Talk:Lane centering

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Title

Lane centering for the title seems off. Perhaps lane centering and ACC or Level 2 and Level 3 autonomy. All cars with lane centering have adjustable cruise control. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consider merge with Lane Departure Warning System

It seems Lane departure warning system#Lane keeping and next technologies is related. Shall we consider merging them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinbenlv (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this article might be better renamed and slightly refocused to be "cars with level 2 driverless capability". What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Assist vs Lane Centering

https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/technology-lexicon-7180/driver-assistance-systems-7184 Quote:

In the case of an early steering intervention point, the system guides the driver towards the middle of the lane by gentle, centering steering interventions.

The difference between lane assist and lane centering is that lane assist ping pongs in the lane. Lane centering avoids that, by not intervening, but constant control. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lane assist might be not such specific and more differences might exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.36 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another level 2 table in draft form

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Advanced_Driver-Assistance_Systems Would be interesting to incorporate elements of that table in this article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title of this page should be changed to Advanced driver-assistance systems. Most of the content of this page is no longer specific to lane centering. I agree that elements of that table would improve this table, although I think they are out of scope of the current title. Cyphear (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Sensing

On Honda's website for Honda Sensing [1], Honda defines it as an advanced driver-assistance system. "What is Honda Sensing®? Honda Sensing® is our exclusive intelligent suite of safety and driver-assistive technologies designed to alert you to things you might miss while driving. The suite of features is not only a lane centering feature and should not defined as such.Frigerooo (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Lane Keeping Assist System (LKAS)

"Adjusts steering to help you keep centered in a detected lane." Seems very straightforward (pun intended) to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LKAS is a lane centering feature which I have not disputed. I have disputed Honda Sensing being presented as LKAS (1) when it includes adaptive cruise control (2), lane departure warning (3), forward collision warning (4), automatic braking (5), and traffic sign recognition (6) on newer models. Again, Honda Sensing a suite of advanced driver-assistance systems rather it is being redirected as lane centering.

@Frigerooo: You seem to have missed "Blind Spot Information System" on that page. Are you a native English speaker? Does anything on the page you linked actually make sense to you? If this removal of valid information related only to Honda products continues I would consider taking this to WP:ANI and requesting a WP:TOPICBAN from anything dealing with Honda. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My native language is irrelevant. I have removed false information, which you have again added twice. Honda Sensing does not include "Blind Spot Information System". Blind spot monitoring is an option on Honda vehicles. Honda Sensing is standard on numerous models such as the Civic [2] and Pilot [3].

However Blind Spot Information System is not included with the Pilot's base trim (LX) [4] while Honda Sensing is standard. Blind spot monitoring is not offered on the Civic [5] w/only Lane Watch as an option. On Honda's website where Honda Sensing is standard every model I looked at Blind Spot Monitoring is an option.Frigerooo (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: You have been blocked on numerous occasions and are wasting my time to correct misinformation.Frigerooo (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit as readers cannot be falsely led into believing they have a major safety feature like blind spot monitoring because they have standard Honda Sensing. Blind Spot Monitoring is a seperate option and vehicles like the Civic don't offer it. This is dangerous misinformation on wikipedia.Frigerooo (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've continued with your edit warring. @Daniel.Cardenas: might be interested in this discussion as well.

You're probably right that your native language is not relevant. The fact remains the site that you linked to claims exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Good bye. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERREF

Quote from WP:OVERREF :

Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided;

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So first, we do not include links in headings.

Second, it's best not to include direct links to pages. You can use a colon to break a back link.

Third, that is an essay, not a policy, not even a guideline.

The idea is simple though, we use WP:RSes to support claims. How in the world is www.cars.com a reliable source? https://www.cars.com/about/ states they're a digital marketplace. L.A. Bureau Chief Brian Wong is a California native with a soft spot for convertibles and free parking. Why is it first?

I see you've decided to edit war. I'm pretty sure I've had the displeasure of editing with you in the past. How have you not been blocked? Well, let's see if we can't arrange that with this edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaining that it is the first link? Simple enough to change that. Here is more about cars.com: Cars.com . Is your assertion that stating it is a digital marketplace makes it an unreliable source? Or is that the editor likes convertibles? Or both?

You lost the last edit wars. Strongly suspect you've been blocked before. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to write "you're"? No, its one complaint. The bare URL source you added shouldn't even be there at all.

I don't know if it's a reliable source. It doesn't seem to have all the hallmarks of one. What do you think makes it one? Granted, most of the sources here are poor quality and this one isn't the worst. But again, why is it a reliable source for something that is already sourced? Do we need two sources for the fact that one vehicle has lane centring? Has anyone challenged the other one? Is it unreliable?

Yes, I have been blocked before, and no, I did not "lose" the last edit war (here). You and I restored the content Frigerooo removed. However, I've also made about 1000 times the edits you have and know a lot more about the process than you currently do and because I spend a great deal of time on the project, I'm usually the firest to find unconstructive edits.

But let's focus on the content, not behaviour, why do we need a second source? Why is this particular source better than the one that was already there? If you were to remove one of the two, which would it be? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources are good for different perspectives and helps with wp:linkrot. 08:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for not answering any of my questions. So far, the source has been deemed unreliable at the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about which ref is better are irrelevant. The question is based on a false belief that one ref is better than two. Why do you deem the source unreliable? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the reasons I feel it is unreliable above and the discussion at the reliable source noticeboard has had many responses. The first stated it is not reliable, and I responded here at that point. The remainder suggest it's somewhat acceptable to use, and in no more of a conflict than other automotive publications that run ads for cars. The consensus seems to be that it's fine for basic, statements of fact, descriptions of automotive systems etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Frigerooo and Daniel.Cardenas: Feel free to get involved in the discussion over at the noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#cars.com. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]