Talk:Mitsubishi Motors/Archive 1

MMAL Section

Quote "It currently builds the Mitsubishi 380, as well as importing Chryslers and Jeeps from the U.S." I dont think Mitsubishi Australia are the importer of chrysler or jeep anymore. Chrysler re-established its brand in Australia a few years ago after pulling out in the early 80's, selling the plant to Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi renamed the Mitsubishi designed models from Chrysler to Mitsubishi and winded down production of the Chrysler designed Valiant. (perhaps there is some confusion here that chrysler has been in Australia continuasly)

Older stuff

[Irrelevant comments deleted]

My sympathies for your problems, but please see what Wikipedia is not.

DeLarge 18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Major edits as follows:

• Pre- and post-war history added.
• Details of partnerships with Chrysler, Volvo and DaimlerChrysler.
• Tried to structure the article more homogenously: Histories, then Partnerships, then Recent Troubles, then other stuff (e.g. Motorsport)
• Removed link to mitsubishisucks.com ~ (i) it's not exactly an objective site; and (ii) its references to Mitsubishi's WW2 conduct applies to the whole Mitsubishi group, not just MMC. A link to that page remains on the Mitsubishi page.

DeLarge 15:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert to the previous version, removing IDENO's "fix". Other headings in the article capitalise only the first word or proper names. Also, other featured articles on Wikipedia seem to use "my" style, so I feel it is not in need of correction. Consensus from others would be appreciated.

DeLarge 12:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

DeLarge Thank you for your contribution to MMC page But the "Concept drawing of the new Mitsubishi i keicar" is in fact the production model (look under the i page) --193.77.106.14 20:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK ~ I wasn't sure, since I originally found the photo here where it referred to the "i concept". It also looked identical to the concept car shown here, so I figured MMC might have used the concept pic in their press release (when I finally found a fair use image). Would have been smarter to just check the Wiki article in retrospect... I'll grab the existing image instead and change the caption.

DeLarge 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Delarge link to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Galant_VR-4" is only in the main page (it should be also under galant page, generation 1987, 1992, 1996(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Galant#1987) also i would recommend merging outlander/airtrek pages (airtrek is just a jdm name for outlander... --195.210.211.82 11:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the Airtrek/Outlander. I can merge their entries in the "Car models" section (as I did with the GTO/3000GT), but merging the actual articles themselves is something I'll have to practice.

I don't quite get what you mean about the Galant links. I can't link to both the VR-4 and the regular Galant "simultaneously", and since there's a specific VR-4 article, that's where I linked to from the "Motorsport" section. There's still links to the Galant under "History" and "Car models".

DeLarge 22:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

DeLarge galant 1987(6gen) "The sixth generation was also the first to see the introduction of the (VR-4)" → it should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Galant_VR-4, same under 7gen(1992) and 8gen(1996), do you agree? --193.77.132.68 07:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh, now I get you - I thought you meant something in this article. Yes, I agree it should link to the VR-4 page, but I'm in the middle of revising the Galant, and I was just going to change everything at once. I'll maybe do a small fix just now, though, since it might be a while before I get round to it (I have revisions/additions for the Lancer 1600GSR, Mitsubishi Model A, and the World Rally Championship pages in the pipeline as well).

DeLarge 07:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

DeLarge I added new Lancer 2007 generation (i have copyright free pictures + many more info but), i'm not very good at creating or editing posts but i can give you links to high resolution pictures of Mitsubishis new cars, press releases (new platform, engines....) and so on. Would you be interested? I would need your email adress or msn account.... --193.95.237.29 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you really don't want to involve yourself I'll try and add stuff on your behalf, but honestly I'd encourage you to dive in and start making your own contributions. Accounts only require an e-mail address and username, and there's some good tutorials for how to embed images and the like.

DeLarge 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok i registered, i finished new lancer 2007 generation, what do you think? feel free to edit...--Gnusmas7 10:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems OK at first glance ~ I'm sure there's plenty of others who'll help edit that page, though, so unless I spot a glaring error I'll probably leave well alone. Welcome to the community!

DeLarge 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

More layout changes. I've been reading up on various WP Policy Guides (e.g. WP:MOS#Headings) trying to get the article to the point where it could sustain critical peer review with little or any changes. I removed a photo of the DCX & MMC chairmen from the DaimlerChrysler paragraph, as I sweated over whether it consituted fair use and decided to err on the side of caution. I removed the blurb about Galant/Galant Sigma/Sigma at the end of the Car Models section, as it seems specific to the US-model Galant, and should be on that page instead of this (I'll restore it over there in due course). I removed the bit about Jackie Chan owning 56 Mitsubishis, as I can't verify it. Also, I added more info to the Volvo/Nedcar paragraph, partly because their problems reflect MMC's recent troubles elsewhere, and partly because I needed more text to sort out formatting problems with the heading of the next paragraph.

If I say so myself, this is now a big improvement over the article I came across a few months ago. Of course, I'm now in danger of trying to take ownership of the damn thing, to the point where I'm scared to submit it for peer review in case someone tries to tamper with it. Sigh..... DeLarge 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

DeLarge you've done a great job transforming MMC page, keep it up --Gnusmas7 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

oh and, i recommend putting Jackie Chan under trivia or something like that --Gnusmas7 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Delarge company slogan doesn't show and fiscal year 2005 (05 march-06march) results are out.(http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/NEWS/pdf/20060427sef.pdf) Loss is only 800 million dollars compared to 4 billion in 2004 lol 195.210.227.231 09:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I was going by Forbes.com's info on their global 2000 list, since every other auto infobox seems to use dollars and MMC's FY2005 results were all in local currency. I've now converted it, using 115 yen = 1 USD. Don't know why you can't see the logo any more, though - I've tried it in Firefox and IE6 and it's visible in both to me. Do you have an image placeholder or anything?

Also added info about key staff, and adjusted the list of global locations using info on Mitsubishi's own website

As for Jackie, I saw somewhere... the Honda Civic's peer review, in fact... where it was suggesting taking out the 'Trivia' section and incorporating the info in the main article. I renamed the paragraph as a result of reading that, but preferred it kept separate. I think it's not bad as it is, since the entire paragraph is about MMC & JC. If anyone adds more trivia, I can revert the paragraph to the previous, less specific, title.

Also, I made the font size for the references smaller. That's been bugging me for ages, but I didn't know how to fix it. And I rearranged a few sections - the "Decline" chart is now after all the doom'n'gloom sections, and before the recovery strategy, which seems logical.

DeLarge 17:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

i can see the logo, you wanted to add this to info box "company_slogan = "We are committed to providing the utmost driving pleasure and safety for our valued customers and our community. On these commitments we will never compromise. This is the Mitsubishi Motors way.", but it doesn't show, maybe we don't need the slogan in the info box, it's your call--Gnusmas7 17:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. Right, I checked Template_talk:Infobox_Company and it looks like the slogan tag was removed around the end of February. I'm going to leave it in, though, in case the template is changed in future.

User:Sekicho, I think I might have accidentally deleted your edits. I'm going to go through the article and see if I've done damage (if I did it was accidental) and restore it. And thanks for the nihongo template, which I didn't know existed.

EDIT: no... it looks OK. You just touched up the opening paragraph, correct? -- DeLarge 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning several further edits to this article; I guess I just can't leave well enough alone...

• Removing the 'number of employees' from the opening section. Although i'm more or less happy with the previous edit, I think it's a slightly run-on sentence. Also, the data is contained in the infobox, so doesnt need repeated. Finally, given Mitsubishi's current troubles, the figure might change drastically fairly soon.
• Removing the 'Car models', since we already link to a separate page which lists all the Mitsubishi models in Wikipedia.
• Removing a few citations to shorten the rather large 'References' list.. Mostly, it's the official history and web museum citations which redirect to Mitsubishi's own site, and are both covered in the 'External links'.
• Most importantly, adding a much expanded history section, going into much greater detail and breaking it down into pre-WW2, post-WW2, and then by decade once we reach the '70s and MMC is officially incorporated. The new info comes from fundinguniverse.com, which can't be directly accessed but has been cached by Google.

Any comments/suggestions before I start to work on this? -- DeLarge 11:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Major edit, 30 May 2006

OK, edited the article. More extensive "backstory" now added and restructured as well. I've also made four major removals which may or may not raise comment, listed below. Everything I removed was originally added by me, except the list of vehicles.

• Removed refs to multiple currencies in the infobox, as per WP:MOS#Currency
• Removed the Car Models section. As mentioned previously, we have a (category) page on WP which lists Mitsubishi's cars, and we already link to that. Most other auto manufacturer pages seemed to follow the style of linking to a separate page of vehicles elsewhere.
• I cut out a lot of citations, as some paragraphs (esp. DCX) were being a bit overwhelmed by them. Instead, before listing all the inline citations, I've made reference to my two primary info sources.
• I removed the chart showing MMC's sales/revenue/losses in the past five years. A couple of reasons, but mostly because I wasn't confident the numbers were spot on (even though all my cited sources are MMC press releases). MMC changed its accounting procedures when DCX came on board, and when they sold the Fuso division it threw things as well. Better to leave it out rather than throwing a half-assed chart up, I'd say.

-- DeLarge 11:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert, 19:44, 11 June 2006

Two changes have been reverted;

(i) the reference to DCX as a German-only (as opposed to US-German) conglomerate. DaimlerChrysler's Wikipedia entry gives a German and US location for the company, and the frontpage of its own website[1] gives its share price in two of the many markets on which the stock is traded: NYSE (US) and Xetra (Germany).

(ii) the removal of a double space between major paragraph sections, which is inconsistent with the rest of the article.

--DeLarge 19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

edits by user:68.40.61.196

There's been a few dilutions of the content I've added, specifically:

• Changing the section heading 'DaimlerChrysler debacle' to 'DaimlerChrysler relations'.
• Removing the comment that the vehicle recall issue was "possibly the biggest scandal to ever hit the Japanese auto industry".
• Changing "mass layoffs" to "layoffs" in the NedCar section.

Addressing these in order:

• Debacle. To be honest, I pondered this a lot when I originally drafted my edits of the article. However, web definitions of debacle are "a great disaster; a complete failure" (Merriam Webster), "a total, often ludicrous failure" (Dictionary.com), and "a complete failure, especially because of bad planning and organization" (Cambridge Dictionary). DCX paid $1.9bn for control of MMC in 2000, in an effort to become the 3rd largest car maker in the world. They spent billions more propping the company up, before selling it five years later for $800m - less than half what they'd paid previously. DCX boss Schrempp lost his job, and they'd fallen to 6th on the list of car manufacturers by the time it was all over. That looks like a total failure to me - I don't see any part of the deal that was a success in terms of motor vehicle manufacturing. Given that the issue is now done and dusted, I therefore think that "debacle", while harsh, is accurate and acceptable, and not POV.

Withdrawn - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.

• Scandal. Well, the BBC, AutoSafety.org, Automotive Digest, The Auto Channel, Sydney Morning Herald, MSNBC, Pathfinder.com and BusinessWeek all explicitly refer to the vehicle recall issue as "a scandal". Now, as the Wikipedia page was written, I accept it was an uncited comment, but I think to excise the word scandal from the section completely may not give the correct impression of how drastically it affected the company. Here's a BBC article where chairman Kawasoe is forced to bow before the Transport Minister over the issue, which demonstrates how massive the humiliation was for the company.

Withdrawn - the word "scandal" still appears towards the end of the section, which should keep me happy. However, the deletions have left a couple of sentences reading a little abrupt, so I might try and tweak them a little.

• Mass layoffs. I flatly disagree with this change. A local news source (Expatica.com) explicitly referred to "mass layoffs" when commenting on the union's recent deal with the company in April this year. There is a difference between layoffs, which doesn't quantify how many employees or what proportion of the total workforce is being affected, and mass layoffs, which does.

