. Regardless, you point is well made and the bulleted list as it exists now is everything the Ridgeline comes with, regardless if it's unique or not and those non-unique things I can easily remove (i.e. revert the section back to when it was a comparison with its competition, even though other editors did not like it).
I would like to recombine the articles for I did not like having to split them to begin with. As you probably know, satisfying you will not necessarily satisfy others and there could be a push to separate them again. I will work on this in my sandbox. Once I get it reworked, I will post a link for you to comment on. --McChizzle (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I think others will probably be OK with a combined article so long as you/we keep the length under control. I think that can be done without cutting "the good stuff". BTW, I didn't realize the early base model was so light on equipment. Still, I think external links to the brochures would probably cover that sort of stuff. Springee (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I did last time (links to brochures) and other editors strongly hatted it. I will do it again, but get ready for the hate. --McChizzle (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see how it goes. On one hand I'm not a fan of putting too much fluff stuff in an article, on the other hand, if it makes the article more useful to readers that's not a bad thing. For me, the balance would be to make it read less like Honda promotional material and also to cut out the unexceptional material. I think I miss interpreted your comment about power mirrors and windows. Looking back I think you were saying it was notable that the base Ridgeline was better equipped than most other base trucks. That might be true but such a statement should be linked to a RS. I don't think the fleet buyers of base F-150s would be swayed by Honda having power windows vs the manual windows in a 2001 F-150. Springee (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of some of reads like market fluff, consider this passage :

According to the author of The Car Design Yearbook, the Ridgeline was "Honda's first foray into the true heartland of the American automotive way of life."[13] It was designed and engineered by Honda Research and Development (R&D) Americas, led by Gary Flint, who took about four years to develop the vehicle.[11][14] According to the author of Driving Honda, the automaker decided to target buyers who were looking to transition out of sedans, minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) into trucks. Honda wanted to build a truck that could "...haul a boat and ATVs, trees, camping supplies, furniture, and wood" while still being comfortable "carrying groceries, kids, grandkids, and dry cleaning."[11] [[20]]

Here is a pass at making it both more compact and removing the market fluff feel:

The Ridgeline, Honda's first pickup truck, was a four year project designed by Honda Research and Development (R&D) Americas and led by Gary Flint. The vehicle was meant to blend the cargo and utility abilities of a pickup with the sedan/SUV comfort.

I'm not certain about the last line but we certainly don't need to have so many direct from Honda marketing quotes. Perhaps one of the reviews has a good summary. Consider putting things like the specifications in several tables shared with the first and second gen design. Then pull the text based specification section out. That saves a lot of length. It also makes the information much easier to read. Also, I don't think people normally consider table information part of the readable length of an article. So that's a win. I would also suggest putting things like chassis/body specifications in a different table that could include suspension/brakes. I would put things like ABS just next to the line that says disk brakes F/R or something. No reason to say "The disc brakes are controlled via a four-channel anti-lock braking system (ABS) with electronic brakeforce distribution (EBD) and Brake Assist". Most of that isn't interesting and is honestly standard stuff. This information "Recorded stopping distances from 60 mph (97 km/h) to 0 have ranged from 117 ft (36 m)[37] to 195 ft (59 m)[38] with the average being 140 ft (43 m)[39] to 147 ft (45 m).[40]" could be put in a simple performance table like many auto magazines use. Again, much easier to find, can show both generations at once and saves text length.

Here is my take on the equipment list, almost none of this is worth including. I would cut all in italics.

So remove almost all of that as it's just not encyclopedic. Springee (talk)

