Talk:Volkswagen Beetle (A5)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

I think this article should be merged into Volkswagen New Beetle because it should be the second generation.--Chacha15 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, as the articles are big enough as it is. Also, I think it should be returned to its original name (Volkswagen Beetle (A5)), since the move was carried out without any previous discussion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a general "New Beetle" main article with main articles for each generation. This isn't like the proposed merges with the original Beetle that sometimes crop up -- one is a direct redesign of the other within the same market class, with VW just changing (slightly) the name. (I don't have a terribly strong view on this, though.) IFCAR (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the predecessor was called New Beetle, the new model is just called Beetle, so that I would prefer Mr.choppers' proposal. -- M 93 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merger proposed by Chacha15. Articles such as Volkswagen Golf and Volkswagen Transporter include all generations of those cars, spanning many decades and different designs. With that in mind, I can't see why the 2011 Volkswagen Beetle, which is effectively just the second generation Volkswagen New Beetle with the "New" dropped from its name, cannot be incorporated in the Volkswagen New Beetle article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Volkswagen Golf page is an overview, with each generation having its own article. The A5 Beetle is on an all-new platform, with new sheet metal, and with a somewhat different name. I don't feel super strongly about it, but I also feel that having a separate article (as they do over in the German project) cannot possibly be a bad thing.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: merger as per above. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support the merger. -- Alfacevedoa (My Talk) 13:00 16 apr 2012 (UTC)
Neither do I. Fabriced28 (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is the natural second generation of 'New Beetle', following standard Wiki logic. Claims about article size are as irrelevant as justifications about 'new sheet metal' or marketing hype, the standard Wiki reader will look at the shape and see 'New Beetle' second generation. Chienlit (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree If anything I think all the VW Beetles should be one page with 3 generations, the 60's - 2000's car, the "New" Beetle and this Beetle. When I saw this one advertised, it was only advertised as the Beetle and the 21st Century Beetle, so either merge all 3 into one page or have all 3 on single pages would only be fair. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not "3 generations"', it's 2 completely different designs. The Type 1 is rear-engined & aircooled; the New Beetle & A5 Beetle are front-engined & watercooled. (I'd also add, the Type 1 dates to 1937, not the '60s). The latter two are sensibly merged, sharing a common platform; as such, I would support a merge. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. The New Beetle and 2012 Beetle have pretty much nothing in common with the original Beetle designed 60 years before the New Beetle, apart from the name. I can't see any logic in trying to cover them all in one article. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Let me be fussy. They didn't even have a name in common. The "Beetle" moniker was never assigned officially by VW, which always knew them as Type 1s. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have to disagree with you there, the Beetle name was used in various English-language brochures, at least by the 70s. See here for instance. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I'll concede there. My sense has been, it was never a factory designation. All the enthusiast mags always used Type 1. (Actually, they used the type numbers for all aircooled VWs.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

OK guys, this talk is now closed. It's been a long 6 months now since the merger was proposed. Let's count the scores:

  • 7 supported the merger (ChaCha15, IFCAR, TaalVerbeteraar, OSX, Chienlit, Trekphiler, Letdorf)
  • 5 disagreed (Mr.Choppers, M 93, Alfacevedoa, Fabriced28, Dontforgetthisone)

I've decided to merge the articles. This change will take place soon... --Chacha15 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would recommend taking it here, where someone uninvolved will read all of the entries and then take the appropriate decision. I would also recommend not mergin anything until then.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done that. I can concede that even that I support the merger, there are a few things against this. I think we need more people here to discuss this situation. --Chacha15 (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion for merge[edit]

  • Support merge. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of cars have a basic article for the whole series, then an individual article for each generation. (for example, the VW Golf) If I was the one choosing, I would have 3 articles - a general one giving succinct summaries of each generation, plus all information about the concept cars and an individual one for both the A4-based and A5-based cars. In other words, the article setup would end up looking exactly like the Golf tree. I certainly would not, however, have a centralized Beetle article - the original Beetle and New Beetles are completely different cars. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Volkswagen Beetle (A5) Mike Cline (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Volkswagen Beetle (2011) → Volkswagen Beetle (A5) – The page was moved to "Volkswagen Beetle 2012" by Chacha15 from its original title on March 1. Only five days later it was moved again, this time to "Volkswagen Beetle 2011". Clearly, using the chassis code A5 in the title is much clearer, and will avoid constant article moves from people who prefer model years or calendar years. I suggest restoring this to its original title - a user would most likely come here from the hatnote on top of the New Beetle article, so no one would be expected to know VW's internal chassis codes.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per nom. Makes most sense to me. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Model years can be misleading nowadays, as different variants of cars appear in different years across different countries &c. If we're actually interested in cars distinguished by different mechanicals/different chassis then the chassis code is ideal (but I'd be open to alternatives if anybody thinks of something better). bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I understand the problem and issues, but I'd like to see some evidence that "A5" is commonly used in reliable sources to refer to this topic. WP should not be using uncommonly used descriptors in its titles for disambiguation or any other purpose. If that's an internal VW designation little used outside of VW, we shouldn't use it. I ask because after briefly checking I don't see it used in articles about this topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IM0 Volkswagen New Beetle would be best and put these both new ones on same page, the chassis code is not so well known info -->Typ932 T·C 04:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I do think that this new new 2011/2012 Beetle is sufficiently different from the old new Beetle to warrant this separate article, and is consistent with how this situation is handled with other car articles. But what to call it is a conundrum. Finding difficult in deciding what to call it is no reason to merge, however. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: but I would rather see this page merged with the New Beetle article. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Year model is inaccurate and/or ambiguous. This article is about the A5. Andrewa (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Disambiguation: model code should be placed in parentheses after the make and model. ENeville (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it should be moved to my proposed title already. Whether or not to merge it with New Beetle is a separate conversation and one that it is best to leave out of this basic renaming request. Cheers,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A5[edit]

