Talk:Small car

Change from redirect to disambiguation page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Snow close discussion, clear consensus for disambiguation page over redirect. Further discussion is moot given there are no opposing arguments against the dab page. Polyamorph (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This change was made without any discussion, so the reasoning is still unclear. I propose to revert the change, until a good reasoning is provided. The Banner talk 20:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning was clearly communicated in edit summaries. There is sufficient ambiguity over what a small car may refer to that a disambiguation page would be helpful. There are no internal links to this page (apart from Small car (disambiguation)). I see no justification to revert. Polyamorph (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tiny remark in the edit summary is not a serious start of a discussion for a big change in an article. The Banner talk 11:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Polyamorph. Small car is a vague term and it shouldn't be attributed to a specific segment as it have a different meaning depending where you are. I expanded B-segment few days ago (a segment smaller than Compact car) and many European sources refer them as "small cars".

I initially avoided the talkpage solution because gaining consensus takes a while and I thought taking action quickly towards a mistake in Wiki is better than waiting, and I believe what my edit is an improvement though I know edit warring not an ideal solution.

That being said, what would it take for my edit to be restored? Is my explanation sufficient or a consensus is required? Andra Febrian (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your dab page is the current live version. There needs to be a good rationale for redirecting, currently no convincing rationale for restoring the redirect has been provided. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, didn't realize my dab page is still live. I stand corrected. Andra Febrian (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point is that you are overwriting an earlier RfD without any prior discussion. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_12#Small_car_→_City_car. The Banner talk 11:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus in that 2008 discussion was not very strong, with dabify suggested as a solution, so I still don't see any convincing rationale for restoring the redirect. Polyamorph (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for your convincing rationale why this RfD can be ignored, as your arguments are not very strong. The Banner talk 12:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is that the compact car redirect only won by one votes in that RfD with only three voters, and none of them are a member of the WikiProject Automobiles, nor they are active in editing automobile-related articles. It is possible they do not have an in-depth understanding of the term. Andra Febrian (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absolute non-argument and an personal affront to the people taking part in that discussion. The Banner talk 13:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal, nothing against them. Isn't it logical that a user from outside the project in average has less knowledge about the project topic than the members of the project? Andra Febrian (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was an extremely limited discussion had 13 years ago, the consensus was not strong and dabify was an option back then. Per WP:BOLD discussion is not needed when updating wikipedia, and unless you have a strong objection to having a dab page then I don't see the point in your objection, frankly. Polyamorph (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you object you may take to WP:RFD with the draft dab. Polyamorph (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you have noticed - I hope - I have first widened the discussion to get some real arguments. The Banner talk 13:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to say "to get some further input from interested parties". Polyamorph (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that in general turning a redirect into an article, or even a disambiguation page really requires discussion (unless someone objects, of course). I definitely don't think this requires an RFD to overturn the old one, it was over a decade ago. I see from the edit summaries there was a concern regarding link breaking but from Special:WhatLinksHere/Small_car there are none now if there were before. If there are no reasons against it other than that old discussion (which certainly didn't indicate any kind of consensus against turning into a disambiguation page) then that's just unnecessary bureaucracy. I agree that this is an ambiguous term and think this is a good change. A7V2 (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current version seems reasonable to me. I have attended Automotive Engineering lectures at university, yet, I have no idea where exactly one ought to draw the line between a microcar, a small car, and a subcompact car. That is because there is no proper definition of what the term small car describes. I reckon nobody would disagree that a Trabant 1.1 is a small car. However, a Trabant 1.1 is unarguably larger than a Smart W 450 – the Trabant, while having the same rated engine power of 30 kW, and the same width of 1510 mm, is 910 mm longer, seats two more passengers, and it has a decent luggage compartment. Still, isn't the Smart car also a small car? In addition to that, the English language has compound words with spaces – it is impossible to differentiate between a car that is small, and a fixed term called "small car" if the words "small" and "car" are used. In languages such as German, this problem doesn't exist (Kleiner Wagen (small car) versus Kleinwagen (smallcar)). However, the definition problem also exists in German. So to keep things simple, a disambiguation page is a decent way to go. It might not please everyone, but I suppose that anyone can understand it. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:28, 25 June 2021 (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.

Please note that this snow-close was done by an involved editor. The Banner talk 15:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And? Polyamorph (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating a fact. The Banner talk 19:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Late vote

Support turning this into a dab page, redirect was erroneous to begin with. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]