This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:19, October 24, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This page needs attention in the Altezza/IS 200/300 section with regard to verb tenses, specifically past/positive which I think overall is rather tricky for car articles due to the fact that some cars that are out of production (like the Altezza and Supra) are still popular. -- Huddlebum05:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast to Lexus models (which are labeled with spaces in the name; e.g., IS 300) the Altezza variants are named without spaces. Both AS200 and RS200 are correct. [1] --Milkmandan 01:35, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be renamed "Lexus IS"? Because the car is branded as Lexus in all English-speaking countries (and this is an English page)?
Can someone put a refference to the push to start, smart access system?
Is the disabiling traction control at engine startup serious? can someone confirm?
It's time to split the IS-F from the Lexus IS page. Lexus.com has released most if not all info for the IS-F.
Lexus has released lots of detailed specs on the IS-F and I would really like to get them up but I'll wait until the IS-F gets its own page. I think the IS-F deserves its own page because it's part of the Lexus Finesse lineup and even Lexus doesn't list the IS-F in the same lineup as the IS. Of course, there will be a short summary of the IS-F and a link on the IS page.
The article states that only 1k will be produced for the US market but this has been recognized as a misprint by Autoweek, and that Lexus will produce 1k of the LF-A. No production figures have yet been released for the IS-F from what I know.
That is what I surmised as well from reading on the boards...is there a reference anywhere that specifically calls out Autoweek on the misprint? Perhaps the reference in the article should be removed. Enigma354200200:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone can provide a reliable source that states otherwise, it shouldn't be removed. FYI, forums are not reliable sources. It would clearly be looked at as editor speculation and original research. Roguegeek (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, judging from the actual Autoweek article, Autoweek doesn't seem to be a reliable source. The article that mentions the 1000 limit also says that the car will also do 200mph, which is simply ridiculous; the car's speedometer doesn't even reach the 200 mph mark. I personally think we shouldn't include the info until we get some reliable figures from Toyota/Lexus.
200 MPH top speed is the projected top speed for the LF-A.
Duly noted. I have put in several additional sources. Quite frankly, an advance production figure such as the one cited should have been confirmed reliabily through a number of sources (if considered as fact). There is enough question in not only the information posited, but from other sources that suggest otherwise, to put doubt into the speculation from the Autoweek blurb. Is this really encyclopedic information or is it a single mistyped news article that has created a false impression? Enigma354200207:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the 2002 edition of the IS 300 the only car with 5-speed manual transmission from the 2001-2005 era? I'm not completely sure after skimming through the article.
the main picture of the article needs to be reflective of the current generation. it's still showing the second generation photograph whilst the third generation was released some time ago and is now being sold at dealerships across the world.
Basuraeuropea (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that rule absent isn't in common practice at all for the vast majority of articles on automobiles of this caliber, Lexus automobiles, and automobiles in general. Please see Lexus_GS, Bmw_3_series, Bmw_1_series - all of which were recently redesigned and the redesigns, i.e. current generations, are reflected on the articles' pages as the main images, respectively. While the Mercedes_C_Class, Audi_a4, Infiniti_G, Acura_TSX and Volvo_S60 all are Lexus IS competitors (along with the BMW models listed above), they were redesigned some time ago and subsequently facelifted at certain points along the way. That said, they, too, have their current generations reflected as the main photographs on the respective, associate pages. The aforementioned are just a tiny fraction of examples that could be provided - I chose to highlight automobile articles in close relation to the Lexus IS. Feel free, though, to carefully peruse the automotive wikipedia realm and you'll find that what you're proposing being followed - a lack of a rule guiding what generation is or is not to be placed upon the page as the main image - just isn't commonly practiced. That, and the photograph may be changed accordingly per WP:CARPIXBasuraeuropea (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rule says the main pic doesn't have to be the current generation but neither does it say that it has to be an older generation. That is, the rule allows the pic to be any generation, including the current generation. So your examples don't break the rule at all. Only the quality and appropriateness of the pic is defined. You are right that the rule allows you to change to a newer pic (as long as the quality is at least as good) but other editors are also allowed to change it back. Stepho talk00:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your selected red pic has more background clutter and shadows on the car than the original silver pic . It's also considered polite to not edit parts of the article that are under discussion because it encourages WP:edit warring. Stepho talk00:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understood the rule - it's quite clear. As for the picture, I chose a picture that was representative of the car, taken from the Japanese Wikipedia Lexus IS article, and part of the Wikimedia Commons. That, and with the clear go-ahead via the rules and regulations outlined in WP:CARPIX being provided, I saw absolutely no harm in changing the photograph to that used currently as the Japanese article's main image. If you should find a better photograph of the third generation either within the commons or another otherwise able to be used freely on the site, let's discuss openly as there surely must be a photograph better suited to your liking of the automobile in its current iteration and perhaps compromise may be made. Although that said, and since we have been looking at main photographs of the second generation for years now, the current photograph provides the reader a refreshing glimpse of the Lexus IS in an unoffensive and tasteful manner! Apologies for any lack of tact that you may have perceived. Basuraeuropea (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're not quite there yet. From WP:CARPIX: "5.The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other." Which means the current generation is no more and no less preferred than any other generation. Further quoting "Regardless of the ages of the vehicle shown, pick a clear, high-quality image according to the image quality guidelines; one that clearly shows a vehicle relevant to the article without photoflash glare or other photographic faults, against a simple and contrasting background. Such an image is always to be preferred over a lower-quality image, such as one that shows photoflash glare or a distracting