Talk:Toyota Corolla (E100)

More info needed?

This article reads like a list of statistics. I don't have the information to do it, but it looks like it needs a cleanup with some additional stuff added to it, like reviews/reception and competition against similar cars, and it should have more written paragraphs as opposed to bullet point lists. --Eldg (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you ignore the bullet point lists you will see that there is actually quite a lot of info written in paragraph form. Sadly, reviews, etc tend to be subjective - which is not what Wikipedia is about. Stepho-wrs (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• TOYOTA-Corolla-Sedan-3588 15.jpg
• TOYOTA-Corolla-Sedan-3588 21.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

hp-metric

The use of hp-metric in {{convert}} bothers me.

{{cvt|100|kW|hp|0}}	100 kW (134 hp)
{{cvt|100|kW|hp-metric|0}}	100 kW (136 hp)
{{cvt|100|kW|PS|0}}	100 kW (136 PS)
{{cvt|100|kW|hp-metric hp|0}}	100 kW (136 hp; 134 hp)

As can be seen, hp-metric uses the same conversion factor as PS but displays as though it were the hp commonly used in the UK, US and other native English speaking countries. I understand Mr Chopper's concern that the symbol PS is not universal through Europe but having the same symbol used for 2 different conversion factors is surely even more confusing.

One possibility is using PS and hoping that the majority of European readers will understand it - even though it might not be the symbol they would chose themselves.

Another possibility is asking for {{convert}} to display |hp-metric differently than |hp.

I'm open to other ideas.  Stepho  talk  04:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: I personally have nothing against using PS, even though it is an odd choice to use the German abbreviation in English and it is in no way universally accepted. As was seen at various BMW pages, some editors objected so strenuously to using "a German unit" that they have converted these pages to using imperial horsepower in the face of every single dependable source there is, leading to lots of incorrect numbers being used in these entries. At the time of that discussion, I felt a bit abandoned as most other editors seemed to shrug and say "it doesn't matter whether we state that the 325i has 168 or 170 hp, and it doesn't matter which unit we use, since horsepower is obsolete anyway."

"Horsepower" in most of the world means metric horsepower, and remember, English language WP is for global consumption and not just native English countries. It is easier in other languages - they simply use their own abbreviation for metric hp, and use the English "hp" to indicate imperial horsepower. As far as using different abbreviations, UK importers at least have often used hp for either unit - all eighties and nineties UK BMW brochures I looked at just use "hp" for metric hp. Older US magazines would usually indicate it by adding DIN or SAE, and you'd know what was what if you were even aware that there were two different definitions of horsepower - I had no clue myself until I tried to use the conversion template in WP back in 2009 and couldn't understand why it kept giving me the wrong kW output.

As for adding the test standard (DIN) to clarify, there are also CUNA and ECE and JIS and so on, and adding these units all over the place certainly do not help readability. In some situations (for steam or something), metric hp may be expressed hp(m) but that's not super elegant and also no more universal than using PS.

To me what is important is that the numbers are correct, that the abbreviations used make things as clear as possible, and that the code is likely to remain stable (i.e., we don't want future editors to "repair" things and jumble the numbers). If metric Toyota said a car had 115 horsepower, this should equal 85kW. I genuinely don't know what will work best or how best to avoid upsetting SI hardliners, imperialists, or the fact obsessed (my camp). Here a few of the current options for our 115 PS test case:

Code	Output	Note
{{cvt|85|kW|hp|0}}	85 kW (114 hp)	incorrect output, unacceptable
{{cvt|115|hp-metric|kW|0|disp=flip}}	85 kW (115 hp)	Could confuse those accustomed to metric hp being abbreviated "PS"
{{cvt|115|PS|kW|0|disp=flip}}	85 kW (115 PS)	Offends various editors who cannot accept to see the letters "PS". Some well meaning editor will change it to hp, giving us {{cvt|115|PS|kW|0|disp=flip}} 86 kW (115 hp) and then this will be changed to {{cvt|86|kW|hp|0}} 86 kW (115 hp) and then that will turn into {{cvt|86|kW|PS|0}} 86 kW (117 PS) and the output will just keep creeping up. Don't laugh, I've seen this...
{{cvt|115|PS|kW PS hp|0|order=out}}	85 kW (115 PS; 113 hp)	Clunky and often senseless to have three units, still offends various editors who cannot accept to see the letters "PS"

The reason I am trying to not use PS is that I don't restrict myself to Japanese, German, and Korean cars. Using PS to describe a Citroën or a Brazilian Volkswagen feels downright abusive to me, while using every language's own specific abbreviation seems confusing, silly, and against WP's and the metric system's universalist ideals. Sadly, I don't think that we have the right to invent an abbreviation for metric hp and I am not sure that I have a very good suggestion anyhow.  Mr.choppers | ✎  09:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)