Talk:Subaru/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

moved this from the page to here:

---cut--->

A web site on how to fix Subaru door locks. (It says it's for Legacy but probably works for all models with the same mechanism.)

• Repair of Door Locks on a Subaru Legacy.

<---cut--- any better idea, where to put it? anobo 07:08 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This was recently deleted:

In New Zealand, it is pronounced "Su-BAR-roo", rather than "Su-ba-ROO" or the North American "SOO-ba-roo".

Is there anyone who can shed some light on the Japanese pronunciation? It's probably relevant to post these deltails as footnotes somewhere within the page.

As far as I know Japanese doesn't have a fixed stress. So all of them would be as right (or as wrong).--Error 01:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Japanese has equal emphasis, & very short vowels, so it should be (roughly) "suh ba ruh".

On another note, anybody think we should mention Mal Bricklin for intro Sube to U.S. market? Trekphiler 16:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

While Japanese language has an equal rhythm, there is some level of emphasis on syllables, though mostly negligable it does change the meaning of some words. Unfortunately I am not aware of the correct emphasis for subaru, as there are very few resources available on this particular area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.49.235 (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia

The article needs something about Subaru and Australia, because for some reason a lot of people seem to think that Subaru is based in Australia RadioYeti 02:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the southwestern US, I've never encountered this. In any event, isn't the statement, Subaru, a Japanese car company,... enough? You can't really get any more obvious than the first sentence in the article. --Milkmandan 03:03, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

It's because of the Crocodile Dundee commercials and the "Outback". I don't think it's necessary to point out their mistake. Doesn't seem very wikipedia. Krymson

Affiliate?

The articale says that Subaru is "an affiliate of Toyota Motor Corporation". Is the word affiliate appropriate here? Bugur 09:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this all there is?

Just dropped in, surprised how little there is here, the AMC page is like much bigger. Threw in some details of the Subaru impact in the USA, and the Pacific NW where I live.--Wiarthurhu 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Forwaded this link to NASIOC for some more data miners. Ianliam 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New Model In Japan and subaru to drop the "propeller Grill"

i wondered whuynobody has updated about the the new subaru stella( http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/15/subaru-stella-has-japanese-housewives-and-moms-in-mind/ ) and updated that subaru is droping the "propeller"grill in 2008 (http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/28/subaru-to-pull-a-jackson-and-undergo-another-nose-job/ } 2:14 Eastern time september 12 2006

Go for it. -- BillWeiss | Talk 03:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

added diesel info

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=118936 68.224.14.81 04:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The diesel section says the engine "will be introduced at the March 2007 Geneva Motor Show". That was 3 months ago. There is now quite a bit more info about it. Someone who knows diesel engines should update this section. -Athaler 16:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted reference to book

Not sure where to put. I'll let the experts decide. Just don't relink it to Amazon. Here's what I removed sans link. Nposs 07:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• The book Where the Suckers Moon: The Life and Death of an Advertising Campaign] covers most of Subaru's history, up through the mid-90's launch of the SVX.

Cultural References

How would people feel about reducing this section? It's growing rather long without any way to limit it. It could be reduced to a few sentences. -- BillWeiss | Talk 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references for all wikipedia articles are just becoming Trivia sections. 70.41.230.90 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a comment line requesting that people do not add to the section. I'll delete all the references of the sort "Bill Bloogs mentioned Subaru in his song Ma Dawg Has Died". Paul Fisher 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since no one defended it, I just cut the section. It only had marginal relevance to the article. -- BillWeiss | Talk 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the sentence in the history section referencing the demise of the Audi Allroad, as it is still made today. The writer said it met its demise in the "2000s" but it has been produced since 1999 to today. Corey L 11:00, 12 Dec. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.200.128.45 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

About

Do you know, I call a Subaru car sale in Lilydale, Subaru City. Subaru City is where all the Subarus live. --Blake3522 07:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The timeline at the bottom of the Subaru page needs to be corrected as the second generation legacy was in production from 1995-1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.213.198 (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Subaru Logo.svg

Image:Subaru Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

rallying and "import scene"

The line "just like VW/Audi did years before" - is it really necessary? Not only is it mentioning VW/Audi for no reason (they have a totally different AWD system, and it isn't the same kind of import scene), but the reference URL it cites is dead. Did VW/Audi even have any type of AWD system before Subaru did? And if they did, is it worth mentioning VW/Audi? Should this article mention every manufacturer that did something before Subaru did it?

