Talk:Subaru Legacy

Due to the similarities between both the Subaru Legacy and Subaru Outback, I believe the Outback article should be merged with the Legacy article (and its generational sub-articles).

Listed below is my rationale:

• The Outback is little more than a Legacy with a slightly higher ground clearance, unique wheels, plastic body add-ons (flared wheel arches and door cladding) and a different badge. Both models share the all-wheel drive layout and even the same sedan and wagon body styles.
• Since the vehicles are so similar, content duplication is inevitable.
• Generational changes are released simultaneously for both Legacy and Outback.
• In Japan the Outback was originally a trim level of the Legacy, designated "Legacy Grand Wagon" and later renamed "Legacy Lancaster".

OSX (talk • contributions) 11:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. swaq 15:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the increase in information about the Legacy and Outback (I accept the verdict guilty as charged) I don't think this would be a bad idea at all. Most of the specific information about the Outback could be added to the generation breakdown pages so that the information won't get lost and mentions to the Outback could be added to the main Legacy page. Or maybe something else. I've noticed at [hit stats] that the Legacy averages about 900 "views" a day, and the Outback about 600 a day. (Regushee (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think no need to merge the Subaru Legacy and Subaru Outback pages. Although the Outback is based on the Legacy, they have different characters. Legacy is very popular in Japan, and there are many limited editions offered there. The Outback is a crossover wagon, an alternative to SUV. It's popular in the USA and Australia. Basically I am agree with rational reason written above, but I think people who search for Legacy are more car-enthusiast than Outback searchers. (User:Celica21gtfour) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but while I can understand the intention, I see a couple of practical problems to merging them:

1. Even allowing for the removal of duplicated info, Subaru Outback is 51k, while Subaru Legacy is 33k (and it's already been split into generational articles). Looking at it from the opposite perspective, if the two pages were already merged, I think I'd be happy to split them just to relieve some of the bloat.
2. I think it would be inconsistent to have
   pick-up truck
   . But that means yet more merging, and more bloat...
3. According to its own page, the Outback "saved the company" (although I don't know quite how US-centric the statement is; it may only refer to the American division). That's a reasonable claim of significance on its own.
4. The two cars' generations don't match up, making navigation a wee bit tricky. A reader types in "Subaru Outback", gets redirected to the Legacy page, and then sees links telling him to go to one of the various sub-articles. That's a hop or two too many for my liking.
5. Subaru themselves treat it as a standalone vehicle on their various regional websites. This is also true of third-party car sites (in the UK) like Parkers, Auto Trader, etc.

All these wee points make me more sanguine about retaining the status quo. My concerns might be totally unfounded—there might be a perfectly decent article about both to be written—but without seeing it, I'm inclined to think they're better kept apart. Although as I said, I don't have strong feelings on the matter, even though I may becoming a Legacy owner in the near future... --DeLarge (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: just to cloud the issue further, we don't seem to have a consistent approach with existing precedents, at least from what I can see after a cursory glance at similar vehicles from other manufacturers. The

Volvo XC70 merely redirects to the Volvo V70 page. Strangely, though, the saloon/sedan variants (Volvo S70) are separated from the wagon/estate. Yeesh. Strike that last bit, the Volvo vehicle line seems a little more complicated than I first thought, and probably should be described separately. --DeLarge (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Subaru treats them as different vehicles, and the Outback Sport is not a Legacy-derived vehicle. The Legacy page is unwieldy enough as it is, thanks to one certain contributor and will be a clusterbomb of irrelevant information if the two are merged. Keep the pages separate.--A Second Man in Motion (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel they should stay separate, especially since the Outback wagon completely split off from the Legacy sedan in 2008. So what if the Outback is heavily based on the Legacy? The Forester is heavily based on the Impreza, but that's a separate model line. Also, the Outback Sport should be included in the Outback article as well, and separated from the Impreza, in my opinion.fahrer4184 (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The merging of the Outback article into this one is proving to be very awkward, and the fear of bloat seems to be resulting in the diminishing of information for Outback specific trim lines. Another issue is the misalignment of platform generations ( e.g. BE/BH, BL/BP, etc) to model years depending on the market in which the car is sold. In North America, the generation is at least one model year later than represented in the article. For example, an Outback owner in North America with a model year 2004 (BH) would be confused by this article referring to their car as 1999 - 2003. End consumers in most parts of the world know model years, NOT platform designations. In markets where the Outback is treated as its own model, the generation numeration alignment is also off, as the Outback in North America starts with Legacy Generation 2, but is referred to as Outback Generation 1. If these articles must be merged, a better care for preservation of information depth should be considered. 76.14.240.12 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the Outback sections in the Legacy articles are the same as before. Please re-instate any missing content if anything was accidentally excluded in the mergers.

Most of the world does not use model years, essentially only North America does. The rest of the world uses calendar years, so the article uses both calendar years and model codes. Since Japan is the home market, it is fair to use the years that apply for that market so bias between Europe and America is avoided. Most markets use the same years as Japan. However, North American models have sometimes been delayed as they are produced in a different factory in Indiana. Even before the Outback was merged with the Legacy page, the Legacy article still avoided US model years.

Since North American versions of foreign cars are often quite different to the versions sold elsewhere, I think it is important to mention these differences in a section dedicated to North America. I don't believe an article on a Japanese car sold in similar form globally should revolve around an altered version sold in another market. The Japanese model is the base car—that is; the North American version was modified to meet regulations and consumer preferences for that market. Conversely, the Chrysler Voyager article should revolve around the North American version of that model since that is the original market. The altered version sold in Europe and Australia should not be given priority, but should be detailed in a subsection highlighting any relevant changes.

As you pointed out, there is the slightly annoying issue of mis-aligned generations, but this can be overcome, but it really is a minor issue. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the generational sections in this article, and perhaps any other article about an automobile model, it might serve better to remove the range of years from the section headers. This would remove the issue of various markets differing years of availability. In the fields where the details of a generation are given, in this article and the generations' own articles, you could include year spans for each given market. This would put the information in a better context that is regionally agnostic. Its also important to note that 'model year' may or may not be concurrent with a calendar year, and doesn't change the disparity from market to market. The only absolute and agnostic separation of generations is the platform designation.

As for the contention that the 'home market' is the focus for the content of the article, as the 'home market' is considered Japan in this case, wouldn't the Japanese Wikipedia be a better place to represent the Japan-centric view of the model? The primarily English speaking markets for the vehicle don't have consistent model year availability, so the years being stated in the English language article don't objectively represent all markets. When the same vehicle is made in more than one nation and market of the world, does the model even have a specific 'home market'? Does the country of origin for the brand, and not the vehicle mandate the 'home market'? See how tying year designations to 'home market' and making them a prominent feature can become a compounding source of confusion? Perhaps it would be better to shift that emphasis as I suggested above, and keep the agnostic information of the platform designation as the focus? 76.14.240.12 (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the poll on