Talk:Range Rover Evoque

Confusing

Reading this article, I'm never sure if it is talking about a production vehicle or a concept car, it jumps back and forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makewa (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Grand Evoque and Evoque Sport?

These are both rumored, and likely new models for Land Rover, do they deserve their own articles, or their own sections on the Evoque article? The Evoque Sport has been confirmed that it is possible that JLR will make it, Gerry McGovern stated that it was possible. The Grand Evoque has been rumored, and many think it's likely. So, what do you guys think? Coolboygcp (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should add nothing until there is a reliable source that indicates those models WILL be made, otherwise adding the content violates WP:CRYSTAL. An encyclopedia is not for rumors . . . leave those to the blogs. 72Dino (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Does the Evoque Convertible Concept deserve it's own article? Perhaps a redirect to this article at least? Coolboygcp (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are some references for it, I would think that a section in this article about the concept vehicle may be appropriate. I doubt a standalone article would work. 72Dino (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds good. There already is a section for it, but I'll have to expand it, and cite some references. If you would like to contribute, that would be appreciated.Coolboygcp (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Range Rover Evoque#Engines

Search .82 as it says g that links to GeForce. Is that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, somebody added that that was either a big fan of that movie, or a huge fan of talking hamster spies, or perhaps someone who could not spell. I believe the former, but thanks for bringing this up, as someone edited it, and brought it back to what it should be. Coolboygcp (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Awards

"Car Design", but no "Desing Car" in the World Car of the Year. If victory in "Truck of the Year" nomination of the 2012 International Car of the Year award wrong? Urbanowatcher (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the reference? --Biker Biker (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

See that page, site and other links. Put Source tmplt if not enough. Urbanowatcher (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, you can just add the reference on this article. All the other awards listed have one. Per WP:Verifiability, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners if you are new and need some help. 72Dino (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edits March 2, 2018

See discussion User talk:Fabian USA#Range Rover Evoque.--Fabian USA (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC) This version has to be discussed: Range Rover Evoque (version of 05:45, 2 March 2018). More like an encyclopedia, not so much an advertisement, and the sections make more sense. See my talk page.--Fabian USA (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I edited the article again. Information about the Land Rover LRX is included. More like an encyclopedia, not so much an advertisement, and the sections make more sense.--Fabian USA (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Range Rover Evoque [is it a car?]

Are you sure? Technically, a crossover is based on a unibody car platform. Crossovers have the handling of a car, but can you call such a vehicle a car? Have a good day!--The Upper Ten (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
(moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC))

@The Upper Ten: I think so. What's your definition of a car, and what could stop the Evoque being one? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Evoque is a mix of two kinds of automobiles. The crossover is a vehicle that combines elements of cars and SUVs. Enough talk. Thanks.--The Upper Ten (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, we might have a language issue. The article is written in British English and there SUVs are cars too. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Truck vs. Car vs. SUV vs. Crossover (Mazda of South Charlotte, North Carolina)--The Upper Ten (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Compare and contrast that with this from the UK (where what seem to be called "trucks" in the US are called "pick-ups") and you'll see they are all just different types of car there. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Size classes

MrDavr has been trying to fit this vehicle into the subcompact category for a few weeks now, based originally on his own private definition of what makes a subcompact and later by linking a Car and Driver article. I have explained to MrDavr repeatedly on his talkpage that there is not a single classification system for compact, subcompact, mid-size or whatever. The C&D reference is based on EPA's measurement of interior volume, whereas others (including Edmunds and Land Rover themselves) consistently refer to it as a compact. I am sure this Google search will look different to everyone, but I see several Land Rover links titled "compact SUV." There is not a hard science for what to classify this vehicle, or any other vehicles. Swapping these classifications back and forth is a complete waste of time, because with some searching you can easily find a reference for whatever you like. I am certain that someone out there classifies a vehicle 4.4 metres long and 1600+kg as a mid-size car.