Update: The Quattro was used as a rally car in the 1980s

However, this "Scene" that is referred to isn't easily verifiable... it just seems a VW fan threw that line in there to one-up Subaru owners

Origins of Subaru

I don't think Nakajima was the main manufacturer of aircraft in Japan during WW2. For the Zero, Mitsubushi made the aircraft and Nakajima made the engines.

One of Nakajima's last research centres to be developed was at Musashi-Sakai, then outside Tokyo proper. (They also had factories in occupied China.) After the war, as stated in the article, it was under American governance that Nakajima was was broken up into various component parts.

The Musashi-Sakai campus was sold to what would become ICU (International Christian University), a pioneering institute of Higher Education, which would become famous for its liberal arts curriculum. The research centre still provides the main teaching building. Also, part of the campus was retained for manufacturing, and now is part of Subaru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postrestant6691 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Subaru 1960

‘I find all the discussion about an excellent car very informative. I was an importer of Subaru in 1966/73 then it was a 1300 cc. front wheel drive, very reliable and won every rally we entered. I imported through Nichiman & Co. in Zambia, still have a scrap book. First class product. George Beckman. Cape Town165.145.255.172 (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

timeline is not in sequence

not the actual graphical timeline of models, but the explanation throughout the article -- the series of events are way out of order. for example the article talks of the redesigned 2002 Impreza WRX, but then goes back to 1995 to talk about the Sambar EV in the same paragraph. Not only is it off topic, it's out of sequence. Can someone with a lot of time clean this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.187.208 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I had some time and reorganized this article so that it has a better sense of chronology. (Dddike (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Justy listed under false drive characteristic

the article lists the Justy with the other models under "North America/Europe/Oceania/Middle East/Asia/Japan Subaru models, permanent all wheel drive with boxer engine." but the Justy doesn't have this, but a front wheel drive (standard) and only optional, non-permanentall wheel drive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.83.19 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of the "Subaru In Canada" section.

It ain't neutral and to follow rules and regulations I'll put this here on the talk page so ya'll can talk about it amongst yourselves. 70.189.86.163 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific, what exactly is not neutral? Loosmark (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know why as well. It seems fine to me. What is inaccurate? Please note that in order to drop flags this way you should (must) provide much more information than merely "it ain't neutral." BingoDingo (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it's like a joint venture between the Canadian Tourism Board and Subaru's marketing team. Much as Canada is a gorgeous place, with lovely people, the opening paragraph could be applied to just about every foreign company's Canada info in Wikipedia. The cause and effect of Subaru's technology doesn't mean that the sales are at a record level (and there's no citations for this record level, what the level is - versus previous Subaru sales, compared to other manufacturers or something else entirely - like the fact that more people buy cars these days. Although, you'd have to guess that this year isn't a record year for them given the slump. The only reason why I'm not editing it outright is this discussion. I'd suggest to be factual it should be: --Escottf (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Subaru Auto Canada Limited (SACL) began offering a full range of vehicles in 1976. In 1989, the privately owned SACL was purchased by the Toronto-based Subaru Canada, Inc., who, under the guidance of parent company Fuji Heavy Industries, began an expansion process that would eventually see over 100 Subaru Dealers in operation across the country.

Subaru Canada, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fuji Heavy Industries of Japan. Headquartered in Mississauga, Ontario, the company markets and distributes Subaru vehicles, parts and accessories through a network of 88 authorized dealers across Canada.

I think I see it; the problem is basically that the author of some of these comments seems overly affectionate towards Canada. Consider the followig: "With constantly changing weather and landscape that encompasses everything from the sprawling prairies of Saskatchewan to the concrete canyons of Toronto to the imposing majesty of the Canadian Rockies." This is not necessarily untrue, but much of it is inappropriate in tone. Beau, 16 September 2009

Origins and logo.

The reference http://www.subaru-global.com/origin_name.html says 'FHI was created by the merger of six companies' and talks about the six stars in the Pleiades star cluster but makes no mention of one star standing out above the rest. The reference http://www.fhi.co.jp/ (Japanese) makes no mention of the origins of the name or logo and has no obvious links to such a page. A little bit of digging found http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/outline/inoutline/brand/index.html but it also only talks about 6 stars (no mention of the big one). Does anybody have any references about the large star or should just leave it as 6 stars (ie no significance for the large star)? Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Historic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.250.60 (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Historic Models

I think the 1989-1994 Subaru Legacy should be included in the Historic Models section of this page for the following reasons:

1) The 1989 Subaru Legacy was, at the time, the largest vehicle Subaru had ever made.

