Talk:Renault

Erratic modifications without knowledges

Hello. Some people erase arbitrarily some information and before erasing they should get some genuine knowledges. I will complete this discussion, but as example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renault&diff=648688784&oldid=648437641 : it is not relevant to erase Louis Schweitzer from the "key people". The claims of Urbanoc and naive and false. Carlos Ghosn did not "help" Louis Schweitzer. And in a big company, 2 or 3 years spend before the new CEO could have an influence. Ghosn "drove" what Schweitzer built !

• Schweitzer chose Ghosn, so it is already a key decision.
• Ghosn was against the "cost-savvy" range like the Dacia Logan, a big mistake, and he finally was obliged to change his mind as the sales success came fast
• many other points in the today's Renault group are only from Schweitzer : integration of Nissan, Dacia, Samsung, AvtoVaz also, reliability, safety engineering (Renault is FIRST from 1996).

What I tell here comes from my deep knowledges of the car industry, and so from dozens of articles, but if needed I could give some references as far as it is possible, but if some people want to get some better knowledges then they can read reports, interviews, articles by themselves. When I add something, Urbanoc immediately erase it. It is his war. Yet, I am much more savant than him, and this behaviour is bad for the quality of the article. Urbanoc does not respect the rules : erasing is not justified, he can "tag" or open a discussion. Urbanoc does as if he owned this article, but it is false. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but your edits show a lack of knowledge, not only about Renault in particular, but Wikipedia guidelines and good-writing basic rules in general. Many of the things you say are Schweitzer's only work are generally attributed to Ghosn. Ghosn was number 2 when the key changes of the Schweitzer era were performed and he even says (and none has denied it) that Schweitzer only was willing to acquire a stake of Nissan if he accepted to take the mission of saving the company. It's not my invention, make a little research.

Anyway, at the end what you need it's a good, reliable third-party source (not a blog or a press release as you often do) to prove Schweitzer was more important than the likes of Louis Renault, Pierre Lefaucheux or even Georges Besse. Your personal opinion or what you think you know isn't enough.

I don't know what you mean with, and I quote, "safety engineering (Renault is FIRST from 1996)..." That's a bold and debatable statement. Renault was pioneer in introducing some safety features, but other companies (without leaving France, PSA), made strides on that area as well.

You keep insisting editors must "tag" your edits instead of simply deleting them. That's not true. According to WP:BURDEN the burden of proof lies in the editor that adds the information, in this case you, and all unsourced material can be challenged or removed. The objective of "tagging" is to give time to editors for finding a reliable source, but you generally didn't add a source or use one of debatable objectivity and credibility, as blogs or press releases. If I or any other editor consider something unsourced is completely incorrect, we can delete it without tagging.

As a sidenote, stop adding so many "examples" for Formula Renault and Formula Renault 3.5 former drivers. That's not only silly and against Wikipedia guidelines, but also had other problems:

a) Your list is short to be comprehensive and too long to represent selected examples.

b) The participation of the drivers at the formulas is already mentioned in various articles, the World Series by Renault article even has a list of "notable drivers". As for Formula Renault, it has a lot of divisionals worldwide and a complete list of notable drivers probably would be of hundreds.

c) The Motorsport section in this article is an overview (as past consensus has determined, not me), not a full analisis of Renault racing activities. The main articles of Renaut's motor racing are Renault Sport and Formula Renault.

Summarising, maybe a few examples to give a context are OK, but dozens of them picked in an arbitrary manner aren't. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point about Schweitzer and happy he is left out of the info box, and note he is already mentioned in the main body of the article. Warren (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I just saw 83.157.24.224 is currently blocked, so he's not able to present his arguments. I will play devil's advocate and introduce a source he left in his talk page ([1]). I read it and, besides it has a lot of inaccuracies and I'm not completely sure it's a WP:RS, I don't believe it supports directly the claim made by 83.157.24.224. I mean, it indeed praises Schweitzer and describes him as very important and influential during his tenure (and almost forgetting Ghosn, contradicting many other sources that put him in an important role during the Renault reforms of the late 1990s), which in general I think is true, but it doesn't say he was the more relevant President of Renault in history. I don't see that and consider jumping to that conclusion is original research. What do you think? Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Odd reference... I don't trust sites like this without any kind of 'about us' info. No imprint either. Perhaps the IP editor might spend some time improving the biographical article as that could do with some work, rather than push a possible PoV/OR in the corporate article. The IP editor couldn't even spell Schweitzer's name, or be bothered to wikilink it, so I'm not sure how engaged he is with WP in general. Warren (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, that's a good point. The article is part of a lot of "encyclopedies" of doubtful reliability hosted by a obscure company called Advameg through its website advameg.com. I don't think it's covered by these definitions of reliable source, even more considering that exceptional claims require exceptional sources:

• peer-reviewed journals
• books published by university presses
• university-level textbooks
• magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• mainstream newspapers

So I see two problems, the IP doesn't stick to source and the reliability of his source is debatable. --Urbanoc (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The source that I added cites some HISTORICAL FACTS. Notice that precisely, this source cites all the sources from some business magazines that it used to sum up them. So it is reliable. So, do you both change your mind ? According to you what is not true in this source ? L.Schweitzer was not the CEO when to decides the expansion in Brazil and opening a new plant, there, buying Nissan, Dacia, Samsung Motors, and making a long term agreement with AvtoVAZ and building a factory in Moscow ? Yes, he was the CEO and he drove all that, and chose Ghosn. What is false according to you to censure this source ? Prove that these information are not true. They are obvious and historical. It is a kind of revisionism to disagree with historical facts. This source sum up HISTORICAL FACTS and is reliable. On the contrary, the tabloid source added by Warren Whyte is not a serious source in a WP article about automotive industry. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The source isn`t reliable and it hasn't "historical facts." In the best case scenario, it has interpretations of historical facts. It mentions a lot of things that never became a reality (I remember a shared website for sales, the US entry of Renault...). It also claims to use third-party sources, but it doesn't take the mainstream view and it gives to Schweitzer a lot of credit that more reliable sources give to Ghosn. Finally, it doesn't directly support the claim you insists in putting on the article, you are making an original synthesis, which is forbidden by Wikipedia guidelines. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: Stop your false accusations. I shouldn't mention it here, but I'm a little tired of your claims. I traced your comments against Warren's source to an administrator talk page. There you were lenghtly accussing me and Warren, and you said a certain source in the Kadjar article was "homofobic" and a "tabloid" (the source was OK for the claims made, by the way) and you deleted it only because you didn't understand it.... Then, you changed the non-biased style of Warren and replaced it with a lot of press garbage and a lot of advertisement-like remarks sourced mostly with Renault primary sources you read (you didn't even take time to put it on the article). You should read WP:TONE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and specially WP:NOTADVERTISING. To make it clear, stick to this article in this talk page and stop making complains that doesn't belong here, that's the aim of user talk pages. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Daily Record is a tabloid, it is not my opinion, it is the reality. The article added by Warren Whyte has been written before the launch of Kadjar, so it has to be replaced for this too, because it said non-informed things. In addition, the tabloid shows a photo of the Kwid, another vehicle (so it makes people wrong) and cites "cage a googoo" and their photos what has nothing to do with the automotive industry and Renault. It is just bad jokes about Renault, to denigrate, like tabloid do. Tabloid are not reliable sources and it is strange to have found this very unknown source and to have added it in first position in the article, in replacement of another source. For the source about Louis Schweitzer all the fact are true and historical, that is why you failed to find one that is not true, whereas I asked you to do that. There is no interpretation. Schweitzer really did all that and transformed Renault into a 5 big brands group, whereas it had only 2 (Renault and Alpine) when he arrived as CEO. I don't understand why you deny the HISTORY. Strange behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As for your patetic first source, a dubious "encyclopedia" made by an obscure web hoster, I already mentioned two false things: Never existed a shared website for sales (a thing the article mentions), and Renault never entered into the US in 2010. Of course, I agree that "article" was probably written a long time ago, so here, there are others.

"He first persuaded the French government to begin privatizing Renault." A very debatable thing, as many sources says it was a political decision of the French State at the time.

"Toward the end of the 1990s Schweitzer committed his company to becoming a global presence in earnest. His plans received a boost when Renault returned to profitability; the company grossed $40 billion and netted $1.4 billion in 1998. On December 17 of that year, Renault purchased a Romanian company based in Pitesti, Automobile Dacia, with an eye to having Dacia manufacture inexpensive cars for the emerging economies of Eastern Europe. In addition to acquiring Dacia, Schweitzer looked for another way for Renault to enter the global market in 1998. Japan's Nissan had accumulated $19.4 billion in debt that year, paying $1 billion in interest on the debt. It lost $5.7 billion in 1998 alone. Nissan's management was looking for a rescuer as the huge corporation threatened to collapse."

"Schweitzer negotiated with the leaders of both Dacia and Nissan in 1999. He visited Pitesti, met with Romanian government dignitaries, and entered tough negotiations to gain tax breaks for Dacia. His negotiations with Nissan were difficult as well, even though Nissan was not in a strong bargaining position. Schweitzer agreed to invest $5.4 billion in Nissan in March 1999, which helped the company to retire some of its debt, in exchange for 36.8 percent of Nissan's shares and control of the company. "For us, it was a choice between staying regional or going global," Schweitzer said about the Nissan agreement ( BusinessWeek , November 15, 1999). Although Renault was calling the shots at Nissan at the time of the interview, Schweitzer characterized the agreement as an alliance rather than a merger. He wanted Nissan to retain its separate identity, its own corporate culture, and its own goals. He had observed the disaster that occurred when the German company Daimler took over Chrysler in 1998 and tried to force a merger of two distinctive corporate cultures. Schweitzer did not want similar troubles to befall Nissan." All this is opinionated and ignore the role of Ghosn. Maybe not a direct lie, but certainly ignores some facts.

And so on... But the problem isn't only the content of the source. As I explained to you a lot of times while you were ignoring me (I give you a lot of links to the Wiki guidelines...), even if we considered it "reliable," it doesn't explicitly says "Schweitzer was the most important CEO in Renault history" or "Schweitzer the most relevant man in Renault from all time and was instrumental for the company current status" or something like that. You assume the sources you presented are implying that, but I repeat, that's original research and that isn't allowed per Wiki consensus on content. Actually, and despite I commented various times to you about that, I don't think you ever read a Wikipedia guideline as you edit following your own rules. You don't follow infobox guidelines, date format guidelines, bolding use guidelines, section head guidelines, etc., etc.

"Tabloid" or not (debatable, and besides, many of the sources you use are inferior to that, so... ), the source was fine to verify the article as written by Warren, as he adjusted his writing to WP:NPOV and didn't make any bold claim. You need better sources because you made a lot of bold claims with advertising and/or nationalistic purposes. As an example to illustrate the causes of my concern for your editing style, you added this to the lead section of the article. The lead section must be a overview of article contents, and the R-Link (basically, it's simply the Renault name for an infotainment system... ) isn't mentioned in the main body of the article. Besides, the Reuters "source" you used explicitly says: "* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release...." This edit clearly shows your pro-French advocacy agenda. As I already say, I have no particular problems with that, but all articles must follow Wiki guidelines, not fanboyism. Have a nice day. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the sources are particularly problematic, except that they are obviously chosen to support IP's viewpoint. When I edit, I usually read a few magazines and find interesting text, which I then add to various articles. This ensures that my additions are generally without an agenda. Secondly, the more I read about Schweitzer the more I am beginning to feel that he could be an acceptable addition to the key peoples section. Ip needs to calm down though, and also begin reading more carefully. That the Avantime is bizarre is without doubt - that's why I love it. Call it radical, unusual, bizarre, wacky, odd, whatever - it fits, and it explains why it sold in such tiny numbers. And that's not a problem, as the Avantime was designed to garner attention for Renault, not to break sales records. As such, it was a successful design.

