Talk:Honda Civic

Type R

There are no mentions whatsoever of the Type R for the last gen. civic and there is only an horsepower rating for the first gen. type r, not even an engine code. Still, there are mentions of the type-r concept...

US Civic Si gauges

the 2006 civic si's gauges aren't "more reddish," they are red (I agree with the aggressive comment, though), while the civic EX/LX/DX has blue gauges. I haven't seen the inside of a Hybrid to comment if they are different.

addendum... details re: added mileage stats on June 9, 2008

I bought this car new and have the documentation and track record for the car. It has always effectively achieved the mileage numbers they advertised at the time. That is the reference cited for the information. There is no web link for the owner's manual / dealer information as far as I know, but it is nonetheless accurate. Other generations of the Civic in this Wikipedia article include mileage ratings, and the only information provided here for the second generation was specifically for the FE model. The standard model needs to be represented as well, and since 1) it is not always easily found on the web, 2) the EPA site only goes back to 1985 models (as of this writing), 3) I have the information in print, and 4) it is useful information for the Wikipedia to have, especially adding the consistency and comprehensiveness of the other information here. Beyond the written reference I cited above (which is not online, since it is in the owner's manual / dealer materials), there is however an online reference as well, in the Honda Civic Gas Mileage - 1978-1985 section, row 46, the third to last entry for 1983 Honda Civic (4 cylinder - M5 - Manual - 34city - 47highway), at this site: http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/16/honda-civic-gas-mileage-1978-2007/ .

Editing References (Dumb Question)

Reference #45 is incorrect now that the SCCA has changed their web site from a .org to a .com domain. The link to the 2011 Solo II Rules would be correct if the .org was replaced with .com. When I attempted to edit the "References" section, all it said was: "Reflist|2" It seems that it is referring to a list maintained elsewhere. Can anyone tell me where this list may be found (and edited)? Thanks...

Nevermind - found it. The actual reference is stored in the section of the article where the reference is cited. (ps. I told you it was a dumb question.)

Safety Rating Table Abbreviations HBK and SAB

What do the abbreviations HBK and SAB represent in the Safety Rating table? Door is straightforward, but I am assuming HatchBacK and Side-AirBag, but I'm not sure. Would it be possible for someone with knowledge in vehicle safety find an authoritative source or annotate with their best guess? I couldn't find anything on the NHTSA safecar.gov site. Thank you.

Proposed Honda Civic replacement

Hey Charles, Saw you made a replacement of Vauxford's example. I totally agree with your edits, unfortunately dark coloured vehicles do emit a lot of reflections.

I have a proposal of another image, this time however its a sedan. Also please note, background is important in achieving a successful image. I've proposed the following to be used. I've not had the time to take photos, due to other commitments and my camera is getting serviced in 3 days.

• 
  Your one, but what I find it is very skewed. A further analysis reveals the background far looks to be very busy. Also angle is very poor.
• 
  The proposed one. Its a sedan, yes, however that doesn't matter. As long as the image is of good quality and is at the correct lighting, then it means it can be used. Doesn't matter if its a hatchback or sedan, either way both are equally fine. Also sedan was released first in 2016, then the hatchback, so the 'tradition of Civics' is not a good excuse for reverting or replacing
• 
  I may be self advertising myself, however I do not think that mine is that excellent. With the vehicles in the background its very distracting. I am very picky with background choices, however this would be a secondary proposal.
• 
  Whilst this has the best background, its very reflective. Look I understand what we are going to say, its bad? However Vauxford claims this isn't much of an issue , so we can always assume the best. I think this is a good hatchback model one.

Out of these, which of the three you think would be most suitable. Please be evaluative, do not think yours is better just for the sake of it. Okay, please let me know. If I was in your shoes, I'd do the Brazillian version due to less distractions :). All are welcome to choose, including Vauxford. Also note, Charles did the replacement, so I thought I bring it up :). See diff.

Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

EurovisionNim The previous image which you (probably intentionally) not listed was fine. There is no distinctive tilt in it and the reflection isn't that much of a problem. --Vauxford (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No I was doing it to another one mate, not yours. It was my example. You may have made a mistake :) It was to replace my blue sedan one :). The problem Charles and I have with yours is the background. Also technically dark colour cars tend to emit blindspots, as Charles spotted so it was not me who did that replacement. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford. I've added yours, please see out of the four, which is better. Apologetic for my mistake --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Last edit was done by Eddaido, Vauxford, please see why others do not agree with your image :). See I'm not the only one who belives yours is bad, Eddidao replaced it mate. Now we need to discuss it, which I've placed it there. I think the Brazillian one is good, the person IMHO is not going to be such a big deal, as he is confined in the background. Please feel free to disagree with me Vauxford --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't use this as in the context of "Ha ha, you're wrong I'm not the only who think so :)" Well my defence with the infobox picture is Charles's example is literally in a ditch, it pretty much a side shot and it has same amount (if not worst) background distraction, the reflection isn't that much of a issue and personally Nim you should take Charles critique too literally like you do with everything. I just found out you used a edit warring template, do you know how hypocritical you are right now since you done it FAR worst on 3 separate occasion. --Vauxford (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. However mate, you need to understand that these mistakes were made, and I've learnt my lesson. YOU on the other hand are just being a pain. If someone disagrees with you, don't be so defensive. I want to now work to make sure we are collaborating. So what if it happened yesterday? I don't actually care if I'm a hypocrite, I've learnt my lesson and want to on this day move forward to becoming a good editor. Doesn't matter if i'm taking something too literally, I want to be a valuable editor for 2019. You need to understand that calling me a "hypocrite" [1] is unacceptable. I've changed, I'm matured and now I want to be a good editor. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Excuses coming from you, you haven't learnt your lesson one bit and attempting to set me up, using the revert which was a error on my behalf since both Honda are the same colour combining it with this separate dispute with Eddadio and Charles as a reason to have the audacity to put a edit warring template on my talkpage ever since Davey mention the following of a block from your previous edit warring. --Vauxford (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Eddaido Any particular reason why you thought the blue one was "remarkably ugly"? The last revert you did (if I'm not wrong) was more to do with the conflict between me and Nim then it does to the actual article which I find isn't a valid reason to revert. The problems I have with you is that you revert things based on personal preference rather then actual things in the picture. --Vauxford (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry do you mind on elaborating what you mean? I'll get Eddaido to further explain. Its a nice car, but the reflections are marring the quality of the shot. My suggestion to avoid these is to stick to brightly coloured cars, like yellow, red, white, silver, light blue etc. as opposed to dark colour cars as these create blindspots. Also your X3 example, has a lot of blindspots, but its QI, so its no biggie. Sometimes even vehicles with the showroom shine can produce blindspots. :) Correct me if I'm wrong , but I'm slowly learning about these, as I never got told these when OSX was there --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• 4th Image (edit conflict) - I don't think Vauxfords image is the problem ... I think the main problem is that it's generally an ugly car .... I think Vauxford's image just shows its uglyness more!, Maybe it's just me but I honestly think it's an ugly car, Either way I think Vauxford's is the best as it shows the front and side as opposed to the side, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 12:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Fairo, I prefer the 2nd one as it doesn't have too many distractions. With the person in the background I don't think he is affecting the image wholehardly. But remember this is opinion based, so doesn't matter :). Davey2010, also mate what about the 2nd and 3rd one, we are also thinking of using either of the two for the article, so we are basing these two examples too mate --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

EurovisionNim I didn't personally ask you, you had your say in the beginning. and again I would advise not to take Charles's "blindspots" too literally.--Vauxford (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm allowed to say what I wish. Anyway, what does he mean by "blindspots"? I'm extremely confused and thought you'd be kind enough to elaborate for me. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

He meant blindspots as in you are unaware of your flaws, not as a noun like "reflection" or "blur". Also, it impolite to answer other people questions, especially when they are directed to that person. --Vauxford (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't intend to be rude, but thankyou. Can't he just be simple enough. We are not scholars, we are just simple editors --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd would be my second option but the third image wouldn't even be an option, Image 4 is miles better tho. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 13:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. The third one is very distracting with the cars behind. Why do you not think image 2 would be the better option? Please elaborate :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The camera postilion, the angle it was photographed, also for me there looks like whitish light around the headlight on the 2nd image, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 15:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010 As well as the fellow doing his garden chores.

Also I think it fair to say Eddaido is refusing to state why he reverted it. All he said was that the car was "ugly" which isn't really constructive reason and more of a personal opinion and thought me and Nim was having a cat fight.--Vauxford (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Just to add I've reinstated Vauxfords image simply because it was added back in November and no objections were raised at the time, Images should only be changed after a discussion not before. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay no worries. I don’t think this works likes that, editors have the right to change images whenever they wish, but considering a lot of bad images out there on Commons, Vauxford along with myself and others are working to achieve HQ shots. Ok consensus is finalised we will be using Vauxfords example. Also image quality can change thereby by allowing bold edits we are to ensure the best out of everyone images :) Remember Davey, see WP:BOLD, editors have the absolute right to replace images whenever they wish. QI examples, must not be changed unless it can be superseded by another QI example, its a practical common sense guideline, we want the best quality where possible —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 23:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Before I go quiet again, I have tried to say silent. ("I've reinstated Vauxfords image simply because it was added back in November and no objections were raised at the time") I have Many objections to the (often very) poor quality images being inserted by this pair who have been "having their Cat Fight" (whatever that is, I thought it was two women) for far too long with complete disregard for the time trouble and effort of other contributors which they destroy to please themselves and not "to advance the project". I have been waiting for them to wear themselves out. I hope we all get there very soon. I applaud the extraordinary patience of Davey2010 and company. Eddaido (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)