2) The 1989 Subaru Legacy was also the most powerful vehicle Subaru had ever made.

3) The 1989 Subaru Legacy featured the largest engine Subaru had ever made until that date.

4) The 1989 Subaru Legacy had the longest list of features of any Subaru vehicle to date, including standard power windows and locks, standard A/C, lumbar support, and AM/FM/Tape/Equalizer radio, 4 wheel independent suspension, 4 wheel disc brakes, 4X 6 1/2" speakers, electronic sequential multi-port fuel injection, electronic distributor-less ignition, and the infamous "Manual" mode. Optional equipment included ABS, AWD, 15" alloy wheels, sunroof, air ride adjustable suspension, and later a turbo model with a CD player.

On a more personal note... Who the Hell had a CD player in their car in 1990???? I didn't! Did you? I didn't think so! If you had a 1990 Subaru Legacy turbo you did! That's just cool! Think back to 1990, and imagine having a CD player in your car,. Nevermind air shocks, power everything, AC, cruise, a sunroof, a turbo, ABS, and AWD! The first generation Legacy was a beast, and it paved the way for Subaru to become what they are today. Without the Legacy, Subaru would probably be on par with Dihatsu and would be lucky to be on par with Kia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.250.60 (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fight Mediocrity!

This whole subsection comes off more as an advertisement than an informative, neutral piece of information. Nothing is cited, and there's a direct link to an advertisement page. Shouldn't this section be removed? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

muscle car

In Need for Speed: Nitro for Wii, i saw an old subaru muscle car in the "B" class. The cars in nfs nitro are real life cars, like the Audi R8, but does a subaru muscle car really exist? Jawadreventon (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Muscle cars are big engines in medium bodies (medium by US standards). Think Mustang. Think V8. Subaru never a muscle car but they did make small cars with powerful engines that handle better than practically any muscle car.  Stepho  talk  22:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Subaru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100411083646/http://www.subaru-global.com:80/origin_name.html to http://www.subaru-global.com/origin_name.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Clarion claim

The article included a claim that

"Clarion is currently the audio supplier for Subaru products worldwide."

citing this page as a reference.

But a text search on that page finds that the only mention of Subaru is that Subaru of America gave Clarion a " “Silver Award”(Comprehensive assessment of Proposal/Development/Quality)".

The edit comment for this edit, which restored the claim and the link, said

"restored the reference about Clarion: that reference clearly mentioned Subaru: you may look at the subaru logo there inside http://www.clarion.com/us/en/images/businessoutline_06_19-23643_700x290.jpg.)"

The graphic is a stylized world map adorned with the logos of many car and vehicle makers, headed "Main OEM Customers".

But I'm afraid that the mere appearance of the Subaru logo on a map on a Clarion web site does not support the claim that Clarion is currently or ever was "the" audio supplier for Subaru products. The word "the" in this context implies an exclusive arrangement - that Clarion was the only audio supplier. But that's not supported by the reference.

Also, this is the Clarion U.S. web site (look at the URL), so there is no reason to generalize from this to anything about "worldwide".

And finally, that web page is from 2013 (again, look at the URL).

Note too that Harman Kardon currently advertises a relationship with Subaru (see here). So obviously, even if Clarion is still supplying some audio products to Subaru, they're not "the" audio supplier for Subaru.

So the best we can do, using the evidence of the Clarion page, is to say something like "in 2013, Clarion listed Subaru as being among their main OEM customers." And that seems too marginal to bother mentioning.

It doesn't seem to me that this ever should have appeared in the "Marketing efforts" section either. All of the rest of that section is about how Subaru marketed their cars. It has nothing to do with other companies.

Hence: Deleted, unless someone can come up with a much better reference, one that addresses all of the above issues. Jeh (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that Harman Kardon currently advertises a relationship with Subaru, but that doesn't mean that Subaru has dropped its partnership with Clarion in favor of Harman Kardon: So there is no need to delete the content concerning Clarion. Ttt74 (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your edit comment, deletion of unreferenced or improperly referenced material is, by Wikipedia's rules, an improvement.

I believe you misunderstand the WP:RS and WP:V policies here. We don't need to find a source that says Clarion has dropped its relationship in order to remove the content. Rather, we need a source that directly supports what the article claims, or else the claim has to go. And we don't have one.