@Springee:, I understand what you are saying and I will look into your table idea. As previously stated, your fellow editors have different opinions that they have tried to force on this article that you are contradicting; for example, they would only accept direct quotes or they considered the "information not stated in the cited source" and would delete it. Plus the quote you have highlighted—which I like and agree with your edited version—is not from Honda but from authors that wrote books about Honda; in other words, it is not Honda's own marketing material as you suggest. Thus, I ask that you please not leap to conclusions about technical and quoted information—for example, your "not overly interesting..." statement about the tow hitch tells me you are not well read on mid-size trucks of the mid-2000s for this is very unusual, as is most of the standard equipment that came in the base trim and beyond. Again, I am going to be very pleased to revert the "Equipment" section back to when it was comparing it to its competition showing how unusual the Ridgelines features were for its time versus it being a list of everything; but again your fellow editors do not like that.
So please note, I will be reverting part of your edits for completely blanking the "Equipment" section is not the answer to your issue but your other suggestions make a lot of sense and are worth pursuing.--McChizzle (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
McChizzle, I won't take offense at your reversions. I know you are just trying to make a good article. I do think the equipment list is almost entirely uninteresting or more specifically, not of encyclopedic value. That Honda had a higher level of base trim isn't that interesting since it was also more expensive on base trim. Pickups often have very stripped out base models. If you're still working on this I'll hold off on more edits but please be fast more selective about what material makes sense in this sort of article. I would try to see what makes it into stocks like the Mustang, Corvette, Porche 911 etc. Springee (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the equipment list removal, there might be a few relevant items that we can discuss but we don't normally include an exhaustive list sourced to the manufacturer. Have independent sources discussed the Ridgeline's generous base features compared to similar vehicles? Does it really matter that the trailer hitch and power windows were standard equipment when they could easily be added to just about any other truck as options or aftermarket upgrades? Any editor should be able to answer these questions by consulting provided sources, without being "well read on mid-size trucks of the mid-2000s".
On a side note, the rarity of true base models outside of fleets and rentals is something of a trope in automotive circles. I remember the novelty of coming across a US Forest Service tenth-generation Suburban with hand-crank windows and off-road package, something you would never find at a dealer and probably couldn't even special order as a consumer. Car buyers and the automotive press usually focus on comparing similarly-equipped models; the fact that one manufacturer offers a particularly well-equipped base model isn't particularly relevant. –dlthewave ☎ 19:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Equipment lists and such things are generally not considered worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog.

