Talk:Toyota concept vehicles

Massive format change proposal

I was in the middle of a major change which involved merging these articles into one short list and splitting the sections with sufficiently-referenced content into individual articles (see articles like Toyota RV-1, Toyota RSC, etc.). This was a move I made when I decided to be bold and do it myself rather than start a long discussion. Stepho-wrs informed me to make a proposal here instead though I'm almost done. Here's all of the pros and cons with this:

Pros

• All concepts will be listed under a single article, therefore making it easier to navigate through the concept vehicle articles.
• No more unsourced, poorly-sourced, or promotionally-written sections.
• Re-writing/filling these articles would be a much longer process over making a list.
• It will be much easier to add content. If a user wants to add a vehicle to the list but doesn't want to have to go through the process of creating a new section, filling that section, and filling in the infobox, all that will have to be done is to add the name, reveal year, and a short description (see List of Daihatsu concept vehicles and List of Porsche concept vehicles for a better idea).
• It will be much more consistent with all other concept vehicle list articles, as this is the only one on Wikipedia that is this confusing and bulky format. Hell, even some concept lists are so condensed they're within production vehicle lists.

Cons

• It will be a long process, but that isn't too much of a problem (unless this isn't shortly responded to) since I'm about 70% done.
• These articles have existed for years (but age ≠ immunity to change).

I can't come up with any more pros/cons off the top of my head, but I'm sure anyone else might think of any. Personally, I believe it would be common sense to have these listed under one article since it isn't 100+ entries per article. If it's agreed upon to make this change, I will continue working on List of Toyota concept vehicles and the articles for concept cars myself and will update when I'm done. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that JP is trying to make them better. However, I have the opposite opinion and offer the following rebuttals to the above points:

Pros

• There is already a single list at List_of_Toyota_vehicles#Concept_vehicles. A second list duplicates that for no benefit. However, I have no objection to moving the list out of List_of_Toyota_vehicles and into it's own article.
• Issues with being unsourced, poorly written and promotionally-written should be dealt with by rewrites - not wholesale deletion. Every entry that I have edited has at least one reference and I usually take pains to find both a Toyota source and at least one independent source. I've also worked hard to avoid promotionally-written biases by keeping to dry facts.
• Writing articles with facts certainly takes longer then merely adding an entry to a list. How else can you provide details? Or do you prefer to have no details? For users that merely want to add to the list, then they can add it to List_of_Toyota_vehicles#Concept_vehicles. I normally see it and then do a fact-finding mission on the internet to gather more details, taking the burden off the other editors.
• Other lists giving mediocre lists with no details is not an excuse to drag us down too.

Cons

• Why bother with a long process if it is worse than what you started with? Better to put the effort into cleaning up the existing articles.
• Age ≠ immunity but new/shiny does not automatically mean better. Judge it on its merits, not its age.

The reason I choose this format about 10 years ago was because small articles are often attacked by deletionists. Deletionists say that a car that was displayed for only a year and then forgotten is not notable and that short articles should be deleted. By combining them into larger articles, they have survived because the larger articles are a notable subject in themselves (ie, the history of Toyota concept cars). If we carve them up then they will risk being deleted and we will lose much information that is hard to find on the web or any other source.

This format also allows details to be added. For some cars, we don't have much information. But for other cars we have more. And none of them are big enough to make an interesting article by itself.

The decade articles are slightly long but still manageable. Some decades have more entries - we can divide them up into 5-year lots if the length bothers you.

The format of each article and each section within each article is consistent. It is not hard to find existing entries or to add new entries (assuming the editor has the information). Often I see a new entry, go hunting for more details on the web and then add them (with references) myself. Lazy editors can just add to List_of_Toyota_vehicles#Concept_vehicles - which usually triggers fact finding by me.

For readers that type the name into the search box, every entry also has a redirect such as Toyota AXV that goes directly to the entry (although some variations such as Toyota SV-3 go to the article about the related production car). Each redirect is also in Category:Toyota concept vehicles if readers prefer searching that way.

This is a rich system that provides many ways to find these vehicles and provides many details. Your proposal would reduce it down to a boring, meaningless set of bullet points.  Stepho  talk  10:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Already some of your small articles have been marked as {{Modern-auto-stub}}. Being marked as stubs usually has 2 outcomes. Either the article is expanded (which cannot happen in these articles) or it gets deleted shortly afterwards.  Stepho  talk  10:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs:

In response to your rebuttals:

• If the case is that there's an existing list at List of Toyota vehicles, that list should be replaced by List of Toyota concept vehicles, and the existing Toyota concept vehicle articles should be redirects to the relevant section, because if it already exists in a section it doesn't need be 7 + 1 articles.
• A lot of the sections within the article are unsourced or sourced with a single primary source associated with Toyota which briefly mention the car. Section rewrites are possible, but impossible when you can't add further sources or content built up from a mention consisting of a few vague words on a press release. Mentions should remain mentions within a section rather than their own sections where citation needed or additional references tags could be added.
• It's definitely optional to add a corresponding article to that entry. If a user just wants to expand the list they can go ahead and add a red link and anyone can go ahead and create that article as long as there's significant coverage. If it's just a mention in a single source, it doesn't justify an article.
• 'Mediocre' isn't a reason for prevention of change. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be 'fun', it's supposed to be accessible and navigable to anyone of any experience. It's much easier for someone to read/contribute to articles that are all on one page. Having several articles that are double the length of a general list article is time consuming rather than being able to find where you want to go by looking at a convenient list.
• Again, a lot of these sections can't even be added to since they're all constructed on small mentions or details that don't justify a section or article. Sections that are sufficiently referenced and have enough content to justify a start-class or stub article can and should be in their own mainspace.
• A single list that can be accessed from anywhere is a much better merit than several long and cluttered articles that satisfy one or a few car enthusiast editors. A big format change shouldn't be a problem as long as its purpose is to make it consistent and correspondent with all other similar lists as well as remove improperly sourced content that has be unverifiable for years.
• Deletionists are the reason why only sections with significant coverage and reliable sources should be moved into individual articles. I'm not sure why yours were deleted, because all of my concept car articles still exist. It could've been that either the AFD process has change in 10 years, the sources you used were primary, or the article was lacking context and was built up from a mention. I've even recreated concept vehicle articles that were deleted and the reason they were deleted and why a lot of articles were deleted was due to the nominator's unfamiliarity with the topic and the lack of motivation to find any sources to the article because of that. Now that I've added 3+ references to each article there's no problem with them.
• I'll bring up again that interesting-ness is not a reason an article shouldn't be subject to reformatting, deletion, or any other change. "Oppose: this article is far more interesting than a boring list" would be highly unaccepted in a general deletion proposal or discussion. Wikipedia is an only encyclopedia, not a fandom site.
• These articles are definitely still manageable to navigate, just less so than general lists which everyone is used to. If Toyota revealed 100+ concepts decade, that would warrant split articles, but since there's only ~50 entries per page, most of which don't have much content, one hub is better for finding your way around the articles.
• A 'lazy editor' who just wants to add an entry for the sake of keeping the list up-to-date isn't a problem, it just opens a gate for anyone to create an article or section within a relevant article. I'm very willing to create articles from red links, but I wouldn't blame people who don't want to spend 2-3 hours looking for content, images, references, and infobox specs to add to it. A topic of articles, regardless of who created them, should be maintained and contributed to by anyone who wants to, not managed by a single editor.
• Yes, there are redirects to the section. That doesn't prevent anyone from turning a redirect into an article. It's highly encouraged people do make that move when there is sufficient content and references to do so. Categories shouldn't be the lone source of navigation through articles, they usually exist alongside lists.
• Like I've said twice above, it isn't a matter of whether an article is boring or uninteresting, it's a matter of how Wikipedia's guidelines and the overall acceptance of how to format list articles shows you how structure them. This system provides ease of access for people trying to learn.
• Finally, "stub" is 100% not a reason for deletion. Stub tags just add the article to a category so that people who want to lengthen an article can find one that interests them. None of my article have been deleted because they were stubs, I'm not sure where you got that from. Not to mention, I was the one who added the stub tags, someone just came along and sorted them. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@WaddlesJP13:

Not sure why you are emphasising the single list idea. We have already had List of Toyota vehicles#Concept vehicles for many years. And it is also sortable by name and year - yours is only sorted by name. However, I have no problem if you want to take my original list and put it in it's own article. Or alternatively to change List of Toyota concept vehicles into a redirect to List of Toyota vehicles#Concept vehicles.

Not sure why you consider mediocrity as a goal. Also not sure why you mention 'fun'. The existing list at List of Toyota vehicles#Concept vehicles is just as easy to navigate as your list (in fact, it's even easier because it can be sorted by both name and year).

Carving the decade articles into separate articles will not improve their references. But it will cause them to be deleted. Short articles (which most of these will be) are nearly always labelled as stubs (it took only hours for this to happen at Toyota MP-1 and some others). And stubs have a high chance of being deleted. In spite of you saying that being a stub is 100% not a reason for being deleted, they will be nominate anyway by thoughtless editors and probably many at the same time. Do you feel like trying argue separately against each of dozens of deletion at the same time? And you get to repeat the fun on a regular basis as new editors bring them up for deletion every 6 months. Far better to point out which ones you think have poor references and then we can work on improving the references.

Both of our schemes handle lazy editors. Both schemes allow a lazy editor to add to the simple list. Both schemes allow for another editor to expand on that entry. Your new scheme has no benefit over the existing scheme in this regard.

Your new scheme is no easier to navigate than the old scheme. In fact, your new scheme is slightly harder. In the original scheme, readers can view the list (just like in your scheme). Or they can type the name into the search box (just like yours). Of they can peruse the category (just like yours). But in the original scheme users can also scroll up and down the decade page to see cars of similar age. In your scheme they are stuck on one page for just one car (although some have a few related cars). The 'See also' section at the end also takes them to other decades. So your new scheme has no advantage over the original scheme but does lose a couple of ways to navigate.

Also note that these decade articles are not list articles and do not fall under the guidelines for list articles. They are articles on groups of related cars. List articles are for simple lists with minimal details, such as List of Toyota vehicles#Concept vehicles.

To summarise: there is not a single advantage for the new scheme, there are some minor disadvantages and there is a high risk of information being deleted.  Stepho  talk  00:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose this proposal. I have long felt that Stepho's format for these articles is the best way to handle them, and indeed would like to see this become the standard for most concept vehicles (I did the same with GMC concept vehicles (2000–2019)).

  In general, concept cars don't have long-lasting impact or importance and there is a lot less that can be written about them. There are exceptions (some of the GM Motorama cars, for example) but the bulk of them don't hold much interest in the long term and media coverage quickly fades. Articles on such concept cars are often fated to remain stubs indefinitely for lack of detail; the solution is to merge them into articles by decade (or two, where necessary). This maintains at least a basic amount of information on them all and makes addition of detail straightforward. --Sable232 (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)