Talk:Economy car

This Article needs to be expanded quickly, so please expand the article so it can become complete.--Gumbos

superceded → superseded - Superceded is a valid British English spelling (without Webster's vandalism), not a 'typo'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.10.200 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To CZmarlin.

So this article needs more references? Yes it does. I did all of the ones that are in it. Why did you cut almost half of the references there were? American drivers are infamous in Europe for their lack of driving skill and vehicle knowledge. The US car industry and the products they get you to buy are a joke.

Selling 70s US economy cars that rotted like crazy, blew up their engines and burnt customers to death because of a fixable design fault, that is summed up by - that were popular American-made economy cars that sold well in their domestic market.

That's - (cleanup, edit to reduce statements of opinion. Per WP policy: "Encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias.") - BS Patriotism is all very well, but the reality is that the US car industry is up $h1t creek because of the cars they have produced. Bowdlerising past history won't change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.102 (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC) please mention the mileage, it has been strangley left out of all these economy car pages and seems the whole point of their existense??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.175.51 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Vega material

VegaVairBob, this is not an article for a detailed accounting of the history of the Vega or any other particular car. The :material you wish to include may belong more appropriately in Chevrolet Vega. By your username and your comments on my talk page ("I'm sick of reading (all) negative articles on this car") it is apparent that you are a Vega enthusiast, which is fine, though it will be well for you to take special care to make very certain that you are not allowing your personal opinions and preferences to creep into your contributions. When we are passionate about a subject — be it a particular kind of car or anything else — it's very easy to see our opinions as neutral facts. Avoiding this common trap is one of the important aspects of improving an article in bad condition such as this present one. Also, the courteous and coöperative way to edit — whether it's an article or a talk page you're working on — is to use the Preview button to see how your edits will appear, then changing or expanding them and previewing again until you're happy with them, and then save them, rather than making and saving many edits in a row. Thanks for editing coöperatively! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I included basic information on the car and how it is linked to four other GM vehicles. It is not biased, does not have opinions and has five citations. What you choose to leave in is a couple of sentences from a quote made 30 years ago and printed across the internet as if its yesterdays news. What you choose to leave in the article is negative biased as is used out of context. as I have stated. There isn't one positive thing I included in my paragraph other than the 1.9 million cars built. Maybe readers would think all 1.9 million fell apart with what you choose to leave in as the only info on the car in this article. This discussion is more frustrating for me than trying to get a non-free image in. I apologize for not using the preview button on my edits. Good night.(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Below is a portion of the present discussion originally located on User Talk:Scheinwerfermann.

Vega

The information I provided in Economy cars on the Vega was factual, neutral, and unbiased. The article is about economy cars. its not a promo 'cause its neutral. only the facts have been provided, not opinions,and believe it or not, there is some positive. I'm sick of reading (all) negative articles on this car and others, based on someone's worthless, biased opinions. My contributions provide a two sided, neutal view. A promo piece is all positive and a bad article is all negative. It's very easy for someone to read an internet article and copy a quote out of context and plunk it down here, but the idea here is to provide a balanced view, as a reliable source of information. I do not think its appropriate to use the quote over and over again that the Vega's first prototype two years before the car was manufactured fell apart It shouldn't be the main content about the car in the economy car section or any other article. It is a fact and it is stated in the Vega article under pre-production problems. In context however, which Delorean left out of his Vega chapter is that most prototypes are strengthened instead of the reverse. So every article on the internet states deloreans comment the Vega fell apart. The vehicle that fell apart wasn't a Vega at that point so its useless and misleading information in a general article. The fact is HIS prototype was rejected by his boss at GM. Of course he is going be critical about the Vega in that book. His other comments, by the way, from Motor Trend 1970, nine years earlier, are the reverse. i include BOTH in Chevrolet Vega for readers to draw their own conclusions. I'd like to see some of his positive Vega comments on the internet. Point is, the economy car article isn't the place to have a forum of Deloreans comments so a general description with positives (sales figures) and problems of the production version should do the trick here.I also did not remove link to "Vega tagged un-reliable" further proof its not a promo. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Economy car is not an article for a detailed accounting of the history of the Vega or any other particular car. The material you wish to include may belong more appropriately in Chevrolet Vega. By your username and your comments here ("I'm sick of reading (all) negative articles on this car") it is apparent that you are a Vega enthusiast, which is fine, though it will be well for you to take special care to make very certain that you are not allowing your personal opinions and preferences to creep into your contributions. When we are passionate about a subject — be it a particular kind of car or anything else — it's very easy to see our opinions as neutral facts. Avoiding this common trap is one of the important aspects of improving an article in bad condition such as Economy car. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If you read the piece you will find a general paragraph linking the Chevette and other GM economy cars so it also covers those models as well. all vegas problems are mentioned..briefly and in context. I think its neutral. My sick of comment refers to quotes and bits of information used out of context for negative impact and based on general perceptions from mis-information...