This is a massive waste of time. The Evoque has been called a compact since 2011 at least. Monettt and I have both reverted MrDavr's edit several times. I have already explained to MrDavr on his talk page (and others have, too) that these size classifications are vague, fluctuating, conflated with marketing, differ over time, and differ wildly between countries. There is simply no point going from article to article changing classifications based on one set of parameters; to me it verges on violating WP:NOTHERE. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Mr.choppers, I totally support what you are saying. There have been multiple attempts to explain the situation to @MrDavr, obviously unproductive. My main problem is that the situation you describe is not limited to this one page, but to many pages of Wikipedia. Monettt (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with you guys. I have been checking ‘view history’ and to make it short, it’s very easy to see that you guys are in the right. Better references too, and if Land Rover says what class it is them self, who are you going to believe, a random reference off of the internet, or Land Rover themselves? Makes 0 sense whatsoever. 1VRX (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been on a lot of other pages, and I’ve seen you guys fight a lot recently. I thought Wikipedia was a friendly platform for people to contribute, and for people to get information from, to agree on edits, not to fight, argue, spread false information. 1VRX (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit war can get you banned from editing, so you guys could be risking your accounts if you continue the bs. 1VRX (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Just saying, the Evoque is still in the ‘subcompact crossover SUV’ MrDavr (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And another note, if you scroll down, the Range Rover Evoque in the timeline shows up in subcompact SUV MrDavr (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

For the one-thousandth time: There is no one single correct answer to this. These categories are made up, they fluctuate, they change completely depending on who you ask. Because of that, you are just wasting time changing any of these classifications in any articles. This article has stated "compact" for eleven years now. Leave it be. Leave it. Find something useful to do, fixing things that are actually broken, updating articles, correcting badly formatted references, go check out the to-do list at Wikipedia:Community_portal. I do hesitate to tell you this since you obviously have real problems communicating with other editors - at least half a dozen people have told you to stop changing size classifications by now and you just stick your fingers in your ears and keep doing the exact same thing as before.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

NO, IT HASN'T! It said subcompact before somebody changed it in 2021. In Europe, subcompact suvs are compact there, LR ie European MrDavr (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The Evoque has been called both a subcompact and compact by a variety of reliable (and some blogs which are not reliable.) Frankly, IMO the size doesn't add value to the article anyway. In this case, because there is no consistency in the size, I would go with what Land Rover calls it in their press releases like here, which is "compact". Bahooka (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I can really only be on @Bahooka’s side. I still don’t get how you’re saying none of the classifications are right or wrong, because it o @Mr.choppers, but I’m only really leaving it alone because I could honestly agree Bahooka. MrDavr (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Finally, is the argument over? Can you guys learn to collaborate? The arguing is getting out of hand. 1VRX (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I still believe it’s subcompact, but the edit wars are getting quite out of hand MrDavr (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You are aware that English language WP is not US wikipedia? Stop changing classifications, you are just wasting your time and that of others.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I just said, I wanted to stop arguing, and yet you’re continuing MrDavr (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You just wrote In Europe, subcompact suvs are compact there, LR ie European - I think I tried to respond to that, but now that I look at this random assemblage of words I am no longer sure what you were trying to say.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I get why the Evoque can be considered subcompact. Ignoring the Chinese LWB version, it's nearly the same size as the Audi Q3, BMW X1, and Jaguar E-Pace, all of which are labeled subcompact on Wikipedia. But we're not really supposed to draw our own conclusions here; we're supposed to use reliable sources. We should go with what a majority of sources consider it. If there's a near-even split between subcompact and compact, then either call it "subcompact/compact", or just remove the size class altogether. --Vossanova ^o< 14:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too, for consistency reasons these cars you just mentioned should belong to the same class since they're all European.