Per WP:OR, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Per WP:V, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

The 2013 web site of Clarion US hardly "directly supports" the claim. It's going on three years old and even for 2013 it does not say what is claimed in the article. We cannot make the leap from a 2013 web site that simply says Subaru is one of Clarion US's many OEM relationships to a claim of a current, "worldwide", exclusive relationship.

Not necessary, There is another reference from the Japanese network [1], and also there is news after 2013 that prove a current partnership between Clarion and Subaru [2], [3] and [4]. Ttt74 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

And it isn't particularly relevant to this article anyway. Subaru has hundreds if not thousands of suppliers. Why not mention their suppliers of tires, of light bulbs, of brake pads...? What does this have to do with Subaru's marketing? Jeh (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this fixed the problem [5]. Ttt74 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your first new reference is no better - it's still 2013 and still doesn't support the claim. The others help, but just FYI we don't use language like "currently" in WP articles. And it still doesn't belong where it is. I'll work on it. Jeh (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent 3 edits [6] [7] [8] doesn't seem to be constructive: stop deleting cited content. Ttt74 (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I deleted nothing! I reorganized the article and added exposition to the references you found. Please review the diffs again. I do not believe you will find that anything significant was deleted, except for some extraneous blank lines.

What, exactly, do you think I deleted?

What problems do you have with the (really quite mild) re-org?

What problems do you have with the additional exposition I added to the references you found re. Clarion?

"Not an improvement" is not an adequate explanation for such a revert. I obviously think it is an improvement, so tell me exactly what you object to. Jeh (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You did your changes in a massive way that made me think that you removed the references: It's OK, but your reorganization of the article doesn't seem very constructive: I'll try to restore the new things you added. Ttt74 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hold on, please. Jeh (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"You did your changes in a massive way that made me think that you removed the references" - in other words you didn't read the diffs carefully, and you just assumed that I removed things.

Here are the reasons for my (really very mild) reorg:

First, the section on infotainment equipment just doesn't belong in the "marketing" section. That section is about Subaru's marketing, not Clarion's. But we already have a "technology" section. Infotainment equipment clearly belongs there. (If CANbus does, certainly infotainment does!)

The "history" section in WP articles about companies has a tendency to grow without limit. After all, any information older than last week could be considered part of the company's "history", right? But the subsections there also contained current information. Toyota's ownership of about 16% of FHI is not "history", it's current. So, it's better to make a new top-level section, "Organization", and describe the GM-> Toyota stuff there... along with the stuff on the various national subsidiary companies.

There was still too much in the "History" section - it should be renamed "Early history" and the relatively-recent stuff moved out of it.

"Motorsports" is very important to Subaru. Although it is arguably part of marketing, it deserves to be an L2 section.

Changed "New technology" section head to "Technology" (CANbus isn't exactly new at this point), moved "Electric vehicles" and "Diesel" under there, along with "Electronics" subhead. CANbus and infotainment stuff obviously go under "Technology - Electronics". No?

Regarding this diff, again, nothing was removed. This was just resequencing the text and slightly rewording, to better tie the sequence of events to the preceding paragraph. This was done to eliminate some ambiguities, particularly in changing "The companies" to "Toyota and Subaru", where it is now completely unambiguous as to which two companies are referred to. Again - what is your specific complaint with that edit? Jeh (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

And now you're copying text that I wrote and posting it under YOUR login name. Not even an edit summary that says e.g. "restored some of jeh's edit". That is not consistent with WP's attribution requirements. Jeh (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The only content that I didn't restore is on this diff [9]: because it misses references. Ttt74 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You can restore the content on the diff I pointed above, after you add the missing references. I don't want to waste more time on this article, Maybe I'm done here. Ttt74 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There are no "missing references" there. The claims are exactly the same as before, as are the references. The text is simply rearranged to remove ambiguity and all claims in that text are supported by the refs, as you would see if you actually checked the references. If you disagree, please be specific. Jeh (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for new content

Although the lede here makes much of the "boxer engine layout" and "Symmetrical AWD drive train" (and deservedly so), these points are inadequately covered in the article body. Although we do have separate articles on both of these they should each get at least a paragraph or two in the "technology" section. Jeh (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no need to do so: This article shouldn't be more than it should be. Ttt74 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"This article shouldn't be more than it should be" doesn't say anything. These are defining features of Subaru's products (other than the BRZ) and have been for some time. Besides, since they're in the lede, they should be described in the article body (per WP:LEDE). Jeh (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Those three huge lists of models

This is not what we call encyclopedic content. Encyclopedic content would not necessarily include every model Subaru ever made. Encyclopedic content would describe -- not simply list -- the models that were significantly different from previous ones when they were introduced, would describe how they were different, how well they were received, and how they affected later models (if they did).