Any comment? I'll maybe solicit opinions from Wikiproject:Autos as well... -- DeLarge 08:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (edited -- DeLarge 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

WikiProject Automobiles - peer reviews

First of all, I must say that the scope and the level of detail of the article far exceeds my previous knowledge on the topic, so I can't really say if it's "comprehensive" and whether there are any other important pieces of information that ought to be included. My impressions paragraph by paragraph - or, more specifically, issues I have with the article, in general it's very good so forgive me for not praising it over and over again:

• It's not clear how the Model A came about - I guess there was some licensing agreement with Fiat. I believe this ought to be explained.
• There is no mention of the beginnings of Fuso, and the relationship with the passenger car business in its infancy period.
• What were the names of those three regional companies, what regions did they cover? Were 500, Minica and Colt made by all three or what? What were the pre-merger relationships between those three?
• The 1980s & MMAL paragraph is a bit mixed-up - the 380 is a current development, what about 1980s models? Besides, Mitsubishi's presence in the Australian auto manufacturing was dwarfed by Toyota many years ago. I am not really sure what all the quota business means, did Chrysler have a permission to import 120,000 Mitsubishis before or what?
• The "ongoing tensions" are poorly documented - what did they exactly result in?
• If DSM has such an extensive paragaph, why won't Mitsubishi Australia?
• Hyundai and Proton aren't simply "marques", they are standalone companies Mitsubishi cooperated and had capital involvement with. The description of the role of Mitsu in the development of both of them is far too brief.
• Should Volvo be really billed truck-maker in the NedCar section?
• Welt AG - what in the Welt is that? (where does this term come from? why not just say they wanted to form a global carmaker?)
• I guess we can live without so much speculation on whether Mitsu will survive or not. Why not sum it up in one section, perhaps citing analysts who could give some insight into Mitsu's long term forecast.
• I would consider arranging the Motorsports section along formats, not models.

Some other things it would be interesting to find in this article:

• Production numbers and market shares in major markets in historic perspectives, preferably as charts.
• Mitsu's role in the development of GDI

Don't beat me, I wear glasses. Bravada, talk - 11:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK, I'll respond to each of these as best I can. Sorry for the late response, by the way - some trouble over at the World Rally Championship results pages distracted me during the weekend.

• It's not clear how the Model A came about - I guess there was some licensing agreement with Fiat. I believe this ought to be explained.

Haha, if you can find out any more on this, I'd be absolutely delighted. What you read here and on the Mitsubishi Model A page is the limit of my knowledge. I'll see what I can do, but so far I can't even find out much about the original Fiat Tipo 3.

• There is no mention of the beginnings of Fuso, and the relationship with the passenger car business in its infancy period.

I thought Fuso was mentioned, albeit briefly? I'll have another read through. Bear in mind though, Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus Corporation has its own article, so I wouldn't want to place too much info here that should in fact be over there. Edit - looks like previous content relating to Fuso has been edited out lately, possibly by me. I'll try and restore some stuff.

• What were the names of those three regional companies, what regions did they cover?

No clue. Will try to find out. EDIT: Progress! Before it was independently incorporated, MMC was a division of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and a lot of the pre-1970 history is available there (including the names of the three regional companies). It looks like MHI was functioning as a single entity again by 1964.

• Were 500, Minica and Colt made by all three or what? What were the pre-merger relationships between those three?

No clue either. Will try to find out.

• The 1980s & MMAL paragraph is a bit mixed-up - the 380 is a current development, what about 1980s models? Besides, Mitsubishi's presence in the Australian auto manufacturing was dwarfed by Toyota many years ago. I am not really sure what all the quota business means, did Chrysler have a permission to import 120,000 Mitsubishis before or what?

OK, I'll look to rewrite this. I combined them basically because I wanted to keep Chrysler-related stuff together, and MMC bought MMAL from Chrysler in 1980. Not sure where I got the bit about the production size, but I can remember scouring the 'net trying to verify it. No cited source though, and if it's wrong I'll remove it.

I didn't want to put too much info in because, again, a dedicated MMAL article exists. I don't think a list of all past models is necessary here.

I'll try and clarify the quota stuff, as it's not as clear as it should be.

• The "ongoing tensions" are poorly documented - what did they exactly result in?

Ultimately nothing that I know of - just "tension". Worth mentioning given Chrysler's subsequent troubles in the markets MMC moved into (esp Europe), but not a lot I can say on the matter. Will try to find out more.

• If DSM has such an extensive paragaph, why won't Mitsubishi Australia?

Ehh? The MMAL section is 127 words, the DSM section is 174 words, and DSM was a brand new facility, not a takeover of an existing plant. Larger as well, if I remember correctly - current production at DSM is about 2x greater than MMAL. I can try and add more info for both, but again, they both have their own pages, so I won't be adding reams and reams of new material. Maybe one of those "For more info, see XXX" subtitles beneath the section headings?

• Hyundai and Proton aren't simply "marques", they are standalone companies Mitsubishi cooperated and had capital involvement with. The description of the role of Mitsu in the development of both of them is far too brief.

Ahh. Previously, this was titled 'Other international alliances', but since it included the Colt/Lonsdale subsection, I felt it was misleading. I moved Colt to the bottom, and changed it to 'marques'. I didn't mean to imply that they were all marques which MMC owned. Bad choice of word, I guess. Reading through it kind of explains it, but I suppose that's not really enough. I could definitely expand it - prvious edits had more info - and just move Colt/Lonsdale elsewhere, then restore the 'Alliances' heading.

• Should Volvo be really billed truck-maker in the NedCar section?

Well, I think it was interesting that they'd be partners in one market with a company who was a great rival in another, but I suppose it's not vital to mention it. With the Fuso material not present, it is a bit out of context.

• Welt AG - what in the Welt is that? (where does this term come from? why not just say they wanted to form a global carmaker?)

The term was specifically coined by DCX chairman Jurgen Schrempp to describe his vision of the combined DaimlerChrysler-MMC, hence why I used it and why I left it in German. If it had been an American, he'd probably have said "World inc." or "World Corporation". It's italicised, as a foreign term should be, and the translation is parenthesised immediately afterwards. I don't see any difference between using that term, and using keiretsu instead of "conglomerate" in the opening section. I definitely think the article would be a bit more dry and lacking in "brilliant prose" (see WP:WIAFA) without it.

The DCX section used to be a veritable forest of cited sources, which I subsequently cut back as they were beginning to overwhelm the paragraph (see pre-30th May edits). I can try and find a quotation to cite if you're really insistent.

• I guess we can live without so much speculation on whether Mitsu will survive or not. Why not sum it up in one section, perhaps citing analysts who could give some insight into Mitsu's long term forecast.

I didn't think there was too much speculation. However, I'd say that if you want more detail on individual sections, you're going to have multiple references to current difficulties, as each plant's current troubles are localised, and slightly separated from MMC's global problems. That is, even if each factory (NedCar, MMAL, etc) returns to profitability, they may still be dragged down by the parent company's debt-laden woes.

• I would consider arranging the Motorsports section along formats, not models.

Yeah, seems sensible - I've already arranged the rally cars together to try and give that effect, but you're probably right that I shouldn't concentrate on specific models. You'll see on my userpage that I've actually speculated about creating a separate page for the company's motorsport history, as it's fairly extensive, and there's enough source material to justify it too.

Some other things it would be interesting to find in this article:

• Production numbers and market shares in major markets in historic perspectives, preferably as charts.
• Mitsu's role in the development of GDI

Blehhh, charts. I used to have a table showing global production and revenues for the last five years, but between DCX changing accounting practices, and Fuso being sold off, it was difficult to get accurate data. Going back further, and breaking it down by individual markets, doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. I'll see what I can discover beyond what's already included, though.

As far as I know, it was Mercedes who introduced the GDi with the '55 300SL? I don't know how much I could add to that. I thought they were phasing it out anyway? Need to read up on that more.

If major changes aren't forthcoming immediately, don't worry. I'm thinking that it may be better to completely restructure the article, which would take time and a major rewrite. Also, it's going to take a lot of digging before I can expand on many of the sparse sections, especially the pre-1960s stuff. Cheers for the feedback though -- DeLarge 10:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Three reverts on 4 July

