Talk:Hyundai i10

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in April 2019.

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This page is hugely biased with a lot of opinion and emotive language. Clearly written by a fan. Needs cleaning up as currently it's lacking neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.82.73 (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to suggest this is the first small car with variable valve-timing, but the Aygo, C1 and 107 have had a 3-pot VVTi engine 2 years prior! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.235.31 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hyundai i10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old facelift and infobox[edit]

Consensus below is to continue using the Red vehicle. –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some user just remove the images of the facelift Hyundai i10 of the previous generation and there no rear side as well. Since they were taken by me I can't revert them or do anything about it. This topic ban is hugely frustrating because I have to do this literally every time I want to make the littlest of alteration I had to consult with this creating discussion, and I thought people got fed up with me creating talkpage discussions all the time. --Vauxford (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is seriously weird. You still don't appear to have figured out why your topic ban was imposed. The fact that a picture was taken and then linked by you is not a reason why it can never be replaced by someone who is not you! In this case I'm not entirely sure which picture(s) you are writing about, but if, as seems likely, we are discussing two pictures of approximately equal merit and appropriateness, then periodic switching back and forth - if only to refresh the entry - strikes me as unproblematic to say (write) the least. If, somewhere in commons, there is a picture that is usefully better - not 1% but say 20% "better" than the one(s) you want replaced, then maybe someone will take time to find it and switch it and, if people disdagree, I suppose we could launch into one of those eternal discussions about image quality. Othewise, I don't myself think that launching your request as you have here is worth your time or anyone else's! But it's only my opinion .... Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles01 and this is the very reason why I don't make these discussion is because you just swoop in, go on about how insignificant and troublesome I am, and then ignore every other form of communication from me. I'm basically in a gridlock when it comes to editing, if someone replaced a image I disagree with and it turns out it was my own image I can't intervene, and if I do intervene via talkpage discussion as I was told to, I get hounded at by YOU. I swear this is just a unintentional benefit for topic banning someone and just encouraged them to never edit it again. --Vauxford (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, forget the image discussion, it no point of me doing it because Charles01's condescending remarks is all I'm gonna get, no matter how rational or constructive the discussion would be. This is quality dispute resolution right here. --Vauxford (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean these 2 images? Both have problems but in the blue one (inserted by LoggoL) the black windows, black roof and black background make it very hard to see the shape of the roof. The red one at least shows the shape of the car. I definitely think the red image is 20% better than the blue image. Stepho talk 22:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the i10 N Line? --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The white car's black roof suffers from the exact same problem as the blue car's black roof. Stepho talk 10:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The background in my image isn't particularly black, is it? ;-) --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, somebody replaced the infobox picture which did show the second gen facelift. Now there no photos on there of the facelifted version nor front or rear. The front I suggest should be restored to it last place (on the main infobox). The third hasn't arrived in the UK yet. --Vauxford (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll soften my position a little. The white car's black roof and dark windows merge into each other, making them indistinct. The background is mostly separate from the car. I would still choose the red car over either of the black roofed cars because I can easily make out the entire car. Stepho talk 23:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures taken indoors at auto shows are rarely, if ever, of good encyclopedic quality, and these are no exception. The image of the red car, while not ideal, clearly shows the car without reflections from spotlights, without the roof blending into the scenery (or windows), without sales representatives in the background, etc. --Sable232 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sales box[edit]

Vietnam sales being their own column feels unnecessary. Combined sales from all of Asia would be better. RealNZZN (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]