(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I spent an hour getting that information just right and you delete it twice?? The info you left in that article is worthless and contributes nothing to the article. Did you bother to read my contribution. Maybe you're being biased from my username. I can write about ANY car with neutrality,and have, but I'm not going to waste hours to have it deleted for no reason. I will not contribute to that article again (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing you have written has been deleted; your significant edit done without consensus has been reverted pending discussion on the article talk page. You think it's neutral…I do not. This is the "D" (discussion) stage of the BRDC, and the right place to have that discussion is at Talk:Economy car. I look forward to discussing the matter with you there. Also, as others have asked on your talk page, please stop making numerous edits to single pages in rapid sequence. It's unhelpful, discourteous, and uncoöperative behaviour even if we assume the best of faith, for it creates and worsens edit conflicts. Please use the sandbox and/or the preview function to get all your edits into shape and then save them. Given the comments on your talk page, it looks like other editors and administrators are growing impatient with what looks like persistent and willful refusal to contribute in accord with community norms and expectations. You may not intend to convey the appearance of a troublemaker, but you're in danger of gaining exactly that reputation; may I suggest you take a few minutes to review the basic fundamentals of coöperative, courteous editing? It'll make everyone's life here easier and more productive, most of all yours. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to talk about. my piece has five citations and makes references to five other GM economy cars all linked to the Vega... If you think my paragraph is not neutral, just leave what's there then. What you left there is neutral? It lists a quote made 30 years ago, written out of context and provides no useful information and is negative biased.

Like I said, If my contributions are deleted for no good reason I will not continue to contribute.

(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

There is virtually always something to talk about when two or more editors disagree over a chunk of text. It's very unfortunate that you continue to behave out of accord with how we do things here on Wikipedia. Threatening to discontinue participation is not an effective tactic, but taking a brief piece of time to understand and begin to follow the community standards and accepted practices is. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Above is a portion of the present discussion originally located on User Talk:Scheinwerfermann.

Hi, uninvolved admin here. It appears to me that Vegavairbob's changes here are positive overall, and should not have been reverted. The author may be biased, but the material does not appear to be. It's well sourced, and does not skew the article toward one POV or another. It could have used better formatting and perhaps other improvements, but reversion wasn't necessary. Please don't bite the newcomers. I have attempted to merge all material into a NPOV description. Please improve as you see fit. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Quadell, thanks for jumping in to keep the discussion on an even keel, and for moving the tone of the article text toward much better neutrality. There's no intentional newbie-biting per se going on here; I'd ask that you please take a slightly wider look at the kinds of contributions Vegavairbob (talk · contribs) has made, which create increasingly difficult challenges in assuming good faith. Edits like this one and more like it in other articles, for example, consisting essentially of moving "Chevrolet Vega" to the start of a list, suggest a little more effort is needed on VegaVairBob's part to make sure that his passions and interests don't skew the neutrality of his contributions. So do his repeated violations of image copyright policies, persisting even after numerous warnings and a block. As you can see above in the text ported from my talk page, I am trying to engage Vegavairbob to guide him towards a more consensual, coöperative, productive editing style. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The only reason the Chevrolet Vega was moved ahead of the AMC Gremlin in the intro was because the Vega paragraph was first and there was no paragraph on the AMC Gremlin I wasn't being biased towards the Vega. Also, the current edit isn't that much different than my contribution, just condenced. so maybe you were being biased towards my user name as my contribution was neutral. The fact is you deleted it because you thought it satisfies my opinions. The four citations prove you wrong again. the problem is you're wrong on too many counts. Anything you have to say doesn't hold up. Your changing the issue by stating I'm not following policy. You didn't follow policy. I apologised for not using the previw button, but you didn't include that part for our discussion here in your review.

As far as the image policies if you bothered to do a little research you'd know that was already dealt with and I have no non-free images. (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

|

Please try to take a cooler, less argumentative tone. There's nothing to be gained by throwing around accusations that others are wrong. We're also not in a court of law, so an assertion that nothing I say holds up doesn't get us anywhere productive. Again: We are working together on a coöperative project, not against each other on a competitive one. The issue is not right vs. wrong, it's consensus vs. ownership. Your editing history and your talk page full of warnings and at least one block suggest that your efforts on Wikipedia will be more productive and durable when you take some time to understand the community expectations that you have repeatedly bumped into.

I place no significant weight in your username. The only usernames that are of concern to me are those which run afoul of Wikipedia's username policy, which yours does not. I have no particular axe to grind against the Vega and I've never owned one; my pursuit here is the betterment of Wikipedia as a whole by dint of steady, incremental improvements to individual articles.

I'm glad to read that you presently have no non-free images, but as of just a couple hours ago, it looks as if you still want to use a non-free image in Chevrolet Vega.