As for Schweitzer, perhaps a vote could work? Maybe he has generally been a bit neglected overall? I also feel that the R-Link section is entirely devoid of interest and relevance, and I feel that such sections should be mercilessly scrubbed out of any and all articles.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

To Mr.Choppers. About Mr. Schweitzer, I respect your opinion and is a good input, but (in my view, of course) the discussion is not if he is important or not, the discussion is if he is more important that other former CEOs. In my opinion he is not and the sources need to be "interpreted" to determine his relevance, so his inclusion is at least debatable. However, I agree that if we can achieve a general consensus for his inclusion he should be included, at present there's not such consensus. Maybe a vote will work if all are willing to accept the result, because it will show if at minimum there is the consensus to include him.

Hello. Sorry that you ignore so much about Schweitzer, because he is pointed out as a precious example of key management, like in this MIT source for example, so I am happy to teach you that. You're welcome ! http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/building-ambidexterity-into-an-organization/ Renault, the French automobile company, went through a radical transformation during the 1990s. When Louis Schweitzer became CEO in 1992, the state-owned company was languishing. Schweitzer cut costs through a number of well-publicized plant closures, but he also invested in new-product development (leading to such models as the Espace and Megane) and began the search for a strategic partner to take Renault into the top tier of the industry. After an abortive merger with Volvo in 1993, Renault gained control of a struggling Nissan in 1998 and, to the surprise of many observers, quickly turned around its performance. By 2001, the Renault-Nissan Alliance had joined the ranks of industry leaders and was one of the most profitable auto companies in the world. How did the transformation take place? Schweitzer developed a simple and consistent strategy built around what he called the “seven strategic goals.” The strategic planning and budgeting processes, and the bonuses and stock option plans, were all aligned with these goals. The communication of the message was, in the words of one executive, “doggedly consistent.” At the same time, the company developed what one executive called a “deep desire to adapt.” The seven strategic goals were updated every two or three years, the organization had an informal style of management in which expressing alternative views was encouraged and managers developed a self-critical approach, always looking to improve. The result was an organization that became proficient at continually making small adaptations to its strategy without losing alignment. Renault’s transformation during the 1990s involved a shift from the country-club to the high-performance context. Until 1990, employees had viewed the company as a comfortable and secure place to work, with an informal atmosphere. Over the following 10 years, a number of changes were brought about, primarily through top-down initiatives revolving around cost reduction and quality and through greater focus on, and commitment to, KEY STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. One executive commented that his business unit was run as a “commando-type organization — appraisal and evaluation interviews are run in a pyramidal form and compensation is [now] geared toward short-term objectives.” Most of these changes were instituted through a new executive team that gave people more structure, which led to a focus on new products and new opportunities as a means of delivering on the more ambitious goals. Stated slightly differently, the emphasis during the transition was placed on performance management but building on the social support that had existed in the early 1990s. Indeed, two of Schweitzer’s seven goals were concerned with the internal organizational context (develop a coherent and open group; work more effectively together). Renault achieved it by building a performance context around its existing social support. // If you were interested by finding some information about Schweitzer instead of judging first, then you could have found several sources that mention his key role, but I am happy to have helped you to clarify your mind. Do you still deny Schweitzer's key role ? Actually, more text in the article is needed about Schweitzer too, in addition to the "key people" line, as you can notice. Anyway, my previous reliable source from Oxford University press is already clear also about his actions : "Renault's long-standing chairman and chief executive, Louis Schweitzer transformed Renault into a successful company". Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As for the word "bizarre", I do not have problems with that, but as I say before the IP has showed that he follows a disturbing French-nationalist WP:ADVOCACY agenda and his intention is that all material that is not an outright compliment to Renault will be deleted from the article. He even removed mentions to other marques....

To IP. Stop calling me "idiot" and follow Wikipedia guidelines, your language and actions are unacceptable. Do not modify valid templates for using them in personal attacks, calling me idiot is quite borderline anyway, but using templates not intended for that use is vandalism. And read more carefully the source, Reuters isn't the publisher of the "information" (actually, a press release of TomTom and SBD, a primary source) they only took it and posted it on their web page, but they did not write it and they do not make themselves responsible for its content. There's a disclaimer right at the top. So it's not a third-party, reliable source, and that's why I question it. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear IP

Please read WP:BRD. Also, when you fold all of your edits together, there is really no way for me to delete the disputable material without also reverting whatever useful things you have managed to accomplish. You are becoming nearly impossible to work with, always assuming bad will on everyone else's part, such as in this very unpleasant edit summary: Official and neutral ECOTY website sources to replace the denigrating or broken links"sources"added and not controlled by the"patrols". I'm not sure exactly what it means, but I feel that you are not being pleasant. Please consider communicating in a more productive fashion, and perhaps edit some articles on something else to lower your adrenaline.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know how you interpret my sentence, the facts :

• I added some reliable sources where there were "citation needed", so my changes were relevant and even ASKED and so it is not good to erase all these sources.
• Some links do not show what they are expected to, for example this link send to Chevrolet Corvet ! http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/1211_car_of_the_year_winners/photo_32.html not to the announced Renault Alliance, so it is a "spam" link. If this link was controlled, then I guess that one would have corrected it, as it would be a duty. Other wrong links that I corrected : http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/coty/ and commercial link http://www.autotrader.co.uk/advice/2010/07/buying/test-driving-a-car These links should not have been accepted by the "patrols", should they ? When I add some relevant and neutral links from the official ECOTY website, they are erased, and these wrong links are accepted. It is a normal behaviour ?
• Please, target your changes, and analyse what would be wrong, because you erased everything without proving that there was anything wrong to erase, on the contrary, you erase some relevant changes that corrected some wrong links, you erased some informations and sources asked by Urbanoc about the gear patent, etc.

Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'm trying to mediate here. Mr.choppers, did everything need to be reverted? I'd understand if the IP made a ton of changes with one edit, but it was across a number of smaller edits. Was there anything salvagable in the edits, like sourcing the CN tags? Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably, but when I tried to undo the original edit it was not possible due to intermediate edits. If IP had followed WP:BRD then I wouldn't be faced with re-reverting his edit and thus also throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Apologies, but I was left with no choice except to relinquish ownership of Renault to the IP. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Mr.choppers, but now that we're at D, can you explain which ones you oppose, and why, and which ones you don't oppose, so they can be reinstated? I understand this IP has been difficult in the past, and it took us longer to get to these discussions than it should have, but now that we are here, and the IP is discussing things more on a content level than an accusatory level, it is your guy's turn. Discussion is a two way street. Urbanoc, I'd like to hear your thoughts as well, as you've also reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

-> Thank you Serge. M.Choppers wrote : "there is really no way for me to delete the disputable material without also reverting whatever useful things you have managed to accomplish.". FALSE, there is a way to revert ONLY this part, and not the 9 other changed versions, as it was ONLY here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renault&diff=650430686&oldid=650398033 But there is no relevant reason to reverse this one either anyway... Anyway, I mentioned later that the "homeland" brands were before Renault, what is not needed as I wrote that Renault is 3rd, and it is an article about Renault, not the "homeland" brands in UK. Notice that Germans thinks that Ford and Opel are German, British think that Ford and Opel-Vauxhall are British, American people think that Ford and Opel are American, so mentioning these 2 brands in another company article just brings confusion and as there is absolutely nothing to do with an eventual business connection between Renault and those brands there, then this WP over-linking is not justified at all. Happy to have clarified your mind. You're welcome ! You erased many sources that I added to answer to Urbanoc's challenges "citation needed", before he could erase many parts of the Renault article, that becomes poorer and poorer by the way, because of that. So keeping these sources is very important, as you know, as they answer to his requests. You're welcome ! Cheers. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the Renault article is getting worse, and we have 83.157.24.224 to thank for that. This user's lack of a neutral point of view, failure to understand Wikipedia guidelines, incivility, general obnoxiousness, and poor language skills have all led to a significant degradation in the quality of the article. More significantly, perhaps, is the fact that they have created an unpleasant atmosphere which makes me, for one, want to avoid contact. All of this is not conducive to building a better encyclopedia. The user is not here. Vrac (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, Vrac, and I find it hard that all three of you established users are all wrong about this. However, I'd just like a little more clarification of your guy's specific stances to specific edits. I understand that the IP has been hostile in the past, but upon my instruction, his discussions have become more focused on the content end, so we need to address it a little better now. I'm trying to mediate, but I can only do so from a Wikipedia-policy standpoint - I have very little prior knowledge of the automotive world. However, I do seem to be the only Admin interested in trying to fix this, so I think the easiest way is to have you, Urbanoc, and Mr.choppers define, in a little more detail, which edits are okay and not okay, and why. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sergecross73, the version is again one more fitted to IP's tastes, because he reverted me as well. I have problems with most of the edits he made, if not all, but, talking about the reversion in discussion, there were only two or three things without any problems. As Mr.choppers says, it was pretty difficult to save something and "focus" changes as IP suggested. Problems I see are:

a) He used not-so-good tertiary and primary sources in an "innovations history" section added by him. All the section seems to be a problematic advertising-aimed one, and needs a far better sourcing.

b) He added text frankly incomprehensible.

c) He added the Renault Kadjar in the current models section. The Renault Kadjar is still not for sale, therefore isn't a current model, is an upcoming model. See here.

d) The Renaults Trafic and Master are also developed by General Motors (Opel) not only by Renault. It's a joint venture.

e) He removed mentions to other marques and product features in the "Renault in the UK" section. The mentions were to put into context Renault in such market, not to pursue a Renault's defamation. He is doing that in a lot of articles, as he thinks to mention rivals is a way of attacking French companies...

As Vrac says, it's difficult to point out only one problem. In my opinion, all the IP edits can be classified as tendentious editing. Regards --Urbanoc (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Now he is adding again a lot of "car awards" into the article, when the general consensus in the RfC that discussed the Awards section was to significantly reduce it to a few key awards or removing it entirely. He isn't accepting basic consensus in the article and needs to open another RfC or seek third-party opinions if he thinks the current consensus is wrong. I reverted that because it not even deserves a discussion as it's simply disruptive editing and nothing more. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Aside from content issues, here are a few examples of unpleasant behavior from the more recent round of tendentious editing:

• this, an "I'm a PhD so I know better" attitude.
• Calling existing content "totally ignorant".
• Editorializing text copied from sources into ref tag (copyrightvio?) by bolding here.
• Ongoing persecution complex that Renault is not being treated fairly here. See the top of this thread for references to "patrols", apparently a reference to Urbanoc, Warren Whyte, Mr. Choppers, and myself who the user believes are all Volkswagen fanatics out to get Renault. (I've never edited VW articles by the way).

