 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
This is just a particular maker's regenerative brake, and this article seems pointless; a brief mention in regenerative brake is more than adequate. Opinions? Pol098 ( talk) 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose merge — There is a brief mention in the regenerative brake article about this system. However, it would seem that any further referenced information (such as the firms involved in its development) would not be appropriate for inclusion in the general "regenerative brake" article. Therefore, keeping the historical information in this article that is about a specific automotive technology tradename, seems to be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. This follows the practice of other articles such as in the "automotive technology tradenames" category. There is far more information in this article than — for example — in the Honda I-SHIFT or Profile ignition pickup articles. Thanks! CZmarlin ( talk) 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support merge I think that this information could be usefully included as a subsection in the Regenerative brake article, with a suitable redirect for this trade name. A.C. Norman ( talk) 10:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- The number of articles in the "automotive technology tradenames" category has significantly increased in the almost two years since the idea to merge this article was made. It would seem that just about all of those articles should also be under their "generic" topics, but that is not the case! CZmarlin ( talk) 05:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
This is just a particular maker's regenerative brake, and this article seems pointless; a brief mention in regenerative brake is more than adequate. Opinions? Pol098 ( talk) 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose merge — There is a brief mention in the regenerative brake article about this system. However, it would seem that any further referenced information (such as the firms involved in its development) would not be appropriate for inclusion in the general "regenerative brake" article. Therefore, keeping the historical information in this article that is about a specific automotive technology tradename, seems to be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. This follows the practice of other articles such as in the "automotive technology tradenames" category. There is far more information in this article than — for example — in the Honda I-SHIFT or Profile ignition pickup articles. Thanks! CZmarlin ( talk) 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support merge I think that this information could be usefully included as a subsection in the Regenerative brake article, with a suitable redirect for this trade name. A.C. Norman ( talk) 10:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- The number of articles in the "automotive technology tradenames" category has significantly increased in the almost two years since the idea to merge this article was made. It would seem that just about all of those articles should also be under their "generic" topics, but that is not the case! CZmarlin ( talk) 05:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)