Please also take a moment to review this discussion more closely; your apology for not using the preview button is intact and in plain sight right here on this page where you put it. It would also be very helpful if you will please follow through on that apology by making an effort to reduce the number of small sequential edits you make to any given page.

Finally, please note that we indent our comments sequentially on talk pages by using colons (:) , not asterisks (*). If the text you're responding to has no colon before the first letter of each paragraph, you add a single colon before the first letter of each of your paragraphs. If the text you're responding to has one colon, you use two. If two, you use three. If three, you use four. If four, you start the cycle again with zero colons. Asterisks are used to create bullet-point lists. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I will use an easier tone and It's commendable your tone is pleasent, by the way. I do understand the image and editing policy better now than at first, and I just don't want my contributions based on my (failed) efforts and mistakes in regards to non-free images. Those mistakes..ex. re-uploading a deleted image cost me dearly afterwards as my crediability in regards to images was then questioned when I uploaded my older photos and my source was questioned, which I chose to show and prove valid. Yes I would like one non-free image. Also after my paragraph was deleted last night, I went back an wrote a revised one, Quadell's well written edit is a combined, condenced version of my two edits. I will start studing the general and editing policies Regards, (VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Tee-rific, glad we're on the same page! This article needs a great deal of improvement, and I look forward to working with you on that. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism.

So this article is 'semi-protected'. I am the person accused of vandalism. I am also the person who wrote about 75% of this article. That would make me a very strange kind of vandal wouldn't it? Certain 'editors' who have contributed little or nothing to this article, except to be extremely patronising, arrogant and condescending, have repeatedly tried to erase that American economy cars of 1970s were very much poorer than they could have been. They were also much larger and less fuel efficient than they needed to be, to do the same job that cars in Europe did. I balanced it by saying why; that longevity and reliability were more important because of the relative size of the country.

Why am I not registered? Because I wrote the bulk of the article for the pleasure of it and not for reasons of ego. If anyone wishes to see the true narcissistic nature of these 'editors' have a look at their user pages. 'How to edit with panache' is one ::particularly conceited example. Living vicariously, trolling on Wikipedia is obviously so much better than their real lives.

85.119.112.144 (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected because of your persistent vandalism. As you were repeatedly reminded, it is not okeh to insert unsupported POV and your own editorial commentary, nor is it acceptable to change specific wikilinks to vague ones. You chose to ignore those reminders — and to ignore the larger clue of multiple editors quickly reverting your repeated attempts to insert your favoured text — and as a consequence you are no longer permitted to contribute to this article. Your past contributions to this article are certainly valued, but they do not entitle you to ownership of the article. Please keep in mind that the standard for inclusion of information in a Wikipedia article is not what we know (or think we know, or think everybody knows), it's what we can prove.

Your explanation for having not registered is a non-sequitur. IP editors and registered editors alike make good and bad contributions. Some IP-only editors resist registration in the mistaken belief it will effectively exempt them from the expectation of coöperative, consensus-based editing, or that it will shield them from the community's mechanisms for dealing with willfully disruptive editors. It's to be hoped that you will put your energy into constructive edits rather than combative ones. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You can embellish what you have to say with the pompous use of latin and the subjunctive. You really are a blow-hard windbag aren’t you? The actual content of what you have to say doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all does it?

‘Vague wikilink’ a Kamm tail is every bit as valid a term as a ‘Kamm back’, and goes to the correct page, the fact that you don’t know this is a demonstration of your ignorance.

‘Multiple editors’ – How many I.D.s do you have? Like Czmarlin?

‘Cooperation’ – I have had no trouble working with many different people over several years on this article. It’s funny that you have lots of problems, and not just with me, as detailed (and even archived!) from your user page, you have consistently done exactly what you accuse me of, on many other occasions to many other people in many other articles.

Ownership – You are the person who has thrown their weight around, not me. You are the person with ‘ownership’ problems, witness the way you treated VegavairBob. I co-operated with him and made positive referenced contributions. You behave as though you are some sort of gatekeeper who is going to condescend to guide others. Who appointed you? Oh, this is Wikipedia, - you appointed yourself.

Launching cars with live rear beam axles and leaf/cart springs, that had lots of faults, not least burning customers to death, twenty years after European economy cars were being launched all independent suspension, ten years after the launch of the Mini, and six years after Fiat launched the definitive mechanical layout for small cars that is used today, isn’t technologically backward is it? The text that I put in was “not NPOV and unsupported by references” you said, so you replaced it with your text, that was not NPOV and unsupported by references, and denounced its deletion as vandalism! Perhaps if you wish to be taken seriously, you should apply the Wikipedia standard, that you seek to apply to others, to yourself, instead of being such a hypocrite. ‘What we can prove’ – where was your ‘proof’?