Briefly a section of a Wikipedia article should not simply be a list of links to other articles. Per WP:PROSE,

"Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain."

These lists don't explain anything.

We can either split them out to a separate "list article", as is done at List of Toyota vehicles. Or we can turn them into a navigation template, like the ones at the end of the General Motors article. It would have three major sections for historical, current, and concept models. It could have further subdivisions based on type of vehicle, or whatever else seems appropriate.

Of course we can (and should) also add prose describing the significant models, why they were significant, etc. But for a "big dumb list" of all of the models, either a separate list article or a nav template is what we're supposed to do. Jeh (talk) 07:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Overly detailed" template

This template was recently added to the article by @Ttt74:. I request that she or he explain specifically what she or he considers "an excessive amount of intricate detail" in the article.

This article is actually of considerably shorter length and to contain considerably less "intricate detail" than other articles about major car manufacturers. Currently it is at about 37,500 bytes and about 20 section and subsection headings, and just one L4 heading. For comparison, the Toyota article is about 139,000 bytes and about 38 section and subsection heads and over a dozen L4 headings. The Nissan article is about 78,000 bytes and about 32 section and subsection heads.

If anything it would appear that this article is deficient in its coverage and lacking in detail.

Exactly what "intricate detail" is the problem here? Jeh (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

... never mind, Ttt74 changed it to a "geographic imbalance" template, with edit comment indicating her or his issue is with the addition of English pronunciation. This is already being discussed above. Jeh (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation /tsʊbɑːrʊ/ given in the article (added on 4 October 2015‎) is completely wrong and also not even closely matches the Youtube video it references, on top of that it links to the page for IPA for English whereas in the video, the pronunciation is in Japanese. Even if it is supposed to be the transcription for English, it is far off. Where does the /ts/ and stretched /ɑː/ come from? Because I am not a linguist, I cannot say how it is written (or even pronounced) correctly in either language. Until someone finds a proper source for the phonetic transcription or is skilled enough to make a correct one himself, I suggest removing the current transcription. 79.225.17.130 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I know that Aussies and Yanks pronounce it differently. Aussies say soo-bah-ROO while Yanks say soo-BAH-roo.  Stepho  talk  21:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Stepho-wrs. The American pronunciation of Subaru is not a universally agreed one. So It's better to keep the Japanese pronunciation which is the most correct and original. Ttt74 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This is the English language Wikipedia. English language Wikipedia recognizes the "American" variant of English as a valid alternative; see WP:ENGVAR. The United States is one of Subaru's most important markets, and certainly one of its largest English-speaking markets if not the largest. Given that, excluding what you are calling the "American" pronunciation is ridiculous... particularly since the British do seem to use it too; listen and watch here). It's fine to annotate it as the U.S./British pronunciation, but not to exclude it as if it doesn't exist. Jeh (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you, This is not the American Wikipedia too. And as well many different countries pronounce it differently: It is bad idea to use the American pronunciation as the main one. Ttt74 (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not the American Wikipedia, but we do include American topics and American issues. Right? Why, we even allow, per WP:ENGVAR, whole articles written purely in the American variant of English! Sometimes those articles nothing whatsoever to do with anything outside of the U.S.! Oh, the horror.

Anyway, as I said (and documented), there is nothing uniquely "American" about the pronunciation used in the US, as the British use it too. It is ridiculous to have an article in English language Wikipedia that refuses to include the pronunciation used by native English speakers in both the US and in Britain.