The POV pushing should be fairly obvious. Anything less than a glowing assessment of Renault is met by this user with hostility and accusations of a cabal. Note that this user engages in the exact same behavior on the French-language wiki. The user has built up a significant track record at this point, maybe I'm getting oversensitive at this point but it's understandable why. Vrac (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Urbanoc, I've protected the page to discourage further reverting. Vrac, I understand, and I've witnessed, and admonished the IP, for most of these things already. My concern is that the IP appears to be trying to argue more along the lines of content and sources now, but isn't getting any specific response to these questions. For example, he appeared to add sources to replace some Citation Needed tags, which was reverted along with the rest of his edits. Was there anything salvageable in those edits? Or were even those sources so out of line that a CN tag is actually better? I really don't know, which is why I'm asking. If it is, then fine, but explain. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sergecross73 I have been deliberately staying out of the content issues on this. I don't think they are the issue, there are always content disputes, the problem arises when someone doesn't play well with others and the disputes cannot be resolved in a reasonable and civil manner. Such has been the case with this user from the beginning and I'm not seeing a change. Just yesterday they came out with the "I'm a PhD" attitude again, and their response below starts off with "arbitrary accusations" and "false accusations". If they don't understand or cannot admit to what is wrong with their behavior these problems aren't going to go away. Vrac (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

-> Hello. Many arbitrary accusations and personal interpretations with no proofs, but no problem, because I am good faith, I only cite some reliable facts and statistics, so I am not afraid by false accusations. To answer to your many accusations, here are my factual answers :

• First I added many reliable sources where Urbanoc added "citation needed". Nobody proved that all of them could be erased, and actually, on the contrary all of them are good, and yet they have been blindly erased. It is not normal.
• I removed some broken links and a commercial link to second hand cars website, and replaced them by the official links to the ECOTY website with the complete results, so no relevant reason to erase these links, and to accuse me so badly. Example of the reliable links that I added http://www.caroftheyear.org/previous-winners/2006_1/coty
• Kadjar has been officially shown to the press at the beginning of February 2015 in Paris, the video is visible on the Internet and it has been officially shown at the Geneva Automobile show at the beginning of March 2015, look http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/renault-kadjar-at-2015-geneva-motor-show/video/gm-5385648 In addition, several people have uploaded some photos of the Kadjar on WP, that anyone can see at the Geneva show. Besides, some people uploaded some photos of the Kadjar that is already running with some standard registration numbers in the French streets http://reporter.autoplus.fr/2015/02/14/renault-kadjar-2/ The Kadjar will be commercialized gradually in Europe from April, in France. So, no relevant reason to continue to block the input about the Kadjar and to continue to be "disruptive" about this. Thank you. More information here http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/renault/kadjar/90636/new-renault-kadjar-suv-drops-into-geneva-2015-full-specs The Alfa Romeo Giulia has never been shown and yet it has an article for a long time on WP, but the Renault Kadjar that is officially launched can't be cited ? It is an unequal treatment.
• I added a source by a Professor, published at Oxford university press, explaining that "Renault's long-standing chairman and chief executive, Louis Schweitzer transformed Renault into a successful company", what is clear about his actions. This third party source is perfectly reliable. Louis Schweitzer is taken as an example in University courses all over the world, as a man who could transform a national company (carmaker) into a worldwide group. The fact that, he could not convince Volvo to be bought by Renault is also a part of this difficult process for example. Now, Volvo is owned by a Chinese company.
• I added 2 car awards in the UK section, as precisely it is a measure of how some reliable professionals really assess the brands in the UK. As they name the new models, Ford and Opel also get the same kind of awards sometimes, and nobody think that it is promotional to add then in their article, so why "interpreting" differently this for Renault ? Equal treatment of companies, please.
• I will answer more later, but all these points can be admitted already, to stop to be "disruptive" about any change about Renault, and even more about the asked source by "citation needed" that I filed relevantly. I wish you a nice evening or day. You're welcome ! 83.157.24.224 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't add anymore until we've discussed the ones you've addressed above. If you take on too much at once, the whole thing will be too overwhelming and it will go unaddressed as a whole, like has happened countless times before... Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Responses to IP and Sergecross73: I will be focussing in the last two major revisions of the IP. Other revisions must be discussed separately, as there's a lot of material. Also, please note that these are my concerns, I can't say these cover adequately concerns from other editors:

This source in the "Innovations" section: While I agree is fairly better that other sources the IP presented (at least is something from a publishing house and has editorial overseeing), I'm not so sure it's a good source to prove the point being addressed. It's a tertiary source and is a bio of one of the company founders, Louis Renault. I'm not sure the "innovation" is from the company or exclusively from L. Renault (in fact, the IP editor mentions L. Renault, not the company). L. Renault produced cars even before the Renault company came to existence, maybe the info should be in his article. However, I agree the source can be used if the rest of the editors think is OK. Also, the wording is a biased one: even if a source exists, the tone must be kept on WP:NPOV. The IP editor wrote "Louis Renault invented a the revolutionary direct drive gear," the source he presented doesn't directly support such a bold claim, as it says: "comportait un chassis à tubes et une transmission par arbre et différentiel, ce qui constituait une première nouveauté à l'époque de la transmission par chaîne à rouleaux, système qui fut répandu et même utilisé dans les camions. Cette voiture comportait également une boîte de vitesses à trois rapports et une marche arrière, la troisième vitesse constituant une prise directe" or, roughly in English, "featured a tube frame and a transmission shaft and differential, which was a novelty at a time of tansmissions by roller chain system. It became widespread and was even used in trucks. The car also included a three-speed manual transmission with reverse gear, the third gear being a direct drive." The source doesn't say the direct drive was "revolutionary" but it do says that was one the firsts. Maybe a more neutral text could be: "Louis Renault introduced an early direct drive gear", or something like that. The patent registers should be deleted at once, as they don't establish relevance. I think it would be better to move any salvageable material from the section into other sections, because biased titles as "Innovation history" and "Awards" are so complex as "Criticism" and "Controversies": they are a catch-all for POV-pushing, and need careful editing by really good editors with a good writing level, as the bias is difficult to avoid.

Sources added by IP in the Motorsport section: They are almost all low quality, but they seem OK to prove results (some of this were citation needed"). However, the tone used is a little biased and focussed in awards (something that seems a way to avoid the result of previous RfC on awards sections) and recent achievements. Besides, the section goes into too much detail, as there is a Renault Sport article. Maybe some material can be moved there. Another problem is that the new text in this section is difficult to understand. In brief, too much problems with the changes in this section and the rest of the sections through IP's big edit for not reverting to save barely-acceptable references.

About Kadjar: All the points made for the IP ignore my concern: the Kadjar isn't a current model even if the company presented it. Per past consensus, the "current" section is for models the company actually sells, not for prototypes or future cars. There is a related list linked from this article aimed to include all, past, present and future (and prototypes) cars from Renault. The car will not be on sale until mid-year (some sources, as the IP remarked, says April, but we are still in March), so mentioning it on a current car list seem a way of promotion. The fourth-generation Mégane is already rolling in France under camouflage, according to some sources, but it wouldn't have sense to include as a current car the "Mégane IV."

About references in the "Awards" section: Marginally better as the IP replaced Spanish sources with similar English ones for the "Car of the Year" web. The Autotrader link was also correctly removed by him as it is now a dead link that redirects to an unrelated topic. However, I think the "The Telegraph" link he removed is better than the one he used as a replacement, as it is something from a third-party publisher not involved with neither Renault nor Car of the Year, which helps to establish relevance.

"Renault in the UK" section: I already say my problems with the changes in this section previously: the IP removed mentions to other marques and product features in the "Renault in the UK" section. The mentions were to put into context Renault in such market, not to pursue a Renault's defamation. He is doing that in a lot of articles, as he thinks to mention rivals is a way of attacking French companies. Also, he added awards to avoid the consensus on the awards section.

As a general note, I don't agree with the but other articles have this! claims of the IP editor. I never say all the other automotive articles were better. In fact, many of them have a lot of bias and bias-focussed sections. There is not a general consensus on the kind of things a car article should inherently have. However, there are other policies in Wikipedia, and we must edit following them.

And something not related to the said major revisions, but that I will anwser anyway:

About Schweitzer: There is no clear consensus to include him in the "key people" parametre in the infobox. I and Warren questioned his inclusion and the validity of the sources as we don't think they prove Schweitzer is more relevant that other former CEOs, even if we all think he is worth mentioning in the article. However, at least other editor besides the IP (Mr.choppers) thinks otherwise and in general approves the IP's sources for that particular point. Maybe a vote can decide it. I think we can start an RfC to seek commentaries of uninvolved editors. If different editors agree with his inclusion, I will accept it. As for the new "Volvo was wrong" proof for Schweitzer uniqueness, only one part from the then-Volvo company (the car division, or Volvo Cars) is owned by the Chinese, the heavy vehicles part (AB Volvo) is Swedish-owned and its financial reports generally show net results almost as good as Renault (or even better if we exclude Nissan from the equation). --Urbanoc (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a somewhat funny answer since Renault trucks was merged with Volvo AB, so both Volvo Cars and Volvo AB had to internationalize. But that's completely besides the point. It's quite clear that mr. Schweitzer started the transformation of Renault from a (state owned) national car maker to an international car group. I'm not a Wikipedia expert but I am a car enthusiast. I recommend adding mr. Schweitzer to the list of key people but why is Louis Renault not added since he gave his name to the company? --Steven vc (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Schweitzer is actually listed as a key person in the infobox. It might be debatable but it's not like we are dealing with an excessively long list of people, there are only two, so I think it is fair that he stays. @Urbanoc: do you mind if I remove the "Dubious" tag? It's been there for a while now. As for Louis Renault, he is listed as a founder of the company so I don't think he is getting shortchanged. Vrac (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

To Steven vc. How is it funny? To say Renault's commmercial vehicles operations made "international" to Volvo is a bold claim. The former Renault properties surely helped Volvo to strengthen its position in North America (through Mack) and indirectly in Japan (through Nissan's heavy vehicles unit), but Volvo's heavy commercial vehicles division was already more international (and profitable) than Renault's. Besides, that's not the point addressed in my comment. The IP stated Volvo made a mistake when didn't accept a full merger with Renault as Schweitzer wished, but that is an speculation contradicted by the facts. The financial results of Volvo are good compared with those of Renault, even considering Renault has a big help from its "partner" Nissan in the balance sheets. Better leave the "what ifs" out in order to support the Schweitzer relevance.

To Vrac. Personally, I'm still not convinced, but there's seems to be a consensus to include him (a new editor supports the inclusion and other two, the IP and Mr.choppers also agreed), so I will accept to remove the tagging. However, I feel that if we are including Schweitzer we also must include Lefaucheux and Besse, as they were as least as relevant. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As per Vrac and Urbanoc. Many of the IP's source improvements were not problematic, but the Kadjar is obviously not on sale yet. The IP himself talks repeatedly about "pre-series vehicles having been seen", etc. This oughtn't even have to be mentioned, the Kadjar will go on the page in a month or two, no hurry. His sources on Schweitzer have convinced me that it's worth discussing - does anyone have any suggestions for other ex-CEOs that would be more relevant?

As for the portion on Renault in the UK, the text as I prefer it mentions that the Mégane looked rather different from the competition and many analysts predicted this would be a problem for sales in the UK. It wasn't, and somewhat surprisingly (due to the car's obvious qualities, on ewould presume) it reached a very successful fourth place in the statistics. Renault even managed a third in sales overall, behind only the two domestic brands Ford and Vauxhall. The text thus eulogizes Renault's success in the UK at the time. The IP objects to this portion only from an inability to read it properly, as is evidenced by his edit summary and others.