This was bad move, bigger audience really dont know what is A5 Beetle. The production year would be the best indicator what generation we are speaking about. We have used this system also in other car articles, this model designation isnt so much used at all. I think we should follow same path on similar cases: Jaguar S-Type (1963) Aston Martin Vantage (2005), Fiat 500 (2007) Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003) and so on -->Typ932 T·C 17:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a clear and easily identifiable chassis code, this return to the original title makes a lot of sense. Since there has already been one change (from 2012) between proponents of model years and calendar years, I would argue that there is confusion about what to call it. Additionally there are plenty of examples of chassis codes used as page titles (BMW 3 Series (E30), Honda City AA, Toyota Camry (XV10), for some examples). Also, since the 2011 and 2012 page titles remain as redirects, anyone typing in those words will still end up on this page. If they read the article and still don't understand what "A5" stands for then the article simply needs rewriting. Also, the VW chassis codes are not very obscure at all and help minimize confusion. In any case, it has already been discussed once, and the page may still be merged with New Beetle which would make all of this moot.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, chassis code is the preferred disambiguator, with years only used if the chassis code is unknown or nonexistent:

Year: if identically named automobiles do not replace each other directly, then usage of the generation terminology can be misleading (for example, the Bentley Mulsanne). In these cases, and if no model code has been assigned or it is unknown, then titles should be disambiguated by year series. These year ranges should be placed after the name in parentheses (for example, Bentley Mulsanne (1980–1992)).

Since the Volkswagen Beetle does not have exactly the same (official) name as any other VW, but it is close enough to cause confusion, a disambiguator is needed.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The model code for the 2012 Beetle is apparently Typ 5C (see here or here or here) although the code "AT" seems to be used in VIN numbers where the type number used to be. The "A5" platform code doesn't appear to be used a great deal internally by VW Group as far as I know (the designation PQ35 is more commonly used for this). Letdorf (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
"The model code for the 2012 Beetle is apparently Typ 5C " That being so, the page should be Volkswagen ''Typ'' 5C. It most assuredly should not be "Beetle 2012". TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand at all why we need to use chassis codes, they are not known at all, maybe BMW is the best known. Yes there are plenty of examples of chassis codes used as page titles (BMW 3 Series (E30), Honda City AA, Toyota Camry (XV10) but know one knows these what cars they are meaning. If there would be year, everybody would know or make close quess what cars we ares speaking about. -->Typ932 T·C 02:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that VW Group type numbers are fairly esoteric, I'd be inclined to favour "Volkswagen Beetle (2012)", following the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Except that the naming guidelines favor using the chassis code as a disambiguator. Maybe PQ35 would be better, but that's another argument. However, VW Beetle (2012) is already problematic since there has already been one switch to VW Beetle (2011) - this ongoing struggle between calendar and model years make any such title subject to constant changes by partisans of either side.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the new Beetle shares the A5 platform with the Jetta, that seems to be the best compromise with commonname & dab. It'd be well-enough known, & used enough, in the enthusiast press, I'd think (not reading VWT much any more...). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About layout of this car.[edit]

This car is a Volkswagen rear-engined vehicle, rear-wheel-drive vehicle and a Volkswagen aircooled engined car, the New Beetle is a Volkswagen front-engine, front-wheel-drive vehicle. Wikipedia, correct this page please. - 189.102.57.6 (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue, but what are you talking about? This car is front wheel drive and water cooled, just like the New Beetle that predated it. You may have confused this PQ35 platform Beetle with the original design. I've certainly never heard of any recent Beetles that are rear-engine, rear wheel drive vehicles. The difference between this and the New Beetle really comes down to the New Beetle having used the past-generation PQ34 (A4) platform. So in essence this Beetle is closer to the past generation New Beetle than it is the original Beetle. — R. J. Circus – contribs - talk – 00:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Volkswagen_Beetle_(A5)&oldid=1207929372"