Nothing was ever said about declaring it the "main one"; in fact I suggested annotating it (it will have to say at least "U.S. and Great Britain"). But to exclude it completely is to say that the common pronunciation used by almost 400 million English-speaking people (I daresay the majority, if not the vast majority, of Subaru's English-speaking market) is irrelevant to the English language Wikipedia. I cannot imagine a valid justification for such an exclusionist stance. Jeh (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Another reference for UK usage - this one from the UK Subaru company. One could discount the Top Gear video as being quirks of the presenters but I think we could trust the Subaru UK company to get it right. No? [10] Jeh (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And to @Stepho-wrs:: No, we "Yanks" put the emphasis on the first syllable. As do Hammond and Clarkson. Jeh (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've heard Yanks say the word and it definitely sounds different to the way Aussies say it, even if I can't describe it. However, I have no problem listing it with multiple pronunciations according to major country groups. The only thing I would object to is to have a single pronunciation (US, UK, Australian or otherwise) listed as the one and only official form.  Stepho  talk  06:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: Thank you for replying! Complete agreement there. WP:NPOV after all requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Can you find a Subaru Australia ad for reference? I found this but it sounds like they're really pushing the Australian accent for effect. If you listen to a few more of the ads that follow it's not as "pushed". They are in any case putting the stress on the first syllable (as we do in the US) but they're maybe putting a little secondary emphasis on the third syllable, and they're also holding the first and third syllables longer than we do. Maybe like SUUU-baa-Ruu instead of SU-ba-ru. We run through those three syllables very quickly.... depending on the speaker. As if, once we've hit the "SU", we want to get the rest of it over and done with.

Incidentally I found an ad from Germany with the "soo-BAR-oo" stressing. But I can't find it now, and anyway German-language pronunciation isn't relevant here. I'll bet native Spanish speakers use that pattern also, as that would fit their usual rules. Jeh (talk)

@Stepho-wrs: I'm not against using multiple pronunciations. But the solution can be easier and more right, if we want to deal about the one and only official form, when we use the most original pronunciation which is the Japanese one. Ttt74 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't agree that the pronunciation used by Subaru in their own advertisements has any "official" standing? What is it, then? If Subaru wanted us to refer to the car by its Japanese pronunciation, wouldn't they be using the Japanese in their ads? Anyway, this is English language Wikipedia, not Japanese, and so my arguments above stand unrefuted. We document sales figures and other aspects in non-Japanese-speaking countries; why not pronunciation? Jeh (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The ads you are talking about are made by Subaru of America, Inc which is one of the global distributors of Subaru: those different distributors doesn't use necessary the same pronunciation. I don't think using the American pronunciation is a good idea. Ttt74 (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's what you think. Do you have a fact-based logical argument that is based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Such as WP:NPOV, which you claim to support?

Not just "Subaru of America". As I have pointed out several times, I've also cited ads made by Subaru of UK, and Subaru of Australia. And I've linked a segment from the UK's TV program Top Gear. And again I point out: this is the English-language Wikipedia. The pronunciation used in English-speaking countries is absolutely relevant here.

MOS agrees. WP:MOSIPA#Foreign names says "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first." There's no doubt or ambiguity about that. Jeh (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

MOS agrees: Let me be clear here, I'm not against using English pronunciation before the Japanese one: However, the issue is WITH the common English pronunciation of Subaru which doesn't seem to exist: You've just proved that Australian pronunciation is different from the American one: Besides, Yanks and New Zealanders pronounce it differently from the U.S.

The English language doesn't necessary support American pronunciation: For example any beginner in English language, if he meets the word Subaru: he pronounce it Su-Bah-Ru, not su-bu-ru as what Americans do.

Do you have a fact-based logical argument that is based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Such as WP:NPOV, which you claim to support: Remember to assume good faith, I said what I think with proves: accusing falsely others of professing their support of WP:NPOV is one of the personal attacks you was warned previously on your talk page: It's just because you failed to prove your claims in any convincing manner: no one else seems to support your changes. Ttt74 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"I'm not against using English pronunciation before the Japanese one". That's an odd thing for you to say, given that you reverted to exclude an English IPA. If your argument was with the choice of IPA then you should have simply fixed it, or noted that it needed to be fixed.

"The common English pronunciation of Subaru which doesn't seem to exist": Well, one, that claim is not supported by references. But even if it's true, we don't need a "common English pronunciation"; the MOS passage I quoted above supports including multiple English pronunciations. I've added emphasis to the key words that show that.

"su-bu-ru as what Americans do". Not necessarily. Not even commonly to my ear. I would agree that "Su-bu-ru" (where the "bu" uses a "long vowel", i.e. rhyming with "blue") is simply incorrect; there's nothing in the word to suggest a long u sound. But if it exists, it's probably a regional or personal thing. Those happen. Perth and Sydney residents don't speak the same accent either. There's not a lot of difference between "buh" (the "u" rhyming with the one in, say, "bus") and "bah" (rhyming with, well, "ah").