=>Hello, false accusation, I read properly. But ironical "compliment" or not, the raw and neutral figures, with no opinion is what is the best. That is why this ironical "compliment" has to be erased. RAW NUMBERS, NO OPINION ! Saying "quirky" is "POV", so WP asks to remove that. Thank you and have a nice day. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, in the comment I link to above you also write "The 4th most sold is a good result out of more than 20 C-segment vahicles, so false "opinion" too" - the sentence that you revert specifically mentions that 4th place is a strong result, thus proving that you are misreading the entire section. There is no irony whatsoever in this text, trust me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Third party sources are preferred when available, something I think IP has missed entirely. Awards sections ought to be trimmed everywhere, and I have done so elsewhere too. Lastly, I welcome the effort by the IP to begin communicating more constructively but I have to admit that I feel that the language barrier may be enough to preclude them from useful work in English. Oh, and who are the "patrols"?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, the exact source that the IP inserted for the Alliance's COTY (I'd restore it myself, but it can wait), was originally placed at Renault Alliance by me. Also, would I sit around and study ancient issues of Belgian motoring magazines on the Renault 9 and 11 if I hated Renault?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

=>Hello, as I proved before, the link that you "added" sends to the Chevrolet Corvet, not to the announced Renault Alliance ! And thus people assess that it is a crafty "spam" link to promote GM/Chevrolet in another company article and this source is wrong. Check the link that you "added" [2] here [3] Thank you to admit that. I had to correct this "spam" link in both Renault and Renault Alliance articles. We have studied hundreds of thousands changes on WP, and for example, here you claimed "no need to add motor show photo, too much glare" for the Renault Capture, so you replaced a beautiful photo by a black one that prevents to see the car in 3D. The photo for the VW Golf on its WP article is from a motor show and you did not changed that, for example. I tried to suggest that these actions might not be against Renault, but the neutral correlations calculation shows a strong systematic bias, so it could not assess that it is due to random. That is what mathematics proves neutrally. As to me, I proposed you to create a new article, so I want to believe sincerely that you can do better than this. Thank you and have a nice day. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, the IP editor is now being contrary with the very even-handed Mr Choppers. I was surprised to see the allegation that Mr Choppers would spam an article, and of course the IP editor is throwing unfounded accusations around. Again. If the IP had bothered to look at the link he berates, and clicks 33 times to get to the right year, lo and behold there is the Renault... The direct link oddly defaults to the first image. Warren (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

False, I did not accuse M.Choppers. I mentioned what some other Professors noticed and some calculations that show strong correlations. As to me I asked if he would like to cooperate on a new article. So your interpretation is false, I did not accuse anybody. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. So did another IP editor who just happened to use the same IP and write: "...crafty "spam" link to promote GM/Chevrolet in another company article and this source is wrong..."? Warren (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

About Mr.choppers edits: Please read WP:CARPIX, point 5 backs Mr.choppers image change. As a sidenote, point 7 answers to your habit of overflooding the main body of the articles with images. Stop citing edits from editors in other articles for complaining about them, especially ones that have nothing to do with the discussions here, this isn't the place to do it. The text in the "Renault in the UK" section has more consensus than yours. If you don't like it, you can open a RfC and try to change it. Mr.choppers isn't a spammer, and that's a pretty serious accusation, you shouldn't use it so lightly. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Here we go: as I knew I hadn't added a Corvette (blechhhh) link to this article, I just spent three minutes trying to figure out why the link that ends in "32" was now incorrect, and "33" worked. It's because in January 2015, the VW Golf (kind of funny, huh?) was added to the list and I guess that all the others got moved down one notch each. So, linkrot. IP, I expect an apology, here or on my talkpage, and don't ever accuse me of bias or spamming again unless you really have some supporting evidence. Until you do, I don't really feel any more need to help you out here. Next time you encounter an incorrect link, consider the possibility that it has changed (sadly, MT doesn't seem to allow for archiving) rather than just blasting off accusations.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Concluding remarks

Thank you, especially Urbanoc, for the detailed account of concerns, this was exactly what I was looking for. I just wanted to make sure that the IPs additions weren't being refused just because he has been difficult in the past.

I can't conclude who is right or wrong, all I can say is that there seems to be a clear, plausible, policy-related consensus against the IP's changes, and when there's no consensus to make changes, no changes are made. So the article should, at least for now, stay in its current state.

IP, you've got 2 options. One, you can try to persuade these editors into changing their mind. You guys have already discussed at length though, so I don't know how much longer I'd recommend that route. The other would be contacting relevant WP:WIKIPROJECTs or starting up an WP:RFC to see if you can get other editors involved, to persuade enough people to change the consensus into your favor. Either way, you need to do this yourself, as I'm getting tired of intervening all the time... Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The actual version includes a few of my changes, and these people don't want to keep the actual version, but to reverse all my relevant changes. To keep the actual version would a poor compromise, but a little better than reversing all, like they both ask.

• Some users arguments are "disruptive", like when accusing me that I would add a camouflage Megane input, what I did not, to prevent me to add a non-camouflage Kadjar that runs already on the French roads with official registration numbers, shown by some photos. This kind of diversions are disruptive. I have to justify of what I did not do, and it blocks a totally different and relevant input.
• The same, the Oxford University press source that I added proves definitely that "Renault's long-standing chairman and chief executive, Louis Schweitzer transformed Renault into a successful company", is clear about his actions. Yet, it is not taken into account, and a disruptive action for "vote" is asked. How the people who are not expert could vote relevantly ? How people who don't know the subject could better assess than the numerous University Professors that assessed the key role of Schweitzer in expending strongly Renault with Nissan, Dacia, Samsung Motors, AvtoVAZ and transforming it into a privatised company ?

Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As I've told you numerous times before, being a self-proclaimed "expert" has no special value here, especially considering anyone can edit anonymously or make all sorts of claims about their expertise without backing it up. As I tell lots of people: if your stance is so obviously and undeniably true, then you should have no problem convincing other people. Ask a WikiProject or start up an RFC. You still haven't tried either route. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

=> I did not speak about me, but for example "Dr Harrison holds qualifications from London, Salford, and Leeds Universities" who wrote that Schweitzer had the key role in "transforming Renault into a successful company". I did not have time to answer to Urbanoc, so no conclusion can be done. For example, he wants that the Motorsport section to be erased a lot, yet The Ford main article has 2 pages of "Motorsport" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company#Motorsport in addition to other Ford Racing, Ford World Rally Team, Ford GT Racing articles. Renault Motorsport has only 1/3 of that length of Ford and it would too long according to Urbanoc, Ford Motorsport is 3 times longer and it is not too long. It is an obvious bias and favouritism. It is an obvious difference of treatment, and no acceptable "fake vote" can establish some different rules among articles ! SAME RULES FOR ALL ARTICLES ! Else a lobby can vote some different rules, and so treat better a company than an other. Constitutions of democracies say : same laws for everybody, if laws are different for some categories of people, then it is not democracy, and such a vote has no value. This point is a key one, as you know, and that is why Urbanoc claims that he disagrees with it above, read ! Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read "other stuff exists". Please don't be so concerned on what other articles have - keep in mind that those articles could be in the wrong as well, and the argument may not lead to the reinstatement of the content in the Renault article, but rather the removal of the content at these other article's you reference. Anyways, you may discuss amongst Urbanoc as much as you wish, but I really feel my suggestion of getting more people involved is going to be more likely of a way for you to make any progress. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I will not remove material from the Motorsport section as I don't see a clear consensus to do it at this point, it was only a suggestion. Nevertheless, I think my concerns are valid. The Ford article's Motorsport section goes into too much detail as well (I don't like it, to be clear) but hasn't so much promotional material as awards for sportier car models and the tone isn't as much as biased as this one. Anyway, as Sergecross says, the content of other articles isn't per se an example of what can be included here. The same can be applied to the "Innovations history" section: I think you should stick the content to your sources and not using unsuported POV wording. Even more, I think all the section is a collection of unrelated info, with a borderline POV title.

About the Schweitzer issue: The vote was a suggestion from Mr.choppers that I agree with, but I made clear that all the involved parts should accept the result. As you imply you will not accept the result if it is contrary to your viewpoint, the vote hasn't much sense because it will not be resolving the content dispute. If you don't like discussing with me or if you think I'm wrong about this, that's a good reason to open a RfC or seek input from related WikiProjects. You can have different opinions from different editors, especially uninvolved parts. At least one established and non-biased editor, Mr.choppers, agrees with you, so I think you have very good reasons to do it, as there's a clear chance that you will get support. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

=> Hello Urbanoc, would you like to give me one week to answer to you ? I am very busy. During this time, you could read the MIT and Oxford UP sources about Schweitzer, what will enable you to change your mind and accept the input of Schweitzer as a key man in Renault's history, and you could find some other sources too. I have no personal interest to mention that Schweitzer had the most key role in Renault's history, so accusing me of POV is irrelevant. The 3 other professors who wrote about his key role, in the sources that I added, don't have a special "POV" either. Their reports are about the "managements methods", not about Schweitzer, but obviously they have to mention him as the man that invented this new management and managed to apply it in Renault and the other companies. The new "company culture" that he managed to settle, and his new way to make agreements with some other companies, instead of buying and erasing the other company management is what Ghosn still does now. This "respect" was new. Also, what they explain is that Schweitzer invented what one calls "agile methods" now !! He set a few key goals, and created a reactive and agile culture, strong involvement and some strong interactions between people. These 2 PhDs don't write the "agile methods" words (maybe they don't know them), yet what they write is exactly the definition of the agile methods ! Obviously, you will play on that to refuse that the words "agile methods" could be used to describe what Schweitzer settled, as the 2 PhD from MIT don't write them explicitly, and it is a pity to do that... For innovations, I added a source to explain the patent. The story of this gear is told in many articles. Thanks to it, the Renault car could go up on slopes better than any car, and this fact convinced its first buyers. This story is told in many sources. The purely mechanical gear, instead of the previous ones with some "string", made it much better and that is why the Renault car won some races early on real roads with slopes. The principle of "cogs only" was then developed as the best research "direction" by the Citroen engineers later and any other brands. So this innovation had an influence on the whole car industry. As Louis Renault invented it, then he is mentioned too. Obviously, one could "prefer" to not mention him, and no problem for me, only the invention can be mentioned, yet it is like for rock music, if you mention it, then you will have to mention Elvis Presley too, but there is probably a way to cite this key innovation, without citing Louis Renault, if you prefer that. For me, only the innovation is important. As for sections, my actions are clear : I don't ask to remove anything in Ford etc. articles, and I never do that. I am infinitely good faith, as you know inside of you. I just ask that the same sections, same lengths, same number of photos, so the same rules would be applied to all the articles of companies that are in the same domain. Obviously, the Ford, GM etc. awards should be cited in their articles too. It is an assessment. And there is no reason to cite a concurrent brand in a company article. So no reason to cite Renault in GM, and to cite GM etc. in Renault. Yet, you could argue that we should cite Renault in GM, because for example, you could say "GM had "x" ECOTY awards, behind the two best ranked brands : Fiat and Renault", but you don't want Renault to appear in GM, Ford, VW etc, so you don't ask that. I am neutral, and to give the raw number is enough. AND SAME RULES FOR ALL THE ARTICLES ! Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

History

At 146kb, the Renault article is getting unwieldy. My browser can't even load the whole page in wikiEd. The history section looks excessively long to me, I think it's time to hive off a chunk of it into a History of Renault article. Any objections? Vrac (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do it. I seem to remember reading a wiki guideline somewhere that says once you get to 30kb the time has arrived when you might .... at least consider ways to split the entry into chunks easier for all our "devices" to (1) download and (2) display without too much use of the "find" function. And 146 > 30.

