Talk:Citroën

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs) at 07:15, 8 August 2017 (Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.5beta)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Electric cars

The electric versions of Saxo and Berlingo should be mentioned.

References

United States COTY

Removing the 1972 Motor Trend COTY award makes no sense for historic reasons - it was the original COTY, and the only COTY in the US for many years, so the fact that the editors of a single magazine awarded it is not relevant. Winning a historically rare COTY prize in the US or Europe is significant precisely because they were rare. Recent years are the actual problem - COTY is a title which has proliferated wildly in recent years, so you could load up every manufacturer description with tons of awards - everyone gets a prize. My proposed solution is to include a description of the prize itself - when created f.ex. I think the point of listing an awards section is to highlight unusual achievement. Citroen winning the COTY in the US in 1972 was a remarkable achievement, especially since only US made cars had won the award previously. PLawrence99cx (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is: yes and no. Awards can be included, but not based in how old they are, that's not per se an evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. The key factor is how much impact they have in third-party sources not affiliated with the subjects being discussed (as other magazines with widespread credibility or books). Also, a simple mention isn't enough, the sources must indicate the way such awards are significative enough to be mentioned in the corporate article. The Motor Trend award is a magazine award despite its age, how old it is isn't necessarily important. Following Wikipedia guidelines, you should point out the reasons whereby Citroën's Motor Trend award is notable, backing it with reliable published sources. That way, we can leave personal opinions and subjectivity aside. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with the basic logic - if there is no hint about why the award is significant, then every car article will turn into a massive grocery list of awards received in the last 10-15 years. Age of award does mean something - despite the skew in the voting jury for the Academy Awards, they have been around since 1929, and partially for that very reason, it is widely agreed that they are impactful.
Back to cars: winning this particular award in 1972 was remarkable because MT COTY was an award always given to one of four companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler AMC) for decades. Suddenly this particular company produced a vehicle that destroyed that logic. Bridged two alien worlds.
On the issue of 'single magazine' - that is 2015 centric. There was no other COTY award in the US at the time - European Car of the Year from 1964 refined the original MT COTY idea by getting judges from several magazines, which does make more sense in hindsight. In 1960/70ish America, that probably was not an option. Apparently North American Car of the Year started in 1989.
I checked out WP:NOTABILITY - it doesn't seem to apply to this case, since it describes what a notable article subject should and should not be. Motor Trend Car of the Year is an article that has been around since 2004 - passed that test long ago. I found something else that does look appropriate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. If multiple published non-Wiki sources consider it significant, then it would violate WP:NPOV to exclude.PLawrence99cx (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true, you are right on the basic, WP:NOTABILITY applies to content only indirectly, but it's implied anything appearing in an article must be notable enough to be verifiable by reliable, published sources. Otherwise, I think your analysis is quite logical and correct. It should not be difficult to find reliable third-party sources to verify the importance of Citroën's Motor Trend. That would end all discussions. Regards --Urbanoc (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant nonsense included in the article.

"There, it is possible to find some Citroën toys or some objects connected to the Citroën universe."

Is this sort of irrelevant (and obvious) trivia included in the wikipedia article of any other car manufacturer? I think it is a given that every car manufacturer of any notable size or historic relevance has had toys or models based on its vehicles. This "Citroën universe" nonsense reads as if Citroën is a comic book franchise and not a real-world automobile manufacturer. 2601:4:1003:A895:A944:2AFE:3F51:6B6F (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It was probably a good-faith contribution, but it wasn't very useful, so I deleted it. — ¾-10 23:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Citroën. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Citroën. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Citroën. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]