Asking you for a fact-based argument based in P&G is in no way an AGF violation. It's just saying "this is what you need to support your argument, and I don't think you've done that yet."

What do you mean by "P&G"? Ttt74 (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

P&G = Policies & Guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic: Thank you. Ttt74 (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

How am I "falsely accusing you of supporting NPOV?" Don't you have userboxes on your user page that say you "This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues" and "This user gets quite annoyed when they see POV in the mainspace."? Isn't that you stating that you support NPOV? And why would my claiming that you support NPOV be an "accusation" anyway? We're all supposed to support NPOV.

It seems to me that your argument is basically ~"some Americans mispronounce it, therefore we shouldn't include any American pronunciation, and since multiple accents exist we really can't pick any standard English one, so we should exclude English altogether." I frankly think you're "grasping at straws." MOS is fully aware that multiple national and even regional accents of English exist; that doesn't stop us from including an English IPA in many, many articles. Assuming that the American pronunciation is different enough from say UK to warrant a separate IPA - I don't think it is - excluding the American would violate both NPOV and the MOS passage I quoted. MOS does allow multiple English pronunciations after all.

And it is quite clear that @Stepho-wrs: and I are in agreement, so I don't know where you are getting that no one else supports my changes. Looks to me like you're alone here. Please WP:FOC and stop trying to find fault with me in imagined slights that don't exist. Jeh (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, consensus does not depend on voting. Consensus depends on logical arguments that are based in verifiable facts and in correct application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:MOS is part of the latter and clearly supports the inclusion of English-language IPA, regardless of whether the word is of foreign origin. And that's a "case closed." Jeh (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Given the MOS passage, I will be restoring the English IPA after I check out and maybe improve the actual IPA text. Jeh (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"That's an odd thing for you to say, given that you reverted to exclude an English IPA", "I frankly think you're "grasping at straws", "WP:MOS is part of the latter and clearly supports the inclusion of English-language IPA, regardless of whether the word is of foreign origin": Well, I just explained my revert [11]: it simply cannot be fixed as you said "we don't need a "common English pronunciation"", but when we got into a conflict like this, it will be better to leave things as it is; Moreover, there is longstanding consensus on all of the other instances of Wikipedia (like the Persian one [12]) regarding the use of the Japanese pronunciation; and it seems that the English Wikipedia is the only one to be using a different pronunciation; So are those instances all wrong for using solely the "foreign" Japanese pronunciation?

"And it is quite clear that @Stepho-wrs: and I are in agreement, so I don't know where you are getting that no one else supports my changes": User:Stepho-wrs doesn't seem to agree with your change, when he said: 'The only thing I would object to is to have a single pronunciation (US, UK, Australian or otherwise) listed as the one and only official form': Maybe you should firstly convince him about your claim.

"Asking you for a fact-based argument based in P&G is in no way an AGF violation": You accused me falsely of not following the WP:NPOV principle without proof: and you really need to AGF.

"Anyway, consensus does not depend on voting", "Please WP:FOC and stop trying to find fault with me in imagined slights that don't exist": Maybe you misunderstood me, I didn't mean that you need votes, this is an article and not an election; What I meant is from the agreement side which depends on your ability to convince the other editors about your changes; I'm on your side that consensus should depend on logical arguments rather than voting, but when someone try to push his POV about American pronunciation without giving any logical argument which can may make his case on this dispute resolution is what makes his claim inappropriate.

"" Looks to me like you're alone here"": I think the fact that you failed to convince other editors, is the thing what made you write things like this. Your lack of AGF in this discussion is well showing: So there is no consensus for your change. Ttt74 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no AGF issue here. Saying you are mistaken, or that what you propose (to eliminate all English pronunciations) would be a POV or MOS violation, is not failing to AGF. I'm simply pointing out a problem with your position. It is not a personal attack or an AGF failure just because you disagree. You can be wrong, you can make illogical arguments, you can opine or even act contrarily to WP P&G, you can even propose things that would (in others' opinion) violate NPOV, all while still acting in GF. AGF simply requires that we all assume (absent very clear evidence to the contrary) that the other person is acting, in their own opinion and belief, to help the project. I've never said anything to you that implied anything else.

If I opined that you were proposing something that you knew was contrary to NPOV, that would be failure to AGF on my part. See the difference? (Of course, it must be mentioned that "AGF" is not an absolute rule. Sometimes it is clear that the other person isn't acting in good faith.)