Also in my judgement (which you are under no obligation to share) there is scope for improvement of the history section. I guess we all have different ideas about what improvement means, but in some parts it is heavily dependent on just one or two anglophone sources which tend to take a slightly monocultural anglo-saxon approach. I'm all in favour of an anglo-saxon approach, but we get a broader picture if we access sources in other languages as well, especially where subject conducted/underwent most of its early history in French. And your user page suggests that you might be quite a fluent reader in some language(s) in addition to English. So I just thought I'd mention it. And please. But you will already be doing the entry a great service if you have time and patience simply to start by splitting out the history section as it is into a separate wiki entry/page, maybe just leaving a 5-20 line summary of it on the main Renault page. Your call. Success Charles01 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that improvement is needed, as a separate article I think the history content will probably get more attention. Vrac (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, don't reduce the Renault history.

1. this article has less than 73 100 useful characters, including the punctuation and the blank characters.
2. MORE THAN HALF of the total size, 76 774 characters for the asked "reference"CODE (!), not readable characters.

=> So the "showed" number of characters on the history page are mostly because of the numerous "sources" asked by Urbanoc, Vrac etc.

1. 227 asked sources for Renault, only 106 for Volkswagen for example, so 115% more sources asked for Renault than for VW.
2. Renault has a long history from 1898, so it is normal that it has a longer text for that in comparison to Volkswagen for example that has an history only from when Adolf Hitler pushed to create it in 1937. Renault has a 50% longer history and then it would be normal that its text would be 50% longer than this of Volkswagen for example.
3. So point 1 proves that actually the REAL TEXT in the Renault article is not longer that this in VW, yet the history of Renault is 50% longer. So why reducing Renault whereas it is already too short text in comparison to its longer history ? It would be an unequal treatment. Again.
4. Many point deserve to be added anyway, like buses, tramway, contribution of Louis Schweitzer, innovations etc.
5. Only 5-20 lines are not what is made for Ford, GM, VW, so it is an unequal treatment to "apply" an eventual "rule", but not applying it to the other companies of the same domain.

To conclude, there is no emergency to do that, on the contrary, to validate the Louis Schweitzer input and adding some texts are a bigger priority. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have no stance in this, but merely pointing out that what Charles was likely referring to above is the standards at WP:SIZERULE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Some quick fingered fellow replied to you ahead of me, but I think both our responses merit inclusion here!

Hmmmm. I think there maybe a misunderstanding here. There is no question in Vrac's proposal (nor in my support for it) of losing any text. The question is only whether to include all the paragraphs on the history of the company within the Renault article as it is or whether we should have a SEPARATE article called "History of Renault" or whatever. Each would be linked to the other using links that people can click on. The issue is a practical one. In England (not just in England) we have a lousy telecoms infrastructure and very large wikipedia pages can take a long time to down load, especially at busy times of day (evening, weekends, in a domestic context) when the neighbo(u)rs are all trying to watch movies down a fifty year old set of copper wires. Smaller pages are quicker to down load and easier to read. These days some people insist on reading wiki pages on "Handy" telephones that they keep in their pockets. I don't, but I understand that for these people, too, it gets hard to read a very large page on a very small screen.

You write that many points need to be added. I think I agree. But that makes the page even longer and even more difficult to use as a single page on a small screen device.

I'm not sure I understand your reference to the VW page. But if it the VW page is shorter than the Renault page (and yes, it is), that is likely to be because people have already separated out sections into separate pages. That is all that is proposed here. The Renault page on English wikipedia appears to have started as a translation from the Renault page on French wikipedia, but people have added to it - which is great (except if they add garbage) - and now the Renault page in English wikipedia is much larger and much harder to find your way around than the Renault page in French wikipedia.

I repeat, our colleague's suggestion that the Renault page might usefully be split has nothing to do with losing information. His objective (unless you know something about some hidden agenda that he has cunningly concealed from the rest of us) is to make the information easier to access, both for those of us who might be able to add to/improve it and (MUCH MORE IMPORTANT) for non-contributors who come to Wikipedia hoping to learn something new.

I think, too, that you may be conflating two (at least) completely different sets of issues:

Do we split out the History Section into a separate entry? Yes or no?

2015-03-14 => No, the question is not simply "do you split or not ?" the relevant question is :

1. why splitting Renault whereas the history text is not longer than the VW one ? Inconsistent and unequal treatment. I proved mathematically that, and yet this main argument has been totally ignored...
2. why splitting Renault whereas Renault has actually a 50% longer history in time ? So a 50% longer text would be normal. So inconsistent and unequal treatment.
3. why splitting only Renault ? If Renault is split, then ALL must be split now too, equal treatment, and the actions for that must be validated first for the other articles too. Equal treatment, not unequal actions for an article and not for the others.
4. if it was split, how it would be "split" ? Guarantee that a at least 3 dozens of points would be mentioned in the main article, with more details in the linked article etc.
5. The history is precisely one of the MAIN purposes of the main article, removing it to another article is inconsistent.
6. etc.
7. I am very cooperative, but this claim is based on FALSE number of characters, as MORE than HALF of the characters in the article are not readable, but due too the too numerous "references" CODE asked for Renault, and not as much for the carmakers, is biased from the beginning etc. So the reason given to split is FALSE ! Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Louis Schweitzer more significant in the survival of Renault than, for instance (a candidate of my own) Pierre Lefaucheux?

There are other issues that you have raised as well, but surely it is clear to you that if you muddy a lot of issues into a single soup, you make it vanishingly unlikely that you, or anyone else, will ever obtain agreement on anything. And (which is maybe worse) the soup can become pretty toxic as it bubbles away week after week

I have been following your exchanges on this page for some time now, and although there is abundant evidence of anger and frustration, there is also evidence of simple mutual incomprehension. If your mother tongue is not English, please, what is it? It may be that if some of the people interested were able to address you in a different, mutually more comprehensible language, the scope for misunderstanding might be reduced. And whatever the merits of the situation, all this misunderstanding wastes an awful lot of time, especially for you.

And it slows down the progress on improving the Renault page which is something to which we are (presumably) all committed. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Charles01 wrote "we have a lousy telecoms infrastructure and very large wikipedia pages can take a long time to down load" => one person can download 1 GigaByte of video, but not 10 000 less ? You are joking... The page has this size, because Vrac, Urbanoc etc. ASKED many sources for anything ! 227 sources asked ! 105 for VW...
• I have no guarantee that the split will not be an opportunity to erase the rare positive information about Renault. And anyway, with the same size of text and a shorter history since Adolf Hitler pushed for its creation, Volkswagen is not "split"... I'll answer more later. Cheers ! 83.157.24.224 (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is no particular reason to believe that a split would lead to a loss of information. I'm giving you another reminder to assume good faith. If no one is proposing shortening it, then you need not debate it. No one wants that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

For the tenth time: the link to Corvette (not Corvet) was good when I originally added it, but turned bad because of link rot, as the 2015 COTY was added to the list. No one is spamming, please stop accusing me of it, and go ahead and apologize already. You are turning into a true nuisance and if you do not change your behaviour I will instead begin the process of having you blocked. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

=> I am sorry if you felt upset by what I wrote, but I have never accused you, only mentioned some third party assessments, based on several modifications like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renault&diff=639122385&oldid=639096407 As to me, I have tried to defend you on the contrary, and that is why I have proposed you to write a new article also. So, you are really, really wrong by thinking that would not "like" you. Have a nice day. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

=> Thank you to remind "assume good faith", but strangely enough you do not remind that to Urbanoc when he accuses me to be pro-Renault, pro-French, to have and "agenda", and "advocacy" and all the other important and false accusations. I am not like that at all. So you oblige me to remind you that you don't remind "assume good faith" either to Chales01 when he states that citing the Renault building in Swindon is a part of the UK culture and design (given Grade*II) would be a 'corporate' release, whereas it is a purely British association that supported that. I know that you always support these people, and help them to deny all my true and relevant information, and even accuses me yourself, but are all wrong. So please, "assume good faith" you too. As noticed Charles01, it is a "war", and indeed it is just a group of people that blocks systematically some true and positive inputs, that attacks one man, that asks 120% more references for Renault than for VW or Ford etc. and uses that to say that the Renault article counts too many characters precisely because of that (!), that "raises" some rules for Renault to limit it, but not the same for some other companies, that adds a tabloid source showing and speaking about a music band "cage a googoo" to laugh at this company, adds some links to Chevrolet Corvet instead of Renault Alliance etc... As you perfectly know that I am good faith and that after all these people actions nobody would trust anymore these people. But please, stop accusing me, I continue the study, and I follow all the blocking constraints etc. They blocked the article, what is not a normal situation for such a long time. Urbanoc blocks the input of Schweitzer in spite of 2 Universities sources, all what I add is blocked systematically, with "advocacy" accusation with no proofs except some biased personal opinions. My inputs about the innovations are true, but blocked. Etc. Once again, I am a PhD and Professor, my articles in English are published in some professional reviews and more public magazines (yet Charles01 claims that my level in English is not good enough and ask my nationality), and I have certainly no agenda. The article about Renault is really biased in a bad way, and WP supports that and some books are edited from this biased contents. It is not a little thing. Cheers. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying it doesn't make sense to object to something on grounds that are not even being proposed in the first place. Shortening the article is not being proposed, so a fear of the article being shortened isn't a valid reason for your stance.Your concerns about the tabloid source that said something about "caging a googoo" are irrelevant, as the source was not used to introduce any actually bad content to the article. And I remind you again, that you having a PhD give you no special status in these discussions. (Especially since you edit anonymously - anybody could claim that.) If anything, these sorts of comments you rely on will probably only serve to annoy and alienate other editors. Stop carrying on about things that are beside the point. This is why your discussions never get anywhere, too much other crap gets in the way. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

=> I proposed a relevant input for the "Renault Distribution Centre" : simple and with source, and in between, only some false accusations, instead of answering to my request about the "Renault Distribution Centre". So don't accuse me, please. Have a nice day or evening. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That has absolutely no relevance to what I'm saying or what we're talking about. Even if you were right, you do realize other people doing things that are wrong would not justify your wrong-doings, correct? "Two wrongs don't make a right", as they say. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSPIRACY + WP:IKNOW + WP:OTHERSTUFF = WP:NOTHERE. Vrac (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I really think Vrac's idea of splitting history into its own article has sense, as it has been made before. Renault history is indeed quite complex, but many details has no direct relation with the current operation of the company. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

=> You ignore all my arguments and refuse to answer, because they are good, so read what is at "11:59, 14 March 2015". The main purpose of the main article is precisely to tell the history not only what is actual, and so your claim is a total non-sense. History is not only the actual operation ! Anyway, it has no sense to make this request only for Renault, whereas VW has a 50% shorter history, an history text as long as the Renault one yet, and the same people who want to remove the main part of the Renault article, does not do that for Ford etc., so it is obviously a deliberate unequal treatment of the articles. You always say, "we will do it in the other articles too, but you never do that in GM, Ford, VW etc.", so these false promises are an obvious unequal treatment and bias, with a purpose. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As you've already been told multiple times, what is happening at the VW article has no bearing on this article, and editors have no responsibility to address problems that may be at the VW article. And all of your empty claims of bias have been debunked, and will lead you to another block if you don't drop it as you've been instructed. You cannot just default to "bias" whenever you don't agree with the opposing side's stance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renault in the UK

I suggest this input in the Renault in the UK §

Renault is known in the UK for its support to the British architecture and design innovations by hiring the young architect Norman Foster in 1978, in order to build the Renault Distribution Centre (1980-1982) in Swindon, UK. Therefore, the headquarters that Lord Norman Foster designed for Renault cars has been given Grade II*-listed status in 2013 by English Heritage, in order to "protect post-war architecture". This Renault warehouse had some full glass walls, a metal structure -yellow steel "umbrella masts"-, a floor area of 24,000 m2 and was structured by twenty four square modules, which if needed could be extended to 30,000 m2. The yellow colour was chosen for this building, to fit the Renault's graphical identity. This Renault warehouse won four awards, like the "European Award for Industrial Architecture", Hanover – First Prize and the 'Financial Times' "Architecture at Work" Award. The Renault Distribution Centre was chosen for its innovative and futuristic shapes, for some scenes of the 1985 James Bond film, "A View to a Kill", staring Roger Moore and Patrick MacNee. The innovative Renault building in Swindon had a key role for the Norman Foster international promotion in addition to the promotion of the British design.

