Template talk:Lexus

This template is narrower than it should be in Firefox 1.5 for Windows and Mac. Specifically, the LS 460/600h cell gets split into two lines. I hope someone more familiar than I with Firefox's rendering engine can solve this problem.

The actual problem is that each box shows every engine configuration, which I think is not neeeded. Just the car names for each generation is enough; most of the other timelines don't include the engine range. Does anyone else think the same as me? -- NaBUru38 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RX 350/RX 400h engine tags link to separate articles...Enigma3542002 02:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This neeeds to be fixed, it looks really silly, now it looks like all models except rx will stop in 2008 and if they/somebody dont want crystall balls why is the RX there... and how it was messed?--— Typ932^{T | C}  12:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"2009 RX doesn't exist" it cant exist yet , this is funny, its still is crystalball..... --— Typ932^{T | C}  17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, accidentally saved the last change without a comment. I added 2010 and the so-far confirmed models (press releases). I took out the hybrid lines, because nearly no other auto timeline template puts them on their own lines, so it seemed a little like advocacy. I'm not 100% sure whether to go by model years or production years, since there is a market for Lexus outside of North America. But, I put HS at '10 only and kept the IS-C at '09-10. --Vossanova ^o< 15:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lexus IS didn't exist until 2001 as it had been the Toyota Altezza previously. Waterany (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the template be broken into 1/2 years, that way both the previous and newer models share the same year of sale. It's much better than using non-factual sale dates for those unwilling to use model years. Under the OCX revised template vehicles produced and sold are being excluded because a new model was introduced that year. Take for example the previous LS430 it was produced and sold for the majority of 2006 but somehow its very existence disappears for 2006 because the redesigned LS460 debuted at the end of 2006. The LS460 should not somehow take precedence over the LS430 just because it went on sale in 2006. Afghanihomi (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best possible short-term solution is to switch the template to a North American one with using model years, the template already fits that description excluding the IS-C which is a 2010 MY. Also Lexus for the most part only existed in North America until fairly recently and currently only the North American market sells the entire Lexus lineup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afghanihomi (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly neutral on whether model years or production/sale years should be used for this timeline. If it were strictly a North American timeline it would be model years. I've felt that timelines for brands with very few sales outside North America (e.g. Template:Mercury Timeline) should be model years as well. Any other timeline should be production/sales years. The Acura, Infiniti, and Lexus brands were strictly US/NA for a while but are now expanding globally. That doesn't mean they have to be changed to production years, but there definitely shouldn't be a mix of model years and production years; that would just be confusing. I'd recommend we specify "model years" or "production years" at the top of these brands' timelines, and maybe "North America" or "global" as well. That would at least reduce confusion. So, either: "global road vehicle timeline (production years)" or "North American road vehicle timeline (model years)". That probably didn't help much. --Vossanova ^o< 18:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the half-years, we should only list whole years. However, if you really wanted to show two models sharing the same year without separating them into two rows (the normal solution), then set that year's column to colspan=2, and set the widths of each of the two half-columns to one half the regular column width. You'll have to add a column for all the other rows, though. --Vossanova ^o< 18:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. The problem with using production years for the timeline in the manner OCX wants is vehicles in production and on sale are being excluded from their appropriate spaces. Unless the timeline is modified so that two vehicles share the same year that setup is incorrect and misleading to those viewing it. For instance the template could be modified so that the LS430 and LS460 both share the production year 2006. As far as model vs production years go I'd say since Lexus is now a global brand production years are more appropriate. This does create a problem as a vehicle in one market may be replaced but held onto for another year in a different market. Regardless all that matters to me is the chart is correctly labeled and not misleading to those viewing it. Considering the entire Lexus lineup is sold in the North America relabeling the chart and using model years would probably be easiest and most consistent. Afghanihomi (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have separated dates into 1/2 years, but I can't work out why the "Type" column is so wide. By the way, Lexus has been in Europe and Australia since 1990. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chart now separates 1/2 years so it shows LS 430 and 460 sharing production year 2006. Yes it used model years, but now uses production years for global reference. I changed title to 'vehicle production timeline' to clarify. MTan355 (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Afghanihomi (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Feel free to change any of the models which were introduced/changed closer to start/end-year than mid-year. --Vossanova ^o< 19:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave everything as mid-year to signify that production of two generations occurred in the same year. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]