I’m sure that many of the people who have not registered don’t want to cooperate. Perhaps people like you are the reason? If Wikipedia had the accurate, ‘Here be Trolls’ at the top of the main page it would be even fewer.

I have had the misfortune to meet people like you before. For the benefit of other editors who wish to understand why you do what you do, and for them not to take anything that you say at face value, I refer them to the Narcissistic Personality Disorder page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.121 (talk • contribs) as of 21:55, 9 June 2009

It is yet another outlandish opinion of yours claiming that I have "many I.D.s". Please also kindly sign your posts on the talk pages by simply typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Thanks! — CZmarlin (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The above comments were directed to Scheinwerfermann. You answered it using the CZmarlin ID... Doh! Sign it without an ID - well what a useful idea!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.161 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My comments were not directed to Scheinwerfermann, but to you because of your false accusation. It is also evident that you are unaware how accounts and user IDs work. A contributor cannot "log in" to another user's account. The purpose of adding a signature is to allow everyone to see each author's work. As you can notice above, an automatic bot will often add the signature when the contributor forgets to add the four tildes (~) at the end. I hope this helps! — CZmarlin (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If what you are saying were correct the terms Sock puppetry or Meatpuppet would not exist on wikipedia. They do. I hope this helps! !? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.55(talk) as of 10:09, July 22, 2009 (UTC)

So you must be using these techniques to "avoid" responsibility for numerous unreferenced contributions. Setting up an account is not difficult. Typing fourtildes (~) to "sign" your work is also a simple respect in this collaborative editing process. CZmarlin (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fiat 500

1966 and 2007 Fiat 500. The new 500 is 50 cm (20 in) and more fuel efficient than the original.

Is it 20" wider, longer, taller? Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ford Model B

I corrected a widely made error in this article: Model B is NOT a V8 powered car but has an evolution of the Model A four. Beside the fact that it lacked V8 emblems, of course, it was similar to the V8 Model 18. In 1933, a successor, called the Model 40, was introduced. This car, too, was available with the Model B engine. As the V8 Ford was a huge success, the smaller engine was no longer needed and disappeared at the end of the model year. I didn't change the link to the article on the 1932 V8 Ford - which has itself the wrong title (that fact is noted correctly on the discussion page by someone else). My edit in the article is by no means thought as an act of vandalism, just as a correction of facts. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Influenced by the Corvair

Does anyone else see the Corvair as influencing the style of other cars such as the Hillman Imp, the NSU Prinz or the Soviet Zaporozhets? The IP editor's sole outside reference is http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/customs-classics/8400049/Five-rear-engined-classics, which is more of an opinion piece. He also claims that the WP articles support his claim. However:

• the Imp article only says the swing axle was copied (after extensive test of the Corvair by Hillman designers),
• the Prinz article only says the body closely resembled the Corvair (appearing to be spoken in the WP voice without a supporting reference)
• the Zaporozhets article only says it resembles the Corvair and Prinz (with a reference to a book in Russian that I can't check but doesn't actually say the design was actually taken from the Corvair).

To my mind, his claim of influence is not adequately supported by his sources.  Stepho  talk  23:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is a mess

Although comprehensive, this article is a poorly referenced mess, with unencyclopedic phrasing and structure. The intro reads like a personal essay, and the main article is mostly a long list of various car models, many of which cannot be considered economy cars by any definition. How did the BMW mini convertible get in there? I think it would make more sense to have a much shorter article. --Ef80 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit late, but I concur. This should be titled "Every car smaller than a compact", not "Economy car". The Mercedes A-Class and BMW's Mini economy cars?? Seriously? Who did all this? —Cloverleaf II (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Economy car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060308141111/http://www.auto123.com:80/en/info/news/news,view.spy?artid=1082 to http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/news,view.spy?artid=1082
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121024120957/http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/12/33160 to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/12/33160
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090704084332/http://www.popularmechanics.com:80/automotive/new_cars/4237945.html?page=3 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4237945.html?page=3

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Economy car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130114015832/http://apps.detnews.com:80/apps/history/index.php?id=28 to http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927103320/http://www.alvisoc.org/Site%20Files/Alvis%20Cars/Pre-War/FWD.htm to http://www.alvisoc.org/Site%20Files/Alvis%20Cars/Pre-War/FWD.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110106131744/https://www.volkswagen-media-services.com/medias_publish/ms/content/de/broschueren/2008/09/16/ivan_hirst.standard.gid-oeffentlichkeit.html to https://www.volkswagen-media-services.com/medias_publish/ms/content/de/broschueren/2008/09/16/ivan_hirst.standard.gid-oeffentlichkeit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121115173359/http://gordonmurraydesign.com/t25.php to http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/t25.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I have attempted to improve your article by adding citations to your writing. I have specifically added the citations under the "Definition" section of the article. This section previously did not cite any sources.

Writer3444 (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)