I don't know who you are, but you already look as if you have your sources. I would cautiously recommend a separate page on the Norman Foster building which I would respectfully urge you to start. You should certainly link it to the Renault page, but (1) I think it's important enough to deserve its own page and (2) the main Renault page already has a lot of strands that are not specially well aligned with each other and (3) right now there is what I think wikipedia calls an "edit war" and an excellent couple of paras from you on the Swindon facility would risk getting steam rollered in the cross fire (with apologies for the mixed metaphor). Incidently, if you want inspiration about lay-out etc, here are a couple of links to entries on Renault factories:

Flins Renault Factory

Vilvoorde Renault Factory

But of course there's nothing to prevent you from improving on and adapting in order (1) to respect your sources and (2) provide something more appropriate to your subject matter. And please when drafting up actual copy for a wikipedia entry, avoid any statement that begins "Renault is well known for..." at least, unless you have a really copper bottomed source for it. Statements that appear to come from corporate press releases tend to be seen as "unencyclopaedic" and not just by me.... What you do on a talk page, of course, can be as unencyclopaedic as you like. Success Charles01 (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

=>

• To make a separate page does not prevent to add these few lines first in the main article to precisely link it
• My suggestion has nothing to do with a 'corporate' release, the claim is made by English Heritage, the British association of architecture and the local politicians, the source is from the BBC ! All these accusations are totally false and hostile.
• On the contrary, the use of the word OUTLANDISH in the actual Renault page is denigrating and arbitrary and with no source, but none of you did asked for the "NPOV" for that.
• This text about the Renault Distribution Centre is directly linked to the main Renault page "Renault in the UK" §. The two links that you put have nothing to do "Renault in the UK"...
• The text about the culture architecture of UK is really Encyclopaedic
• As for your other numerous comments, I'll try to answer them by order of priority. I do no war, as to me, and as you know. Each time that I add some true and simple information, the text is blocked by asking some numerous sources. When I add anything like this relevant connection between Renault and the UK, one argues to block it. You notice a war, and it is against me and all my relevant texts indeed, not my fault. I don't block Ford, GM, or and company. I don't had negatives sources in these articles, anyway they would be "voted" insignificant and blocked. It is really ridiculous that half of a dozen of people attack and block again and again only one person, in spite of the relevancy of his texts, and absolutely no "pro-Renault" aim. Denying that Schweitzer had a key role is really significant by the way. Cheers. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

In this setting "outlandish" is a compliment. Just because something has a source does not mean it merits inclusion on this particular page. Please apologize for having accused me of spamming.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the building is probably notable enough to have its own article. However, I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the "Renault in the UK" section, even less with that level of detail. It can be mentioned if all agree with that, but the detail should undoubtedly be in another article. I think anyone interested should go ahead and create the article, with the caveat the structure isn't called Renault Distribution Centre anymore, it's the Spectrum building. I don't know if Renault Distribution Centre can be used as a WP:COMMONNAME. Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

=> False, this building has to be mentioned in the main article, as well in the "History" § than especially in the "Renault in UK" § the actual name or not the BBC, the tourism office, Norman Foster and anybody still calls it the Renault building, it is yellow, because it is the graphical identity of Renault, and above all these relevant arguments, this building was inspired and created for Renault, that ordered it, chose the architect, ask him to do something futuristic, paid for it, and thus contributed to the promotion of the British design, the British architecture, Norman Foster himself (sourced) and the UK promotion, and all the awards have been given to the Renault Distribution Centre, not to another name. It is obvious that this information has to be mentioned in the main Renault article, and it is quite strange to oppose to that. It is a revision of history, what is typical of some people. All the good things are systematically erased from the Renault article, and it is an obvious bias. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What shame the IP editor is back to her/his old tricks. The Renault Centre (sometimes also known as Renault Distribution Centre) by Norman Foster is well worth an entry - a very notable building completed in 1982 and an important part of the development of Hi Tech architecture in Britain. However, in the overall global context of the company, it doesn't warrant yet another edit war. One line in the UK section would be most appropriate, with a link to a more detailed article. Warren (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Great work Warren, thanks. I was unsure of including a mention of the building into the "Renault in the UK" section, but I think your text fits perfectly. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit war to prevent true and neutral information to be recorded

Hello. As usual, the same group of users erase some true and neutral information and statistics, and begins an edit war, with no argument, only arbitrary judgements to CENSURE the content in the Renault article.

1. A user accuses on "promotion" => FALSE, on the national origin of the contributor based on IP => IRRELEVANT, makes arbitrary judgements with no arguments or proof, only his judgement => NO VALUE, erases some information about the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove or the Clerkenwell design week => CENSURE, uses BAD WORDS like "junk" what is clearly a personal attack => SHAME and violation of the WP rules http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renault&diff=prev&oldid=665212864 "Reverted usual promotional junk by French IP because a) The previous para refers to 2012 target sales, not 2014. b) The "cultural impact" of the ad is yet to be proven, a lot of videos have 300k views b) Still no source for the "257""
2. Notice that I wrote 157, not 257, as 157 is the actual number of Renault dealers in the UK in may 2015. Why this user decrease it to "about 150" ? 157 is factual or he could have written "about 160" NOT 150. Concerning Renault, this user always decreases the TRUE FIGURES to some worse ones
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renault&diff=prev&oldid=665211838 "Reverted usual promotional junk by French IP because a) The previous para refers to 2012 target sales, not 2014. b) The "cultural impact" of the ad is yet to be proven, a lot of videos have 300k views b) Still no source for the "257"" => Precisely, 300 000 views in 4 weeks is a success, as usually the Renault videos have 100 times less views, it is a fact. Even Unruly pointed out in an analysis article that this viral video is well built http://unruly.co/blog/article/2015/04/27/new-renault-ad-brings-the-west-end-to-the-car-dealership/ and notice that "This post is not part of the commercial plan and is written by the editorial team at Unruly, whose opinions are always independent, sometimes scurrilous, and never knowingly under-researched."
4. This user erased some sales figures statistics. Why ? It is an arbitrary censure.

This content is not promotional : "Renault has a strong interest in British design know how. In 2014, Renault asked the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove to "dress" its Twingo III with leds, as the Twin'Z concept car. In 2015, Renault participated to the Clerkenwell Design Week 2015. Renault is also acknowledged for its contribution to design by the British professionals, like for example the Renault Twingo III has been awarded the title of "Design of the Year" in the 2015 Fleet World Honours."

I will write more later. Thank you ! 83.157.24.224 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• If you want people to take you seriously, stop spouting rubbish like saying "junk" is a personal attack. Nothing is being censored, you're just adding in excessive detail that is excessively promotional. There is 0 evidence that this Renault advert has any relevance outside of a few blogs and YouTube, none of which are reliable sources. And you clearly are a French IP, as WHOIS tells us that, so cut the accusations of racism... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

=>

• Such a bad word than "junk" is clearly a personal attack. QED.
• Precisely, what is strange is that you both "spy" people origin of IP ! I don't do that. What you do is clearly an approach, based on nationality discrimination. A neutral person would not spy what is the location, only people who have nationality focus do that ! QED.
• And you what is your IP ? What is your nationality/ies ? Where do you live ? If you are interested in spying people, then you should reveal your information and location too !
• I noticed that you have absolutely no argument to justify that this content can be CENSURED and to erase some independent sources. You just drop "it is promotional", with no proof. Citing the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove is promotional ? Ridiculous. So, to censure the citation of his work is based on nothing serious. Only arbitrary judgement with no proof. QED.

Now give some objective arguments to explain why my content is censured, and even some 2 sales statistics, but not just claiming wrongly and arbitrarily that it would be promotion. It is not. When the statistics are bad, you and your friends don't oppose to add them, you even both add them yourself. The only thing that annoys you, is that the objective figures are better. You oppose to positive news, never to negative ones. Urbanoc etc add some very denigrating content like "proved uncompetitive" or "proved unsuccessful", yet nobody could check that this claim was really in some "sources", but for that you don't oppose, as it is denigrating against this company. The people here just erase the positive news, to prevent the content to be balanced, and add some negative ones, and even add some negative claims that are FALSE. In addition, when people read this article, it claims that Renault more helped the Nazis than the German companies do in their articles, what is obviously totally false and a strange revisionism of the History. Who has interest to claim that German companies are cleaned and a company from France is dirty ? As you are particularly interested to the "origins" of people, then answer to that ;-)

I removed "viral success" about the viral video, yet it is, as usually Renault videos have 10 times or 100 times less views. Thus no reason to remove this content. In addition, some professionals also wrote : davidreviews.com "maybe this extraordinary film for Renault is going to help them corner that particular market It's a fully committed piece of work and, if you're not a fan of this musical genre and you stay with it to the end, you may feel as though you deserve a free Renault Twingo. It is clever too... it must work on a loop as it ends more or less where it starts - although you may not notice that a musical number has just finished when you watch it the first time" It is independent and positive. My other source points out also a positive analysis about how the story and video are made. So, 2 independent reviews by some people that analyse the marketing approach are positive, why removing these proofs ? 83.157.24.224 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog, and the material you're edit warring to get into the article is promotional trivia that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Everyone here is against adding it, so accept it, and find something else to do. Thomas.W ^talk 16:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

=> Stop your arbitrary accusations with no proof. You even don't take into account my arguments above, sources and proofs : totally arbitrary deny with no analysis. Citing statistics is not promotion, on the contrary, the fact that a group of users add the decreasing statistics of 2012, but has never added the increasing statistics of 2013, 2014, 2015 (THREE YEARS), is itself a proof of a bias, as well as the opposition, "edit war" and blocking when I add these NEUTRAL STATISTICS published by the SMMT. I add only facts. Mentioning the Ross Lovegrove has nothing promotional, it is just a fact. But a fact that some people do not want to appear, as it seems positive to them. Some professional of marketing point out the good approach of the viral "chorus line" like maybe this extraordinary film... It's a fully committed piece of work and the TWO sources that I added, and that have been ARBITRARY ERASED. I will certainly not stop contributing here. It is a part of our study. "Everyone here is against adding it" : a group of people, a dozen, out of 7 billion potential readers ? Statistically unnoticeable. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Junk is not a personal attack. It requires a fairly poor grasp of English to think that it is (or, one may argue, a deliberately selective grasp of English), particularly in the context given. Likewise, whilst ranting about "spying" (you're the one who is editing from an IP) and making a lot of hot air about being "stalked" (which is obviously daft), you could easily go to my userpage, where I identify myself as being English. Oh, and before you try and claim something along the lines of "you must hate Renault", my parents have owned three, and indeed my dad's car is still a Renault. So, yeah. You use very flowery, promotional language and have been reverted by a lot of editors. It is not "censorship". Likewise, where does the article claim that Renault helped the Nazis more than the German firms? Quite frankly, it makes it obvious that they did the exact opposite, although Louis Renault's enemies did use the opportunity to remove him from the picture. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

