Talk:B-segment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reference and simplify presentation

Almost 50 images are not needed to define this category of cars. There already exit links to numerous models. Moreover, this article is not to be a complete list (past and present), every body style, etc. marketed in this category. Furthermore, it will be very difficult to keep the images up-to-date with the years of production in their descriptions. The flags do not represent the typical automobile firm's global supply chains. Cars made in one country end up being marketed in numerous international markets. Therefore, the national flags are superfluous. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge with subcompact and supermini

The article states that B-segment "is equivalent to the subcompact category in the United States and the Supermini category in Great Britain". Why then are there three articles? If they are regional variations of the same thing then, per WP:WORLDVIEW they should be merged. --Cornellier (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with merging the three, although I am not sure which is the best article name to merge the others into (*cue cultural wars between the brits, yanks and Euros!*) Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I would hesitate to merge them all. While subcompact, supermini, and B-segment have roughly the same meaning, there is no single term which can group them all together. Each article does a good job of keeping within its region of usage, i.e. North America, UK, and (rest of) Europe, respectively. Also, there's the precedent of other size classes having separate articles, like compact car and C-segment, and mid-size car and D-segment. City car was merged into A-segment, but there are hardly any in North America anyway. Car classification has a good table which compares them all.
Given that most other UK/GB car classes are merged with other articles, I would possibly consider merging supermini into either B-segment, or subcompact (like how large MPV was merged into minivan). --Vossanova o< 23:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A month ago, I started an overhaul of this article before a user disagreed and reverted my edits twice due to lack of discussion, and argues that B-segment is solely an European segment therefore the article should be kept that way, which i disagree (more on that on off-topic). The current article seemed too much like a gallery instead of a proper article, and a heavy focus towards B-segment sales in Europe. This article deserves a better content which prompted me to do an overhaul. I'm proposing for this article to be reverted to the 4 March 2021 version.

Article improvement proposal

Any suggestions/opinions are welcome. Andra Febrian (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your comments in your edit summary, i would suggest an RFC (request for comment) to attract discussion. The proposal you have come up with is pretty drastic in its effect on the whole article, and that's why it would be appropriate to get some approval from the community of editors before you simply go ahead with it without any objections or suggestions from other editors. An rfc would also allow a third party to make a judgement on this whole dispute. Given your experience on wikipedia, i'm surprised you haven't considered all this. - Cement4802 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not agree that every drastic changes should went through approval from the community of editors, Wikipedia does not require that as per WP:BOLD. Maybe if it's controversial, but i do not consider my changes as controversial. If an editor disagreed, WP:BRD method is adequate.
I would like to know what is wrong with my edits because your reasoning is very unclear. "the b segment has always been europe-centric" yes, that's exactly what I wrote in the article. That doesn't mean other parts of the world don't have B-segment cars, and that is where I expanded the article. "other articles already cover more global models" which article is that? "therefore, we should only be sticking to best selling vehicles in europe" this is Wikipedia, not carsalesbase.com. "So far, you are the only editor wanting this change" so what? Doesn't mean it's unwanted. On the contrary, you are the only editor opposing this change. Your reasoning is not strong enough, it screams a refusal of change and not wanting any further advancement creating an unnecessary dispute, that is why I chose to ignore it initially.
Your decision to revert before discussing also grinds my gears because the current version is ridiculously poor in quality, it's like a mirror of carsalesbase.com, not to mention the repeated images. It's not that my version was perfect, but in my opinion it should be the live version during the discussion because any future changes ideally should be made on top of my edits, not before it. Say you're tasked to improve this article with the current version as the base, how would you improve the article? Andra Febrian (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd agree that this article has evolved through various formats and versions over time, but as of more recently (at least in the last year or two), the more established, longstanding format of the article has revolved around a gallery of images, and mainly models sold in Europe. "so what? Doesn't mean it's unwanted. On the contrary, you are the only editor opposing this change". I could just as easily use this argument you're making to justify changing all of your edits back to a europe centric version. You'd be the only editor opposing it, and just because there hasn't been any support for my version, doesn't mean it's unwanted, right? Imagine the amount of edit wars if everyone used the exact same arguement you're using at the moment. The appropriate action in the context of this situation would be to start an RFC to gather different opinions on this situation, and a third party can decide which direction this article goes. You can't simply change everything to how you want it to be just because you can't be bothered to consult the community about it first - Cement4802 (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Longstanding doesn't mean anything, it is a non-argument when it comes to choosing which version is better. "You can't simply change everything to how you want it" yes you can as per WP:BOLD. There is no restrictions as far as I know.
That being said, RFC will start below. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Again, then i'd be just as entitled to constantly switch back to the current European centric version, using your argument. And that's not even an accurate summary of WP:BOLD - Cement4802 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
More information Off-topic ...
Close