background. Low-volume, unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image." Your image has a cluttered background and shadows/reflections across its sides. The higher quality picture always wins - regardless of generation. Stepho talk08:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand the rules abstractly, it seems, although their nuances aren't always understood in practice by a user new to adding images. It is a learning process, you realise, and one that doesn't require patronisation on behalf of other Wikipedia members. That aside, I have chosen a photograph, that should you not object to, will be changed to the main image as it seems to meet all of the guidelines that both you have reiterated several times now and are located within WP:CARPIX. Note that the image may need a small bit of realigning, but the general photograph of the car sans any blatant irregularities and with a simple background, should suffice very well. Should you have any questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to express them, and we can discuss further as I move forth with providing for a high-quality main photograph to replace the one currently in place. Basuraeuropea (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand the rule as much as you think you do. I'm trying not to patronise you but I'm also frustrated that I'm explaining the same thing over and over. And a lesser man would have simply reverted you every time without any discussion at all. It's obvious that you really, really want the main picture to be the current generation. There is no need for it to be the current generation but it's acceptable as long as the new picture is at least as good quality as the old picture. Your new white selection has a cluttered background and does not have the front 3-quarter view that is preferred. Also, the white body colour in bright sunlight shows no detail of the body - it's a white blob with wheels and tail lights that is almost indistinguishable from any other modern car. Apart from not being your preferred generation, what is wrong with the current picture? It has the preferred 3-quarter view, body details and curves are readily apparent, the background is non intrusive, there are no shadows or reflections obscuring the car, it's in focus and has good lighting. Stepho talk00:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for humouring me and engaging in discourse - terribly kind of you. The previous main picture of the previous generation is pre-facelifted, has no moonroof, and has the automobile covered in water, which likely favourably contributes to the lack of any reflection that you so desire. So apart from showing a car that is some six years old, it's not shown in a model that is common. How many Lexus ISx50s have been sold without the moonroof as part of the basic package sold ubiquitously in Japan, Europe and North America? Revert the picture as as much I want the picture to be reflective of the current generation, you are pining to revert the picture to the previous. Someone with more knowledge on the subject matter and with a photograph that is, ostensibly, better in certain respects nebulously outlined within WP:CARPIX will change the photograph without a doubt and without much squabble from you, either. I'm just not that person nor am I that invested in this Wikipedia article - some I am, this one I'm not. Carry on. Basuraeuropea (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of that said, the Ukrainian article is closest to ideal in terms of picture placement throughout the article in its entirety given the photographs currently available within the Commons and save for the absence of a few interior photographs. http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_ISBasuraeuropea (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the rule says no particular generation is preferred, then why would being pre-facelift or six years old make any difference? The rule also says that no particular version is preferred, so why would the presence or absence of an optional moon-roof make any difference? In your red picture the moon roof is almost unnoticeable. and in your white we're hard pushed to see any details of the roof at all, so the absence of a moon-roof is not a very relevant criteria. However I do admit that it would be better if we had a picture without water on the car - all else being equal. But the water is unnoticeable in the thumbnails and unobtrusive in the full size picture - so it's only a minor problem. Obtrusive shadows and background clutter are far, far worse. You guessed that I was pining for the second generation - wrong. I am pushing for quality. If you can find a quality picture of the current generation then I will happily relent. But I'm not going to put a mediocre picture at the top just because it is the current generation.
I looked at the Ukranian Wikipedia page that you suggested. Most of the pictures on that page were taken in car parks and have massive background clutter. The remaining two pictures (the red pictures of the current generation) were taken in a showroom and have background clutter and obtrusive shadows/reflection. None of the pictures on that page are very good - not one. Mediocre pictures are excusable if there is nothing else available but you'd have to rocks in your head to replace a good picture with a mediocre picture. Stepho talk12:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got right a laugh out of reading all of this. Basuraeuropea, please read WP:CARPIXcarefully. The guidelines are clear, if there are any issues/ambiguities please ask Stepho or myself and we will happily elaborate. I also note that I too would have gotten frustrated at the above conversation had I logged in earlier and participated as Stepho had to waste a lot of time replying what was clearing stated in the guidelines. I guess I found it funny as it was not my time being wasted ;) OSX (talk • contributions) 11:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why 219.116.115.176 keeps removing the link to the official Chinese website. It's in English and is just as valid as any of the other links to official pages. The old link to the Chinese IS300 page had died ([presumably the 300 is no longer sold there) but I replaced it with a link to the generic IS page on the Chinese website (still in English). Stepho talk05:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the IS / ES comments need some fleshing out. From what I've read, IS is not 'below' ES in the Lexus lineup; they fill different niches. IS serves as the performance model; ES is the comfort model. Current pricing certainly doesn't reflect ES as a higher-end model.Hiernonymous (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Lexus IS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I have just modified 6 external links on Lexus IS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
I have just modified 11 external links on Lexus IS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
I have just modified 9 external links on Lexus IS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
Agreed. Copy the XE10 section to Lexus IS (XE10) (overwriting the redirect that I created a long time ago) and copy the XE30 section to Lexus IS (XE30). For each generation in this article, we should have only short, single paragraph summaries and only 1 or 2 images. Similar to what we did for Toyota Corolla. Stepho talk02:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