=> YES, "junk" is a very denigrating personal attack, as well as when you write "It requires a fairly poor grasp of English to think that it is". You even don't talk about my arguments above, sources and proofs : totally arbitrary deny with no analysis. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I checked the IP's global contributions and found that they seem to have a full time job adding promotional material for Renault/Peugeot/Citroen on Wikipedia, adding machine translated text on Wikipedias in 20 different languages, from Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Czech, Hungarian and Russian to Indonesian and Chinese. So I've just reverted them on the Swedish Wikipedia because of the horrible machine translation of the text. He's edit-warring on the French Wikipedia too, BTW, to get his material into an article there, but he can hardly accuse them of chauvinism for not wanting his material. Thomas.W ^talk 17:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

=> YES, I added some photos in some articles. The question is : why do you want to transform the normal action of adding some photos in some articles into a "promotion crime" ? You make some false and totally arbitrary and hostile judgements. Many defamations. I do not make "edit war" on the French Wikipedia, or anywhere. Like here, a user, who likes adding some photos of the Golf everywhere (...), erases my references there too. Like when I change the word crossover to SUV, because this vehicle is precisely a SUV, what is proven by a source from a serious magazine,then this user erased my reference, and wrote crossover again. This is how the people, who add some photos of the Golf everywhere, behave on WP. When I added some information about the Renault's engineer Bézier, he also removed them, arguing that it was "promotional" (the same rhetoric and the same false excuses than here, what is certainly not a coincidence). Bézier's work is historical, not promotional. And so on... On the PSA article, there were some accusations telling that they sell to much Diesel engines, yet the official statistics of 2008, are close to 90% Diesel for the German brands and 75% for PSA in 2008 for example. This user did not erase these false information during 10 years. Because they were false and denigrating about these companies. I am guilty of nothing, even if you want to change the truth into a fuzzy false dream. Each word that I add is relevant. But the people make edit wars to me, because I dare to write some true information that are not negative, have certainly no fair intentions. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Did you have a point within the "the world hates me" whining? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

=> I notice that you make personal attack, but you never discuss about my reliable sources mentioning Ross Lovegrove and the relevancy of the "chorus line" viral video that is congratulated as well as professionals than the people. QED. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Primary sources don't convey any notability whatsoever. No one has any interest in your promotional waffle, so go and find something else to do away from Wikipedia, pleasea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

=> I notice that except having a typical bashing rethoric "go away, nobody wants you here" ("No one has any interest in your promotional waffle, so go and find something else to do away from Wikipedia") and using some denigrating words like "waffle" as a personal attack, you have no argument. And obviously, a little number of users is not everybody. You even lie :

1. LIE : my sources are NOT PRIMARY, but from independent observers davidreviews, Unruly, I can add this one http://www.gizmag.com/ross-lovegrove-renault-twinz/26980/ from Gizmag and any other sources that are as reliable as these I have already added
2. LIE : Unruly is not a blog, but a company. In addition, some professionals have a blog, and it does not make them less professional. Even some editor in chief have some blogs. Fuzzy "argument", as far as the word argument could be used here.
3. "No one has any interest in your promotional waffle" : you state this, with no proof, arbitrary egocentric judgements. How egocentric and narrow minded someone can be to dare to speak in the name of everybody ? 1/ nothing to do with promotional to mention the work of Ross Lovegrove or the sales statistics etc. 2/ some people do interest to such information. All the other people are not narrow minded. There are 7 billion people, so 1/ many different interests exist and 2/ what are even not half a dozen of people who systematically disagree here ? Unnoticeable. Urbanoc erased the 2014 sales figures and also for cars and vans, why ? He did not remove them in 2012, because they were not good, but he erases them for 2014 when they are better. To mention the designer Ross Lovegrove is relevant, to mention the Clerkenwell design week is useful and a tribute to the British design "school", to add the sales statistics is useful, to mention how Renault has chosen to make a tribute to the "Covent garden" and West End theatres culture has pleased a lot of people, 300 000 views in 5 weeks, what proves that actually many people did find an interest in it, so the OPPOSITE OF YOUR FALSE STATEMENT, and the professional observers told "maybe this extraordinary film... It's a fully committed piece of work". Only a few people cannot censure all this and even the usual statistics. There are a lot of people on Earth who are not as narrow minded.

Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's not the true story, and you know it. You do more than just add photos, you also add machine translated text glorifying Renault/Peugeot/Citroen. In fact adding material that glorifies Renault/Peugeot/Citroen is all you do on the 21 (as of last count) different language versions of Wikipedia you edit. And you've been doing it for months. You were the one who used the term "edit war" ("guerre d'edition") in an edit summary on the French Wikipedia, BTW, in defence of a large edit you made, and there would be no reason for that unless others had been claiming that you were in fact edit-warring. You show the exact same battleground mentality there as here, too, seemingly wanting confrontation. Not a good tactic for someone who's out the get promotional material into articles on Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 11:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

=> FALSE. I notice that you make personal attack, but you never discuss about my reliable sources mentioning Ross Lovegrove and the relevancy of the "chorus line" viral video that is congratulated as well as professionals than the people. QED. I added some photos, some statistics and some true information, and fortunately most of the time they have been validated, but yes as Mr Choppers said previously "there are a lot of VW fanboys" and some other marques fanboys to or professionals who use WP as a way to make a bias in some articles. These 3 companies articles are/were extremely biased, so I had to intervene. I removed some false contents, showing some proofs and statistics, and some people admitted that I was right. So stop saying that it is the world against me, it is only a group of fanboys that want to harm some companies on WP. The bad statistics of 2012 are shown, and Urbanoc erased the better sales figures of 2014 too. QED ! 83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are capable of honestly asking yourself a question, try this: who is really the fanboy here? Vrac (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

=> I notice that you only make some personal attacks and you even do not discuss about the real questions about the content : Why did Urbanoc erase the sales figures of PC and cars and vans in 2014 when there are better, but not these of 2012, when there were worse ? Why not mentioning the work of the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove ? Like you opposed to mention the Renault Centre and N. Foster. Why not mentioning the Clerkenwell design week ? Why not mentioning the viral campaign that has a big success as well as towards people than among the professionals ? Etc. I do not expect any fair or relevant answer from you obviously. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You have no credibility. Don't expect people to take you seriously when you do things like consistently add POV content to articles, or call others racist because they note that you have a French IP. Vrac (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

=> I notice that you only make some personal attacks and bullying, but you do not discuss about the real questions : Why did Urbanoc erase the sales figures of PC and cars and vans in 2014 when there are better, but not these of 2012, when there were worse ? Why not mentioning the work of the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove ? Like you opposed to mention the Renault Centre and N. Foster. Why not mentioning the Clerkenwell design week ? Why not mentioning the viral campaign that has a big success as well as towards people than among the professionals ? Etc. I do not expect any fair answer from you obviously. I make no POV content, only FACTS, so your accusations are defamation. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Please find a more useful hobby.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

=> I notice that you only make some personal attacks and bullying, but you do not discuss about the content. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

---

ADDING THIS CONTENTS WITH INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY REFERENCES, IT IS FACTUAL. WHICH ITEM IS NOT ?

I notice that except bullying and making some personal attacks, nobody has some neutral arguments to prevents this content to be edited :

1. FACTUAL : In 2014 the Renault sales outperformed the market overall growth with a 43.7% increase and 66,334 personal vehicles -in spite of a range limited to the Clio, Captur, Mégane, Zoe, Scénic, Kangoo, Twizy and the the third-generation Twingo -launched at the end of 2014- and 84,578 cars and vans (+42.7%).
2. FACTUAL : In the first half of 2015, the Renault dealership network comprised 157 sales outlets and aims at expanding to 170 in 2015.
3. FACTUAL : Renault has a strong interest in British design know how. In 2014, Renault asked the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove to "dress" its Twingo III with leds, as the Twin'Z concept car.
4. FACTUAL : In 2015, Renault participated to the Clerkenwell Design Week 2015.
5. FACTUAL : Renault is also acknowledged for its contribution to design by the British professionals, like for example the Renault Twingo III has been awarded the title of "Design of the Year" in the 2015 Fleet World Honours.
6. FACTUAL : In April 2015, Renault released a film performing a genuine chorus line, "All-new Twingo : show me a car", in which a twee styled woman is searching a nifty car. This brief musicals got a in the UK with approximately 300,000 views in 4 weeks and was pointed out as a creative work by professionals and a West End of London tribute. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• "No one has neutral arguments" - the fact that it is inappropriately promotional and excessive detail is indeed a valid objection, and there's no such thing as a "neutral argument". Just because these things are factual does not mean that an encyclopedia needs to include them. Also, whilst you're waffling on about using secondary sources, one of your facts is still solely cited to Hylton Renault, whilst some of those are cited to YouTube, to blogs, etc. The only thing there that is even close to appropriate for an encyclopedia is the factoid about the sales growth, and even then, it would need substantially rewriting from the perspective of someone who is not kissing Renault's backside, with language that is actually neutral. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

=> FALSE

• Gizmag is NOT a primary source. Ross Lovegrove is a very good designer whose work deserves to be mentioned. He did not do that for money, but because it was an interesting opportunity.
• Newcarnet is NOT a primary source.
• Unruly is a company NOT a blog. Anyway, a blog by some professionals is reliable.
• DavidReviews is an online mag. Anyway, a blog by some professionals is reliable.

• Hylton is NOT a primary source, as the award is given by Fleet World, that is then the primary source ! But I also have this source from NEXT GREEN CAR http://www.nextgreencar.com/news/7089/twingo-wins-design-of-the-year-award-2015/ Happy ? Certainly not, as your only will is to find some reasons to censure a true content. Too bad.
• I did not cite Youtube first, but only after Urbanoc asked me to prove the total number of views !

Notice one thing : WP IS a blog ! WP has no Professor Doctor as reviewer. It is a pity. Because then, a few organised and biased ignorants can make their own arbitrary rules on WP, for example by blocking some contents, by making a "vote" to create a special unfair rule for Renault etc. and bully some users from a WP account.

FALSE : these informations are encyclopaedic. Ross Lovegrove deserves to be cited, as well as the Clerkenwell Design Week, the statistics, the design award by an independent magazine, and the tribute of Renault to the British love for musicals. Even p*rn "actresses" are cited on WP. More encyclopeadic than citing the works of Ross Lovegrove ? NO. So, please, stop your arbitrary blocking to harm especially the Renault company.

And thank you for all your very denigrating words and personal attacks like "you're waffling on" and strange concepts revealing your personality like "kissing Renault's backside". It is a rhetoric of teenagers or low level persons, isn't it ?