WP:BOLD has 3 main assertions:

  • 'Be bold'
  • 'Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it'
  • 'Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted'

It is the last one that is being missed here. It's fine that an editor goes ahead and makes changes without consensus. But that same editor also has to be fine with others reverting it back. That's when we discuss and then follow the outcome of the discussion. If no consensus is found then we revert back to the original. Thick skins required all around but the alternative is edit warring. See WP:BRD for a similar explanation.  Stepho  talk  09:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

No consensus. This dispute should have been solved through normal consensual editing, preferably by implementing individual smaller edits rather than presenting people with a single mass-edit of the entire article to approve or disapprove. FOARP (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2021 (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.

RfC: Which version of the article should be used?

Which version of the article should be kept? Two options:

Andra Febrian (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Option B The proposed version seems to be better organized and has more information about the topic. I also thought Option B better organized the photographs and descriptions. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Option A. Option B brings in many concepts which are good but overwhelms the basic message that the class is defined by the size of the vehicle. Too many examples. The talk about diesel engines is not really relevant to this class only. Most of the body styles mentioned are also applicable to most of the other classes. Or to put it another way, too much general talk but not much about what is specific to this class. The non-European sections are about equivalent classes in other regions - but equivalent s not the same as those regions using this class definition. Better to keep it Euro specific where the class is used. Although a small section mentioning the equivalent in other regions is fine, the specifics should not be expanded upon in this article but instead we should encourage the reader to follow the links to those equivalents. Having said that, the original article was a bit too terse and a limited part of the proposed version should be brought back in.  Stepho  talk  09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Option C: Third suggestion

A couple of questions about Option B: "my proposed version" rewritten B-segment

  • "The term also described the subcompact category widely known in North America"
    • "described"? why past tense? does it no longer describe?
    • "... the subcompact category widely known in North America". Is there another subcompact category?
  • "In 2018, the B-segment or subcompact cars (excluding SUVs) represented 12.5 percent of total car sales in the global market, a decrease from 12.7 percent in 2017"
    • the lede is supposed to be a summary. Do we need to include a one-year, 0.2% decline in sales?

Here's Option C, another "proposed version" rewrite of B-segment:

The B-segment is the second smallest of the European segments for passenger cars between the A-segment and C-segment, and commonly described as "small cars".[1][2][3] The term also describes the category widely referred to in North America as subcompact, the A0-class in China, and the supermini category for B-segment hatchbacks in Great Britain.[4][5][6] B-segment cars may include hatchback, sedan/saloon, station wagon, coupe/convertible, MPV, and crossover/SUV body styles.[7][8]

As of 2018, the B-segment or subcompact cars (excluding SUVs) represented 12.5 percent of total car sales in the global market.[9] --(editor is a volunteer for Wikipedia:Feedback request service) Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Option C's "also describes" in relation to non-European markets should say that it is equivalent to, not the same as American subcompacts, Chinese A0-class cars, etc. Each market has its own definition that was derived quite separately from the others. Likewise, since B-segment cars are a European thing, not a global thing, it doesn't make sense to make any statements about the global market unless we say something like "B-segment cars and their equivalents".  Stepho  talk  23:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
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.

Global classification

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI