Talk:Chevrolet Vega/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reassessment for Wikiproject Automobiles

I am being bold and reassessing the article's quality and importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. Here is my rationale:

• The quality is currently B, however I'm reassessing it to C. The criteria for B includes The article is mostly complete and without major issues, while C includes The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. I'm sure editors here will recognise the latter statement w.r.t. this article.
• The importance is currently Mid, however I'm reassessing it to High. The criteria for Mid includes Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area, while High includes Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. The Vega is not notable internationally, so it doesn't meet the Top criteria, but it is clearly notable within one continent and as a milestone vehicle in US automotive history (the car that nearly killed GM, their first subcompact) with a lasting legacy (albeit a particularly negative one), I think that the High assessment is a justifiable one.

I hope that's OK with everyone. Shout if you disagree. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the importance of the Vega is high, based on its role in the US auto industries attempt to compete with international competition and the ramifications of offering a promising but deeply flawed product. I agree that the quality of the article is C: it's been crafted by an editor close to the subject, uses too much promotional material, includes too much trivia and avoids the biggest areas of interest related to the car – e.g., the factors that make the car important.842U (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Should Chevrolet Vega Be Significantly Rewritten?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. 'Please do not modify.

• Result: I am here in response to a request for an uninvolved administrator to close this discussion. I have read the discussion, and what I am about to write is based on this discussion, not on any personal opinion on the merits of the article or the proposed changes (I have no personal opinion on it). There is a clear consensus for change. Apart from the numerical preponderance of editors favouring change, the arguments for change were more cogent, and more related to Wikipedia practice, many (though by no means all) of the "leave it as it is" arguments being based on peripheral issues and ad hominem arguments such as "You haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the article". I will allow myself this one personal comment: I suggest taking seriously the comment below that says "I feel that any rewriting should be done piecemeal and slowly, to allow for input from those of us who actually enjoy certain aspects of the article as it currently stands". JamesBWatson (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I request that this RfC be held open for at least 8 more days to give an editor who has been blocked for one week sufficient opportunity to comment before the RfC is closed. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Should Chevrolet Vega be substantially rewritten in a manner that:

1. Expands the lead section to include information on what one editor defined as "the broad role of the Vega in the US auto industry, its attempt to compete directly with imports, and the legacy of the car as promising but highly flawed,"

2. Expands the "Criticsm" section,

3. Reduces the amount of information that some editors classify as trivia and/or fancruft,

4. Generally updates Chevrolet Vega to reflect a changing consensus amongst interested editors?

This diff is included as an example of the type of rewrite of the lead section that is currently under debate. This diff shows debated language within the "Criticism" section.

Proposed Closing Language

• Five uninvolved editors supported the proposed rewrite.
• One uninvolved editor opposed the proposed rewrite. It may be significant to note that this opinion was this unregistered editor's first edit on Wikipedia.
• Four involved editors supported the proposed rewrite. One of these editors made it clear that he/she thought the rewrite should be limited in scope and should be done slowly and carefully.
• Two involved editors stated that they opposed the rewrite. One of these editors made it clear that he/she thought significant changes should be made to the article, but that such changes should not constitute a "complete rewrite."

Conclusion: A strong consensus exists in support of making major changes to this article.Ebikeguy (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks fair to me, but I'm inexperienced in RFCs. Perhaps someone well-versed in the protocols could respond? Writegeist (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Responses from uninvolved editors

If you have not participated in this discussion previously, please provide your opinions in this section

• Support re-editing. Generally, I agree with 842U and Trekphiler and BikerBiker. I added four solid references a month or so ago; Barnstarbob deleted them in an offhand way. My sense is it's a case of article ownership by Barnstarbob in that he's unwilling to work with others here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer - You're contribution to the article was the car's total production figure (1.9 million, as you stated) to the lead paragraph, already listed in Production (as an exact correct figure) and also in the Production chart. your 1.9 million figure was deleted with 842Us total MAJOR and biased re-write of the lead which grew to a "mini-article," siting no less than 12 URLs in one sentence. Style? Prose? Neutrality? Nope! Got any suggestions Tomwsulcer besides putting back the 1.9 mil in the lead? Imagine how I feel when whole damn sections are either deleted or completely changed by one Userwithout a discussion, which were previously discussed and edited by several Users, but deleted by the one User nonetheless. (Not just one sentence already stated in another section). I knew you could understand the severity of the problem here.(Barnstarbob (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

• Oppose re-writing. Being an original purchaser of both a '72 and '74 Vega, I have read through its description pages on the Wikipedia site and have gone through all of this discussion page. From my experience years ago I would say the article fairly describes the vehicles as it is currently written. There are both positive and negative sections which deal with the inherent capabilities and shortfalls in a very understanding manner. To be honest, all this bickering on what should and shouldn't be included seems very childish to me, there are other more important things in life then what is found in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.207.132 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that your voice doesn't count, because it does, but how interesting that you show up here to comment anonymously on this discussion – never having appeared anywhere on Wikipedia before. How interesting. No one here is suggesting there are not more important things in life than this discussion. But each of the individuals who has participated here are doing their best to make this article an example of principles that are quite important in life: balancing points of discussion, respect for other points of view, civility and assumption of good faith. While editing may not always reflect these ideals, it is still worth taking the time to participate and assert those principles – which is why I assume you also took the time to make your point — albeit by cloak of anonymity.842U (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

842U At least 69.14.207.132 comments are neutral and unbiased, like the article. (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

How did I get here? I like cars, have forever and I rarely use Wikipedia. Had some time to kill and decided to see what might be written about cars I have owned or wanted to own. When I saw the Vega sight I found it to be more complete than others I had seen. From my experience with the car it seemed very well put together. I then noticed the 'Discussion' tab at the top. Not being familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia I thought it might be some kind of forum on the car so I opened it. It wasn't the forum I had earlier expected but decided to read through it anyways. When I ran across a place where I could give my opinion I decided to do so. I stand by my earlier comments. No matter how 'interesting' or uninteresting, you probably won't find me anywhere else on Wikipedia, it's not my 'thing'. This discussion just seems over the top and that was my reason for writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.207.132 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What an amazing and unusual coincidence. Welcome – though I have some difficulty reconciling why someone for whom Wikipedia "isn't their thing" would just drop in and begin defending an article. Forgive me for thinking you are a sockpuppet, but aside from the fact that you are "from Michigan" and the main editor whose position you are defending is "from Brooklyn" you behavior fits the classic pattern of sockpuppetry. Perhaps if your participation were more broad those of us who have genuine interest in this article might feel even more credibility in your contributions.842U (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support for implementing all four points in the opening proposal. I note that opposer ObtuseAngle posted here in response to Barnstarbob's canvassing [1], which prompted me to post this notice [2] to Barnstarbob's talk. I do not see any of the points in the very clear opening proposal as indicating the "blank-screen rewrite" that ObtuseAngle says he opposes. Nevertheless, IMO the article would benefit from being edited into a more coherent, neutral, balanced and encyclopedic style; and from bold removal of fancruft and trivial details. Writegeist (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that you were also notified of this RfC by an involved editor who used non-neutral language in describing it on your talk page. So, perhaps, the two instances of canvassing cancel each other out, and we can examine both responses based on their merits rather than their motivations. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. For the record, Barnstarbob was not the first person to notify me of the RfC; the original post on my talk page came from 842U. There is obviously no way for a person to prove his or her motivations, but I am not on either side of this argument. I unwatched this article a few months ago. ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Ebikeguy: thank you for your input. If I understand you correctly, your take on the notification to my Talk is different from mine, and from my perspective your response looks to be a straw man argument. It is my view that the notifier communicated neutrally. Where he clarified his position he did so - significantly, and very differently from Barnstarbob in his message to you - without either pressing me to replicate it or trying to discredit another editor. Thus his notification followed the WP:CANVASS guideline. Whether or not the notifying editor is "involved" is immaterial; there is nothing in the guideline that discourages notifications by "involved" editors. Please note that my support for the proposal here makes no mention of Barnstarbob's "involved" status. Writegeist (talk)

• Support. As I said at the NPOV noticeboard: The main page is very much fixed in the early 1970s, with all mention of the Vega's historical significance buried at the bottom. I mean, it's there, which is something, but the article very clearly leads with the positive whenever possible, and burying the criticism section changes the character of quite a few earlier quotes. For instance: Car & Driver picked it as one of its 10 most collectible cars, with the comment "We're talking about historical significance here." But that appears at the end of a long list of awards won by the Vega and before any mention of its legacy as a "black eye" for Chevy, which makes the historical significance seem positive to somebody who doesn't already know what they're talking about. Personally, I wouldn't propose to delete any of the content Barnstarbob added to the page, but to reorganize it. The Vega's one of the best-known cars of its decade and definitely deserves a comprehensive article; it just needs to stop dancing around why the Vega is so well-known. If I had free reign of the page, I'd move the "reception" section much higher and add either a third subsection or a subsequent full section on the car's popular reception, to examine how the car went from best-seller to discontinued in the space of seven years. Either way, the article needs a full "Legacy" section on how the eventual failure of the Vega line (a) affected Chevrolet as a company and (b) led to its sitting alongside the Pinto and the Yugo as one of the all-time bad cars in popular culture.ShaleZero (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with much of what ShaleZero wrote, although I think that some of the trivia might be split off. I like the list of spin-offs that ObtuseAngle provided. Perhaps reception could also be spun off under a title such as "Reception of the Chevrolet Vega in the 1970s" so that Barnstarbob's detail could be preserved, but the main Vega article could have a briefer summary of this. I also think that "Vega versus competitors" and "awards" should be merged into reception. Finally, I think that Chopper and ObtuseAngle make good points about the need to discuss changes before putting the changes into the article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. For reasons stated above by various others. This seems to be a case of extremely well-intentioned WP:OWN by an informed, passionate editor. His arguments that the article has been developed to a state where it does not need to be changed is fundamentally contrary to the nature of Wikipedia. His links to discussions where he points to changes he has made reinforce my point about WP:OWN; he is not the only one allowed to make changes. He MUST relinquish control of this article to the will of consensus, or he will get himself into (even more) trouble. That would be a real shame. He is knowledgeable, eloquent and has an amazing understanding of the subject matter. I hope and pray that he does not throw up his hands in despair and walk away from this article. All the other editors, save one first-time anonymous poster, who have posted in this discussion have endorsed the notion of significant change, whether or not they called such change a "rewrite." It is time to let this article evolve. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Responses from involved editors