To eliminate the English pronunciation would fail to include a POV that is covered in a significant number of RSs. Again: WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It would be very difficult for you to argue that the English pronunciation is not significant or not important, particularly among readers of English language Wikipedia.

My arguing against a clear POV violation is not "POV-pushing".

It doesn't matter what other-language WPs do. They're not "wrong" for having different rules, but where the rules differ, the rules for English-language WP do apply to en.wikipedia.org. As I quoted before, MOS states unequivocally, with no possibility of compromise, that we should have both the English and foreign-language pronunciation (or multiple English pronunciations if they exist). That is not "my POV", that is WP P&G. P&G always wins. Jeh (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It sounds really odd from your part to be wasting your energy on an article you were not familiar with: either try to improve this article the right way, or else drop it. Ttt74 (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You really need to respond with fact- and P&G-based arguments. "Try to improve the article the right way" is not it. (But your concern for my "wasting my energy" is noted.) Jeh (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

May I propose we use something like the following simple list:

/tsʊbɑːrʊ/ or /subəru/ (Japanese pronunciation: [tsʊbɑːrʊ])

I'm not a linguist, so feel free to suggest corrections/improvements. I would avoid trying to specify particular countries (it can differ even within a single country) but would just have a list of known pronunciations. Is there a linguist project we could ask for some recommendations? - surely they would have come across this issue before.  Stepho  talk  03:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the leading /t/ is coming from in the first one. I just can't make that match anything I've heard. The alternate vowel-sounds for the middle syllable, though, do a good job of covering the variations there. Jeh (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to put it in as you have it, @Stepho-wrs:. We can always improve it later. Jeh (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is an improvement: That's an over-weighting of the American pronunciation over other English variants: and Wikipedia is not here to promote any entity over the other. Ttt74 (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Who said it's the "American" pronunciation? It matches both the US and UK youtube samples I provided earlier. If you think there is another English pronunciation with significant usage you are of course free to add it. (By the way, did you know there is no such country as "America"?) Jeh (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As I explained above there is other entities, who pronounce it differently. Ttt74 (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Which, as I explained immediately above, you are free to add as alternatives. Meanwhile, including a pronunciation that you happen to regard as "American" (even though it is demonstrably common to both US and UK) is in no way "over-weighting", it is simply inclusive of a significant point of view; exclusion of which would violate NPOV. The fact that there are multiple possible "English" pronunciations, or that one of them happens to be what you call "American", is not an impediment to including an English IPA in any other article here that I've ever seen; there is no particular reason why it should be an issue for this one. If you prefer to work in an area where English pronunciations are ignored as if they don't exist, then I suggest you would be better off not editing the English language Wikipedia.

But... I have made most of these points before, and you simply ignore them. So it appears we are arguing in circles. I am taking this to a DR forum. Jeh (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know about this discussion and edited to this /ˈsuːbəruː/. I'm confident that this is an accurate transcription of the way the name is pronounced in the two YouTube videos given as sources. In particular:

• As Jeh pointed out, the leading /t/ in the current article seems to have come from nowhere. It doesn't seem evident in either source or in the discussion above.
• From the YouTube video the first syllable and last syllables are definitely /uː/ not /ʊ/. Given the way English is pronounced an unstressed /ʊ/ is most likely to reduce to a schwa, so having a word with two /ʊ/ just doesn't look like an English transcription and raises red flags.
• The /u/ phoneme in English is a long vowel, transcribed as /uː/ on Wikipedia.

So I think that the primary English pronunciation (the "official" one) should certainly be /ˈsuːbəruː/. I'm familiar with the alternative pronunciation and it appears to be just a change of stress to the second syllable. This reduces the first vowel to a schwa (or a rounded schwa) and turns the second syllable to /ɑː/, yielding /sʊbˈɑːruː/.

Ben Arnold (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ben Arnold: Seems fine to me. Thank you for the edit. Jeh (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to say that my edit had been reverted. Since you seem happy I've boldly re-introduced my edit, this time with both alternatives. I hope that I've taken account of the comments here. My change is essentially just a technical correction to the IPA that was already there, although I've also placed the YouTube pronunciation first, because it appears to be the "official" pronunciation. Ben Arnold (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, that revert. Well, I think it is good now and I encourage @Stepho-wrs: to concur. Jeh (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem.  Stepho  talk  05:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)