Typically, a few major items should be noted for contrast - e.g. "The LX model included a standard V6 and bucket seats" - but listing out every feature is well beyond the scope of Wikipedia. --Sable232 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McChizzle, I think you are still including way to much Honda marketing fluff. I think the trim levels should be entirely cut from the article. If there are notable features they can be discussed but none of the trim levels are notable. Take the "ACE" material here [[21]]. It might be significant to describe what it is but we shouldn't bother using Honda's marketing name (and the ACE stub article should be deleted). I think these articles need deep cuts not just shifting the deck chairs. Springee (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about using Honda's name for its new forward structure in the Gen2 article; I can get rid of that and update the related graphic as well. As for the ACE article, I'm not going to comment on that for that is someone else's creation; I just did a little reference cleanup on it back in the day to help the author.
I have cut a lot of trim information from the Gen1 article. Given my desire to keep one of the two most praised sections of the Gen1 article that I have received—the Updates section—as well as the foreign versions information—which as proven to be eye opening to US readers that have contacted me not knowing they were so different—there has to be an understanding of what existed before walking into that section and those paragraphs or it makes less sense. I don't believe that stating or listing facts is "marketing fluff" for it exists in the real world and if it helps explain something, then I see no reason for its deletion. Yet, I will look at that paragraph again and see what I can further cut.
I've also reworked the design history of the Gen1 with an eye on reducing "marketing fluff" language. Yet, Honda did what they did and they did it for a reason and that is worthy of describing for this pickup is atypical for North America.
I'm struggling with what you consider "marketing fluff" over factually accurate information. I believe we are on opposite ends of the deletionism vs inclusionism debate. If you could help me identify the marketing language that needs to change—as you have done with your ACE comment—while keeping accurate/truthful detailed information about these vehicles, I would appreciate that. Trying to make these articles conform to the many lackluster automotive articles that exist on this platform is not something I'm willing to compromise over. The original singular article on the Ridgeline had recieved much fanfare in automotive circles due to its detail while noting how poor many other articles on this platform where in comparison. That praised version is getting slowly undone vs looking at it with fresh eyes and asking oneself, "Why can't the others have this kind of informative detail for readers?" --McChizzle (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it this way, any time we describe something that is basically an industry standard thing we should ask why we would use a particular company's descriptions and if the feature is notable at all.
Let's take this paragraph from the 1st gen RL equipment page
For the US market, the Gen1 Ridgeline was produced in six different trim levels through its lifetime, starting in 2006 with the base model RT, followed by the RTS, and the RTL. Additional trims—the RTX, Sport, and SE—were added and/or subtracted from the lineup over the Gen1's lifespan.[34][50][51][52] The base model RT trim came with cruise control, power windows and locks with remote, six-speaker 100 W AM/FM/CD audio system, and more.[42][50] The RTX trim added a class III tow hitch, four and seven-pin trailer wiring harness, Hexagonal style black grille, and 17 in (43.2 cm) gray painted aluminum alloy rims.[34]
There is simply no reason for the paragraph text to mention things like coming with a 6 speaker stereo. At best, this could be in a table. At least that way the article text isn't cluttered with spec type material. Consider this compact version:
The US market Ridgeline was offered in six trim levels (levels and equipment in a footnote).
That's several lines of text condensed into something quick and easy. Later in that same section we have this:
The RTL trim was the leather bound top trim for most of the Gen1 Ridgeline's production with all of the amenities found in the other trims and added an optional moonroof, 8 in (20.3 cm) infotainment touchscreen navigation unit and XM Satellite Radio.
Phrases like "the leather bound top trim" sound like marketing cruff, not factual information. Again, if we are going to cover trim content at all (and I don't see why we would) then we can say, "leather seats and steering wheel". No reason for the marketing puffery.
Now consider this text from the parent article:
Some in the automotive press that have studied the first-generation Ridgeline, such as PickupTrucks.com, consider it "one of those odd vehicles." They wrote, "The Ridgeline can't really do what most people who like trucks need it to do."[14] Others in the automotive press, such as The Driver's Seat TV, had differing views and call the Ridgeline, "the Swiss Army knife of trucks." They also called the Ridgeline "the anti-truck"—due to Honda's lack of following the rules—and summarized their view by saying "the Ridgeline scores high on practicality but very low on image."[15]
Why are we using phrases like "Some in the automotive press that have studied the first-generation Ridgeline..." If we are going to use the quote just include it. You could say, "Reviewers had mixed reactions... [source and quotes follow]"
From the first section of this article:
Contrary to some media reporting,[5][6] Honda's publications state that the first–generation (2006–2014) Ridgeline was a uniquely engineered vehicle with 7% of its components shared with other Honda vehicles.[1] Honda engineers started by building "a mission-specific platform" using high-strength steel across a fully boxed "four bone" ladder-like frame.[1][7] Honda engineers also created "a unique suspension design with custom components, unique sheetmetal and an exclusive interior."[1] Its powertrain does resemble the one used in the first–generation Acura MDX but, according to Honda, was "extensively calibrated and strengthened" for heavier hauling and towing duties.[1]
There is no reason to say "contrary to..." nor "a mission-specific platform".
The first generation Ridgeline was based on a purpose built platform that shared only 7% of it's components with other Honda vehicles. According to Honda the powertrain is related to that used in the first generation Acura MDX adapted for hauling and towing duties.
That removes the puffery. The detailed chassis information is covered later. That said, I think most of that information would only belong in this article if the three articles are merged again. Else the parent article should be more general.
I'm not as deletist as you might think. This is an area where I think erring on the side of more information is fine since we aren't dealing with a political topic etc. However, the article should be readable. The walls of specs in text need to go. Tables and/or footnotes would help a lot. Also, when people say the text is too long they are going to gauge this on the body of the text, not information in tables and the like. That is how you can merge these articles without cutting much content, the material you feel makes the article strong. Springee (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, that is the kind of help I needed, thank you.

FYI: The whole paragraph starting with "Contrary to some media reporting..." came about over an edit war where an editor was insisting that the truck was a car with a bed and stating things this way was the only way I could get it to stop. My preference would be to do away with the entire paragraph, which I think I will now that some time as passed. --McChizzle (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference 2007 Updates was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ 2006 Honda Ridgeline RT Electrical/Exhaust/Heater/Fuel Parts List, Honda eStore, last access 11 November 2015
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference 2009 Manual was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ 2013 Honda Ridgeline Owner's Manual, techinfo.honda.com, dated 2012, last accessed 30 April 2018
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honda_Ridgeline&oldid=1215533949"