Talk:Toyota Corolla (E170)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Reference date format
[edit]Tony1 (talk · contribs) and myself have a disagreement over whether the reference dates should remain formatted as yyyy-mm-dd (eg 2016-12-31) or be changed to d mmm yyyy (eg 31 December 2015). I believe that yyyy-mm-dd is perfectly legal and Tony appears to believe that it is illegal (Tony, please indicate if I have misunderstood you). WP:BRD says that after a round of being bold to change it (Tony) and being reverted (myself) then that aspect of the article should not change until we resolve our differences on this talk page.
MOS:DATEFORMAT says "These requirements do not apply to dates in quotations or titles; . Special rules apply to citations; .
MOS:DATEUNIFY says "Dates in article body text should all use the same format". Note that it says "article body text", which does not include reference. It also says that publications dates in citations (references) can be from a list which specifically includes "all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided".
And good old WP:RETAIN says that we can't change something just because we don't like it. We can change something that is against policies or formatted wrong or we can gain consensus on the talk page to change it. Note that I am not saying you have to like the yyyy-mm-dd but you do have to prove that it is not allowed or gain consensus before you can change it. Stepho talk 03:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- I asked you to justify why you are doggedly insisting on mixing date formats in this article—that is, from readers' point of view, not your own. If no reasonable justification is put forward, I'm going to harmonise them again. Tony (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- My method is legal and well represented in other parts of WP. I have very good reasons why I prefer this method but I don't have to justify it - you need to justify why it should change and get consensus before you change it. See WP:RETAIN. Stepho talk 07:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
NPOV? Not here!
[edit]This article is swollen with marketing gibberish, and needs to be...er, deflated. 174.89.134.106 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Toyota Corolla and Auris (E180)
[edit]The Toyota Corolla E180 is offered as a sedan and Toyota Auris (E180) offered as a hatchback and station wagon --Lamborghinimaster (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Which version?
[edit]@Stepho-wrs: hey thanks for helping out with my edits on some of the Toyota articles. If I may ask, which version of the 11th-gen Corolla is this? E170 or E180? I want to add an entry for the Saudi market into this article, but I don’t know which section it belongs to. Left guide (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, don't know. Toyota seems determined to make it as confusing as possible with international E170, American E170 and international E180 all based on the same platform at the same time. Web searching didn't turn up anything useful either. Reviews just keep saying "Corolla" :( Stepho talk 09:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks for trying. At least a lot of the parts are identical and easily interchangeable across markets haha (in my experience anyways). Do you have any suggestions on how to best integrate the information into the article? Left guide (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sadly, I have no suggestion for this mess that Toyota put us in. Stepho talk 22:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks for trying. At least a lot of the parts are identical and easily interchangeable across markets haha (in my experience anyways). Do you have any suggestions on how to best integrate the information into the article? Left guide (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)