ANYTHING ELSE ? Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes; you don't understand English. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is a wiki. The only source I said was primary was Hylton, which IS primary (I should know - my parents Renaults came from Hylton Renault!) as it is part of Renault. There is little evidence that most of these websites/magazines/whatever are reliable, and some of the Unruly sources are blogs. Note how they're in the "blog" section of the website. Please stop wasting everyone's time with this silliness. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

=> I notice that you make personal attacks using some denigrating and arbitrary judgement like "silliness" or "you don't understand English". FALSE. Any British, Australian, American, and people who write and speak English understand me, and I understand them ! :D Stop speaking about Hylton as I gave another source : "Next green car". So YOU JUST DENY that I BRING SOME NEW SECONDARY SOURCES, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE AN EDIT WAR. SO no primary source. And anyway, AGAIN, Hylton is not the primary source of the award, the primary source is the magazine that gives the award. Anyway, I brought a new secondary source, and you want to continue a fight whereas, NEXT GREEN CAR is a secondary reliable source. Unruly professionals add their articles in "blog" just because it corresponds to the usual Content management system architecture, to add some content that does precisely not correspond to their own contracts : secondary source. For the people who have an overall knowledges of these things, it is trivial. The blog in the URL is due to the CMS architecture, nothing else ! Sorry that you ignore that, and dare to use ignorance in a wrong way. So you have then absolutely no rational and neutral argument against all these reliable secondary sources, about true information concerning the involvement of this company into the United Kingdom events, culture and best people. These information have then to be published. Obviously, if you want to change some words to present these information with the same meaning, you can make some propositions. They are welcome ! Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've noticed that you are interpreting almost every word you don't like as a "personal attack". Either this is a deliberate choice on your behalf, or your understanding of English is pretty poor. And, no, "next green car" is not a reliable source, nor are most of the sources you are citing. Until such time as you have learned Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and not spamming everywhere, please go and find something else to do. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote your beloved car company. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I was out for a few days and I'm shocked. IP, I'm calling this way as you found offensive the French part, although your edits are almost exclusively aimed at promoting Peugeot/Citroën/Renault, French marques. However, I feel IP is too generic and 83.157.24.224 is difficult to remember and I have to copy/paste it. How do you want to be addressed? As for the "junk" bit, it wasn't a "personal attack" as you said, it was referring to the content you added, not to you, and it's not a so derogatory word as you pretend.

I haven't too much to add, as other editors answered better than I could. However, I have to respond to some complaints about this edit of mine. I'll cite fragments of previous posts to answer:

1)

"...Notice that I wrote 157, not 257, as 157 is the actual number of Renault dealers in the UK in may 2015. Why this user decrease it to "about 150" ? 157 is factual or he could have written "about 160" NOT 150..."

Sorry for the typo, I was meaning "157" in the edit summary. Well, I wrote "about 150" because the source you provided to support that claim (http://www.easier.com/127696-renault-dealer-network-expansion-continues.html) specifically mentioned "over 150" and I quote: "Brayleys Milton Keynes is the latest addition to the network, bringing the total number of sales sites serving the Renault and Dacia brands to over 150." I don't know where you get the "157" number, but clearly it wasn't in the citation given. I didn't reduce the figures, you increased them ignoring your own source. Also, the "source" seems a reproduction of a Renault UK's press release, so it's very likely a primary one.

2)

"... Precisely, 300 000 views in 4 weeks is a success, as usually the Renault videos have 100 times less views, it is a fact. Even Unruly pointed out in an analysis article that this viral video is well built http://unruly.co/blog/article/2015/04/27/new-renault-ad-brings-the-west-end-to-the-car-dealership/ and notice that "This post is not part of the commercial plan and is written by the editorial team at Unruly, whose opinions are always independent, sometimes scurrilous, and never knowingly under-researched...." "...I did not cite Youtube first, but only after Urbanoc asked me to prove the total number of views !...

That's not true. I "asked" you to back the relevance of the video, I never asked you to prove the "300,000 views" bit as it was not significant. You wrote your own opinion, calling the ad a "viral success." I told you before, that's original research and is against Wiki policy. We must follow sources, not our beliefs. The sources you provided later are blog articles and they weren't reliable sources, regardless of your personal tastes.

3)

"... This user erased some sales figures statistics. Why ? It is an arbitrary censure..."

I left it back at what I think was the more relevant of that large sentence, the sales increasing. Your text was confusing and repetitive.

4)

"...This content is not promotional : "Renault has a strong interest in British design know how. In 2014, Renault asked the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove to "dress" its Twingo III with leds, as the Twin'Z concept car. In 2015, Renault participated to the Clerkenwell Design Week 2015. Renault is also acknowledged for its contribution to design by the British professionals, like for example the Renault Twingo III has been awarded the title of "Design of the Year" in the 2015 Fleet World Honours...."

Well, it is. First, you used a personal web page to back such a bold statement as "Renault has a strong interest in British design know how." Second, all the poorly-worded, advertisement-like and irrelevant content about the Twingo concept. Third, you used a primary source to back yet another bold statement: "Renault is also acknowledged for its contribution to design by the British professionals."

To finish, I will say all our edits can be subject to change. A lot of my edits here were pruned or deleted. In general, those changes were for the better as removed information that I thought was relevant but actually it wasn't, fixed mistakes or improved the writting style. However, If I disagree with the changes I must explain why my version was better. If the other editors insist I'm wrong, we must discuss it on the talk page. If even the talk page doesn't bring a general consensus, I must go to dispute resolution. What's my point with all this? If you really think you're right, you must use dispute resolution instead of edit-warring, as there's a clear consensus against you. Thanks. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

All of the stuff about Lovegrove and Clerkenwell and musical is simply Renault advertising. Renault paid these people to help promote the company, perfectly normal and logical behavior for a company. Does that mean that we should continue to disseminate their advertising? Of course not. It's of no importance wahtsoever, and to deduct therefrom that Renault has some sort of special relationship with British creatives is simply indefensible. I will keep calling you French IP until you offer up an alternative handle.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Article assessment

While archiving some of the older talk page entries I noticed that the article is assessed as a "C" class article, this was done way back in 2008 (see talk page entry). A lot has been done since then, it should at least be reevaluated to see what needs to be done to get the article back to "B". Anyone have experience with such things? Is this something that is requested through the car portal? Vrac (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point Vrac, but I personally haven't so much experience on that. However, I do think the article is way better than it was back then, especially because it has a fair amount of content with (at least) acceptable sourcing. I will try to find more editors to comment on the current article class by asking opinions in the Wiki's Cars Portal. I will try to do so before the weekend. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Renault kiwd

im from sri lanka,

I am going to buy a car , so I want to know about kiwd RXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.19.70 (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Attention

Peace be upon you, Greetings, my name is Yousif Adnan from kurdistan Iraq. I am very intersted for Renault company and i have a Renault car type Fluence. I bought more than one car for this type and Renault fluence its very good car, But i would like to inform you that you have a defect For all Fluence cars. You have a defect in the brakes that all produce a sound when braking. So Please send this message to Renault company. Yousif Adnan My email: yousif.adnan@yahoo.com Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.255.163.137 (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

removed section

United Kingdom

In 2014, two Renault models were among the most numerous on British roads: the Clio (ranked 6th by total number) and the Mégane (ranked 10th).

The Renault Centre designed by Norman Foster

1970s, 1980s, 1990s

The first Renaults to sustain sales in the UK were the Renault 5 and Renault 18, both of which attained six-digit sales figures during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

In 1980, Renault commissioned British architect Norman Foster, to build the Renault Centre, an award-winning office and distribution centre in Swindon. It was easily identified by the extensive use of the corporate Renault yellow.

Renault enjoyed greater popularity with the arrival of the Clio supermini in March 1991. It was regularly among the best sellers during the 1990s. The successor (launched in 1998, alongside the final instalment of the successful "Papa & Nicole" advertising campaign), continued its success. The sedan/saloon version, Thalia, was not launched in the United Kingdom.

Renault introduced the Mégane in April 1996 to steady sales, although it failed to reach the top ten during the first two years. In 1998, however, sales grew, making it Britain's sixth-best selling car and the second most popular in its sector.

2000s

In 2006 Renault was Britain's third most popular brand, surpassed only by Ford and Vauxhall.

Hey, this seems very good! someone should copy this to the article (if not copied already) Enivak (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

In November 2007, Renault UK lost a US$2 million lawsuit against an independent distributor, who had placed orders for 217 cars under a discount scheme. This was intended for members of the British Airline Pilots Association. Three were legitimate, because they had "made a profit of some sort on every vehicle". Two Renault employees were criticised, for having "turned a blind eye" to the very large number of orders.

In 2008 Renault sales started declining, and the marque fell to the eighth most popular, with 89,570 sales (down 29% compared to 2007) and considerably less than 2002's 194,685 sales. Renault suffered more than most main brands during 2009, as the recession deepened and ended the year with 63,174 sales, and a reduced 3.17% market share.

During 2010, however, as the economy returned to growth, Renault sold more than 95,000 cars and increased its market share to 4.71%, before falling again in 2011 to 68,449, yielding a 3.53 per cent market share. In December 2011, Renault announced that the Laguna, Espace, Kangoo, Modus, and Wind lines would be discontinued as a cost-cutting measure, while 55 of its 190 British dealerships would close. By 2014 Renault sales outperformed the market overall growth with a 41.9% increase, in spite of a range limited to the Clio, Captur, Mégane, Zoe, Scénic, Kangoo, Twizy and the third-generation Twingo, launched at the end of 2014. -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Article lead contains Odd Sentence

Towards the bottom of the articles lead section there is an oddly-placed sentence about a single investment in EV's back in 2011. Given the long history and vast scope of this multinational organization, I fail to see how: "Together Renault and Nissan invested €4 billion (US$5.16 billion) in eight electric vehicles over three to four years beginning in 2011." qualifies as information that would be in the lead. 206.113.15.122 (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

206.113.15.122, yeah, you may have a point there. You can be bold and remove the sentence. If no-one reverts you, it implies an acceptance for the change. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Renault during WW2

I noticed significant differences in the WW2 history of Renault. In the french version of the article Renault produced tanks for the nazis wich led to sanctions whereas in the english one he produced only trucks. I do not feel confident enough to restore the proper historical version, but I will indicate this source https://www.humanite.fr/politique/collaboration-renault-arrete-ton-char-485955 and https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/11/21/01016-20121121ARTFIG00576-bataille-d-historiens-sur-la-collaboration-de-renault.php The Renault family is trying to rehabilitate their ancestor by rewriting history with the help of an historian married into the family. The allies bombed four times the Renault plant, it was not because of trucks. They were even building an undergroud factory up to a month before the Liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:9D3:B400:1C6E:AE46:E85E:3B69 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It is just the contrary of what you say, there is a concerted effort in France to exagerate the Louis Renault role in the German war effort. The French Wikipedia article is quite bad and factually incorrect, as Renault did not produce tanks for the Germans during the war, it assembled trucks and repaired existing materiel. Most sources on the topic written in French are quite biased to the Gaullist and Communist stance at the time, which tried to pretend Renault was especially guilty to justify the illegal takeover of his company. The fact is almost all French manufacturing companies produced things for the Germans, some less reticently (as Peugeot, Berliet or indeed Renault), some by force (as Citroën). Now, the French perspective can be added as a minority view (from an English-language side) in the relevant section, attributing the French historians (if they're relevant), as Wikipedia isn't censored. And, at the end of the day, there's no a "proper" interpretation of the events. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• RENAULT LOGO.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Renault Megane RS, IAA 2017 IMG 0411.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Model numbers

When the Renault 4, 8, 10 and 16 were introduced, the model numbers were derived from the CV rating of the engine used. This continued for a while, but the system broke down when new models had engines of similar CV rating as another model; so instead, gaps in the sequence were filled in. Can we find a source describing this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)