This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.