Jump to content

Talk:Peugeot 404

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


Why do we have an empty section?

[edit]

I don't see any use for a section heading with NO information under it (Timeline), so I'm taking it out! If anyone has any data to add that would go in a Timeline section, feel free to add it back! SOME of the other Peugeot articles have Timeline sections, but some don't, so it can't be a "standard format" thing. Thanks! ~~ Mpwrmnt 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which version of English?

[edit]

I propose the use of British-English for this article on the following basis:

Following a recent IP-edit, I've looked through this article to determine which version of English is most appropriate (WP:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English). The 404 was sold in many English-speaking countries, many with different language conventions. I have manufacturer's publicity material from the UK, which refers to "saloon" variants, but contemporary price lists for the American market refer to "sedan" variants. So the manufacturer used different English language variants depending on the sales market and there can be no fixed language style on that basis. However, much of the article is from UK sources (road tests and UK specifications) so I propose that for consistency, this form of English is used throughout the article. Any additions specific to other English-speaking markets could be marked up as such; e.g. "the sedan variant for the US market". I hope this proposal helps and reduces unnecessary editing. Wikiwayman (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peugeot 404 SL Coupe 1964.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Peugeot 404 SL Coupe 1964.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Peugeot 404 SL Coupe 1964.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pickup truck or Coupé utility?

[edit]

I see from the article Pickup truck that there's been a good deal of debate about the definitions, and there's been an edit to this article reflecting the Coupé utility point of view for the 404. Now take a look at this image, which clearly shows that the 404 pickup has a "proper chassis" for the load area, with different (leaf-sprung) suspension, and that the monocoque cab is separate. The load area is not integral with the cab. I personally think it's close enough to the definition to stay a pickup truck, but there's obviously a spectrum of opinion - without getting pedantic, what is it? Wikiwayman (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it simply depends where you learned your English. For an Australian it's surely a simple Ute (Utility). In Britain we'd call it a pick-up truck. (I've not heard it refered to as a coupe except in this wiki-entry.) In terms of where they actually sold the thing, I gather that the strongest markets were in the African continent, especially (but certainly not exclusively) in countries that had been colonised by French people which included in most cases the French language, but also especially in Uganda/Kenya/Tanzania where the success of the 404 sedan/saloon in the Safari Rally deeply impressed people. So how about "Camionette" which is French for "Little truck"? Otherwise I think there's a wiki guideline somewhere that says you should decide which version of English you're planning to use and then use it relentlessly throughout the article, but in real life that only seems to work for entries where there are only a few contributors. Incidentally, and in case anyone is interested, here's what the label at the Peugeot museum says. They call it (in their quick and wild English translation of their French text) Pick-Up in the first line and utility in the third line but frankly, though theirs is in most respects a most professional and enthusiastic museum, I'm not sure the English language is the thing they do best. Why should it be? Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, I think that the "little truck" deserves more of a mention in this article - I never realised Peugeot had built 800,000+ (enough to justify article notability on its own). Wikiwayman (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that the pickup deserves a couple of paras to itself. Actually I find the whole Peugeot 404 entry, to put it charitably, rather unstructured. But a rewrite without losing any of the information and source notes along the way would be a substantial task. Maybe adding a picture of a "little truck" in Africa with an informative caption would be a good interim measure. Just thinking on paper, you understand, but should you feel moved to do it, I would hate to stop you. I agree that >800,000 volume figure grabbed me. Off and on I've spent a certain amount of time in France over the years, and although one did used to see 404 camionettes in the cuontryside from time to time, I'm pretty sure that most of them must have ended up some place else. Hence my grabbing onto the references to the African continent. Hmmmm & regards Charles01 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peugeot 404. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

404

[edit]

Opk 43.245.122.159 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiast's clubs and Automotive articles

[edit]

In order to prevent cross-editing between two contributors, I thought I would step in here. User:Ariadacapo is right to remove the direct links to the 404 database, but could have been a bit more sensitive in dealing with that, as this looks to me like a lack of wider awareness by User:404KF2.

There has been a great deal of debate over the years regarding the inclusion of car enthusiast content in Wikipedia, and the general assumption is *not* to include it unless it is referenced by more notable sources. For example, the MG Car Club has its own article, referenced at least in part by external sources. That article is not a good example of Wikipedia article, except that I can use it here to demonstrate that even enthusiast clubs the size of the MGCC struggle to get enough mainstream coverage to qualify for notability.

I would however strike a balance with inclusion - I haven't checked leClub404 website (not just the database) for content, but if there is relevant material stored there that cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia for copyright or ownership reasons (e.g. original manufacturer documentation and records) then it may qualify as an external link on that basis, but to be clear, I don't think the database counts on its own. Wikiwayman (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiwayman: Seconded in full.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could have been a bit more diplomatic, sorry :-). To be clear, I am not against an external link to the club (even though I think neither the club nor the database are notable, not even enough to be mentioned in this article). What I am against is the inclusion of statistics from a database in the article and then an external link to that database. (This has nothing to do with my appreciation for the work done by Le Club 404, by the way.) Ariadacapo (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to get into the French Wikipedia page and purge the same then.
I think Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant to knowledgeable motoring enthusiasts in any case due to this site's extremely cursory, shallow and often inaccurate coverage of marques and models, so it's not particularly important to me or Le Club Quatre-Cent Quatre to have any of this information here, registry or otherwise. It's not like its leading to any referrals or additional interest that are in any way relevant to Club operations. Wikipedia is really rather like the old bound Encyclopedia Brittanica - an overview written at the level of grade school children, when you get right down to it. The apparently serious academic references and so forth are a frippery, given this reality.
The thing that was galling is that for a period between about 2010 and now, no eagle-eyed hall monitor bothered with the fact that the progress of the Club 404 register project was featured there, and then one day it was just gone. It's not just a lack of diplomacy, it's a tad more serious than that. Incidentally a member called mr.choppers apparently appreciated the short-term reinstatement of the Register info. Just saying. 404KF2 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[moved 404KF2's comment to proper section] That "thank" was a fat-finger mistake, sorry. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I will visit the site when I have time; as mentioned by several people it might still merit inclusion in the external links section.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@404KF2 Your response is understandable, but the issues are rooted in what Wikipedia is and is not (lots of information on this is available at WP:NOT). It sometimes takes a fresh pair of eyes to spot something that doesn't fit.
I am sorry for any part I have played in not guiding you better, as I have noticed your edits over the years, but I didn't make the mental connection between them and publication of original research.
Please reach out if you need anything else. Wikiwayman (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peugeot_404&oldid=1204602979"