Jump to content

Talk:Renault/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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[1]. In 2015, Renault participated to the Clerkenwell Design Week 2015[2]. 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[3]."

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)

=> 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)

=> 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[4] 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[5] and aims at expanding to 170 in 2015[6].
  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[7].
  4. FACTUAL : In 2015, Renault participated to the Clerkenwell Design Week 2015[8].
  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[9].
  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[10] and was pointed out as a creative work by professionals[11][12] and a West End of London tribute[11]. 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

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[13]. In 2015, Renault participated to the Clerkenwell Design Week 2015[14]. 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[15]...."
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

  1. ^ Renault x Lovegrove Twin'Z concept car
  2. ^ "Renault has revealed an 'immersive experience' stand at the opening of Clerkenwell Design Week 2015". Newcarnet.
  3. ^ "Renault Twingo named 2015 design of the year". Hylton.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Renault outperforms was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Renault dealer network expansion continues". Easier Car. 4 December 2014. Retrieved 2 June 2015.
  6. ^ "Car dealer Vertu Motors opens new Renault and Dacia centre in Nottingham". Automobile Management. 18/03/2015. Retrieved 2 June 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Ross Lovegrove and Renault create the high-concept Twin'Z city-car". Gizmag.
  8. ^ "Renault has revealed an 'immersive experience' stand at the opening of Clerkenwell Design Week 2015". Newcarnet.
  9. ^ "Renault Twingo wins Design of the Year Award 2015". Next green car.
  10. ^ Show Me A Car! The All-New Renault Twingo - Full Film
  11. ^ a b "Renault ad brings the west end to the car dealership". Unruly. We see our glamorous lead, a sort-of cross between Snow White and a 'Mad Men' character, sweeping into the dealership, instantly stealing the heart of nearby car salesmen. Supporting Renault's adorably-named Twingo, the ad is appropriately playful from the get-go. As the bopping chorus of 'Show me a car, show me a car!' continues, we take a further jump into the fantastical. A backdrop of rolling hills and pristine blue skies appears, accompanied by happy picnickers and prop birds befitting a play at a village fete. In these moments, "#TwingoFlamingo" takes on a lo-fi charm, reminiscent of Max Fischer's madcap theatrical endeavours from Wes Anderson's 'Rushmore'. 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.
  12. ^ "Renault ad brings the west end to the car dealership". David Reviews. 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
  13. ^ Renault x Lovegrove Twin'Z concept car
  14. ^ "Renault has revealed an 'immersive experience' stand at the opening of Clerkenwell Design Week 2015". Newcarnet.
  15. ^ "Renault Twingo named 2015 design of the year". Hylton.

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Renault/Archive_3&oldid=1264982419"