Evoque aside, I feel like we should devise some kind of convention on how to classify cars. What source we should use, what source we shouldn't use, which country should we follow (using different markets for different cars is inconsistent and will lead to confusions). JATO Dynamics is a great start. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That's the thing, since there is no global consensus it becomes impossible for us to create our own system. WP:OR and all that. I say that if a manufacturer has three sizes of SUVs, we ought to call them compact, mid-size and large as a baseline. Perhaps range from subcompact to mid-size for someone like Dacia. There can be two mid-size SUVs from one manufacturer, they don't all have to be different. But since it's essentially just marketing speak, I think it's generally safe to go with whatever the manufacturer calls it in the vehicle's home market. Listing two or three or four classifications adds nothing of value to an article.

But most importantly, if an article has an existing classification and it is not outrageously wrong, don't change it. If you change it and get reverted, leave it be or start a discussion as per WP:BRD. Consider doing something useful instead: find missing sources, improve referencing, revert vandals. Anything is better than swapping size classes or the constant changing back and forth of photos.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, JATO Dynamics is a professional car market reference, market segmentation is one of their speciality and I usually agree with their classification.

I'm totally against following what manufactureers are saying. In Europe, Citroën called the C4 Cactus a B-segment subcompact crossover, then a C-segment compact hatch to replace the void created between the second and the third generation of C4. Then, it called it a B-segment subcompact SUV in South America. We can mention that strategy, but the truth is, the C4 Cactus is my all means a B-segment subcompact crossover.

It's always hard to classify a vehicle when it's clearly between two segments, as can be the Kia Niro or the RR Evoque, but I think following what JATO Dynamics will be right 99% of the time. And when JATO Dynamics has a different opinion than the general consensus, we can mention it, but it must stay very occasional. Monettt (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

One extra point to make is that, when translating from Euro segments to US size classes, "subcompact" and "subcompact luxury" can be two different classes. The luxury class is assumed to be slightly bigger than the regular class, and in this case has some C-segment models where there are also "compact" (not luxury) SUV/CUV models. It also has to do with where they fit in the maker's lineup. For example, Audi Q3/Q5/Q7 = subcompact/compact/mid-size luxury, and BMW X1/X3/X5/X7 = subcompact/compact/mid-size/full-size luxury. The Range Rover Evoque is C-segment and the Range Rover Velar is D-segment, so we could assume the Evoque is either the same or one size class down from the Velar. The Velar doesn't specify the size class on the WP page though (maybe there was a similar argument there?) but is in the compact row of the timeline. So I think we're either back to finding the size class with the most reliable sources, or per Mr.choppers, leaving it the way it was as long as there's no consensus to change it. But if someone wants to add "(D-segment)" to it, that's fine by me. --Vossanova ^o< 22:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

So I've gathered info, the different people choose different classes, right? Well, have we thought about markets? In Europe the Evoque could be compact, but in for example North America, it could be subcompact. As Mr.choppers said, none are right nor wrong. And as Vossanova said we are supposed to use reliable sources, but we've gotten a mix of both compact and subcompact, so it's most likely it varies on markets, as caranddriver.com and cars.usnews.com say it's subcompact as they are American however Range Rover, Europen say it's compact, so I'd it varies on markets MrDavr (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad grammar by the way, I usually type on a computer but I'm on a phone. Just saying that Vossanova had a good point, the Jaguar E-pace and audi q3 are subcompact crossovers, European and all the same size. That could give a minor hint about the class of the car MrDavr (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what is best, but does JATO Dynamics cover all cars in the world? Does it take a global or European perspective? If you make a conversation at the automobile project talk page I will be in full support of using JATO's classification as law (they seem reasonable to me), just to avoid future edit wars and squabbling over centimeters. Currently WP:CARCLASS states:

Car classification can be contentious because not all vehicles fall neatly into a particular class. Also, some classes are too subjective and should be avoided, such as "supercar", "hypercar", and "exotic".

In general, models should be classified according to the country where the vehicle's manufacturer is headquartered (although if the vehicle was not sold there, it should be the country where the vehicle was launched). An article may also mention other major classification schemes, to provide context to readers in other countries.

Good luck; I am sure the American editors will want to stick to EPA's classifications (by which the Nissan Kicks is larger than a Rolls-Royce Silver Dawn).  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)