(i) User:Bravada's insertion of "overtly". I suspect he meant "overly", but if I can't quantify layoffs at NedCar with "mass", I don't see how he can quantify optimism. Nothing personal, Bravada, just trying to maintain consistency. Besides, "overtly" means openly, as in the opposite of "covertly" (secretly).
(ii) Separating the [[Mitsubishi keiretsu]] wikilink back to its component parts. Sorry, but that was a daft edit, as it just redirected to Mitsubishi anyway. As it was, there was a link there AND a direct link to explain what a keiretsu was, hence why they were separate in the first place.
(iii) By reverting these two, the last edit (which were just corrections) was no longer needed.
Regards, DeLarge 09:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My English is far from perfect, I apologize for that. What I meant is that the meaning of the phrase "sales projections have so far proven optimistic" is quite amibigious. "Optimistic" with regard to sales projections is a rather vague description. From what I know of the topic I understood what is being meant is that sales projections were TOO optimistic, i.e. Mitsu didn't sell as many 380 as they planned. Saying that some projections or plans were too optimistic is not POV, IMHO. It is only an "elegant" way to say that they proved too high, or in other words they couldn't be or just weren't realized. Is that what this phrase should mean or am I completely not understanding it? Bravada, talk - 10:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I get what you mean, but I'd say it's bordering on tautology. I chose "optimistic" as a neutral euphemism for "wrong"; even a lesser degree of optimism is still wrong. Also, while "sales projections have so far proven optimistic" might be vague in isolation, the whole thing reads "Intial sales projections have so far proven optimistic; after only six months Mitsubishi scaled back production from 90/day, and reduced the working week from five days to four" (plus citation), which I think is much more precise.

PS your English is fine. I can never understand why foreigners apologise for their English, when all we do is S H O U T - V E R Y - S L O W L Y. Regards, the monolingual DeLarge 11:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words regarding my English, but I am going to be a bit of a PITA here - I do understand what this whole sentence means (even though I am not a fan of this semicolon here), but "optimistic" is not a neutral euphemism for "wrong". "Too optimistic" is an euphemism for "wrong". Optimistic means "expecting the best" (see Wiktionary entry) - I guess Mitsu might have been expecting the best, but that's not the point here. They were expecting the best and this proved a misguided expectation, so you need to add "too" to express this meaning. Bravada, talk - 11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL - careful now, before you look up "optimistic" in the Wiktionary, look up "euphemism" [2]. I'm not saying optimistic = wrong. The car's only been on sale for eight months, while the predecing Mitsubishi Magna was on sale for many years, so no-one can really know for certain how the car will ultimately fare. To me the word "wrong" has an air of judgemental finality which can't yet be applied, so I was looking for a better description.
As I said, it goes back to the second half of the sentence. If I'd just said sales were optimistic and left it at that, there might be a need for more detail. But I followed it with a description of production being cut by a third and the factory moving to a four-day week. It's a bit like:

"Initial sales projections have so far proven optimistic..."

Reader - "How optimistic?"

"...after only six months Mitsubishi scaled back production from 90/day, and reduced the working week from five days to four."

Reader - "Ahhh, that was slightly/overly/not at all optimistic." (depending on individual reader)

If you want to reinsert it I won't stop you, even though I think it changes the meaning of what I've written. I was reverting anyway, and since "overtly" did need fixing I just rolled back one version further. DeLarge 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say that if even Mitsu admitted they have set their expectations too high, the sales projections WERE wrong. Maybe one day they will rebound, but as of now they are NOT selling as many as they planned, so at least for the few months gone by the projections WERE wrong i.e. too optimistic. Optimistic as such looks a bit out of place - sales projections can be optimistic or pessimistic when they are being made, when they are confronted with reality they can no longer be said to be optimistic. They were either too optimistic or too pesimistic.

Let's say you are trying to cross a street with heavy traffic and no traffic lights or passenger crossing where you attempt to cross it. You can at one moment be optimistic and decide you will be able to cross it if you start in a given moment. So, let's say you cross the street being optimistic, and you get run over by a car. You cannot say that your projection PROVED optimistic. It was optimistic at the moment you started to cross the street, when you failed too cross it it just means it was wrong. You cannot be optimistic about a thing of the past. Only future qualifies :D

Gosh, did this issue get twisted. I hope I did make my point clear, if not I might try again in some better way. I still believe there is some sense in what I am saying, so I decided to try to explain it to you. Excusing for being a PITA. Bravada, talk - 21:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Emblem

Can anyone tell me what the Mitsubishi emblem looks like? Best Gamer 29 July 2006

redirect request

Could /Mitsubishi_motors please redirect here? Mathtinder 01:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)