If you HAVE participated in this discussion previously, please limit your responses to this section

Support The page as it exists reads like it came from GM's PR department, effectively whitewashing the problems; a more neutral tone is essential. Completely unaddressed is the role of GM management in approving production decisions turning consumers into product testers. Trivia is excessive. Redundant pictures remain; one of each body style is plenty. (I have no problem with any user adding his own, since that beats no pix. I am, however, not really a fan of left-margin pix...) The "4-cornered" section (which has previously been an issue) was disctracting; with fewer pix, it would be unnecessary. Problems of page ownership are prevalent, also, & need to be solved; IMO, until, unless, they are, any effort at rewrite will be futile. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is being whitewashed is the quality of the article (by a few Users here). You haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the article. Too bad... But many Users have and at the very least, suggested much, which was DONE. So I guess your opinion, as well as 842U, and BikerBiker are the MINORITY .... have contributed the least, and have currently offered no useful suggestions as well, just that whitewashing ...of the quality of the hard work done over a two year period by Users.(Barnstarbob (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Support, with reservations. I feel that any rewriting should be done piecemeal and slowly, to allow for input from those of us who actually enjoy certain aspects of the article as it currently stands. For a very long article, a few extra pictures to break up the text cannot hurt (but please, less GM publicity shots) and I personally have nothing against left margin pix per se. Again, an affectionate going-over including a gradual changing of tone and some careful pruning would be good, but let's move slowly. Let's be more considerate and patient than perhaps Barnstarbob has been to his critics. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Support As one of the editors who pushed for this RFC I obviously support it going ahead. I what has already been said about the lead failing to summarise the car and its legacy, the excess of trivia, and the pictures; but have other issues in addition, specifically with the reception section and the history section. "Reception" is split into "Praise" and "Criticism", and then each of those sections is further split into automotive press vs. the rest, which is a biased and POV way to go about things, because it implies that comments from motoring magazines are in some way less important than those made by the likes of Ralph Nader or in books. What this reception section needs is a summary introduction followed by a few of the important comments, not an exhaustive list, which show that yes the car was initially well received but that its lasting legacy is that the car was one of the biggest howlers committed by Detroit and one that left GM with a bloody nose and bad reputation for decades afterwards. The whole section should be reduced to a couple of paragraphs of prose rather than two monstrous lists - in the same way that Wikipedia is not a directory, we don't have to list every single comment ever made in print or on the Internet about the vega. I also think that the awards section should be merged into this section as they are part of the topic of the car's reception. Barnstarbob argues for balance and lack of bias, but by forcing the listing into this artificial structure, by listing praise first, by overemphasising the importance of motoring journalists over others, and by listing each and every comment possible; then this section has absolutely no balance and is totally biased. My final major concern is with the history section which is over long and stuffed with trivia. What really needs to come out in this section is the haste with which the car was developed, the imposition of the design by GM on Chevrolet, the hostile atmosphere between the two engineering teams and the effect that the Chevrolet fixes/redesigns had on the car e.g. excess weight, increased cost etc. Most of it is already in the section but you can't see it because it is being choked by the weeds. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Reception section is presented with NEUTRALITY from reputable sources, as the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to present the facts and reputable opinions WITHOUT A POINT OF VIEW OF WIKIPEDIA OR ITS USERS. The section as is tells the story, in reviews of the car both past and present. This information is unavailable ANYWHERE else, and will not be reduced, becoming incomplete and/or biased. IT IS BALANCED siting all the faults and issues, as well as the strong points, and is a complete reception history of the car, both past and present without 842Us "legacy" tags or a "point of view" expressed by him, you, or any User on Wikipedia. The Problems section explains the rust problem and other problems just fine, siting reliable sources, not web blogs. (Barnstarbob (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Support I'd like to see the intro and article streamlined to reflect clearly the Vega's legacy, it's role in the US auto industry and it's promising but marred track record. I'd like to see a more concise article overall. The speed of the production line, the fake wood siding, the rail transite sections are inflated. I'd like to see the Reception section, not separated by sources, with fewer minute bits and more of the broad points about the car. I think the "problems" section is off point; its bloated and yet misses the recall history and reliability issues. I'd suggest that the problems not be whitewashed: Fisher Body is a section that dances around the car's huge RUST problem, the engine section dances around ENGINE FAILURE. The sections on the concept car and motorsports seem largely out of place and merit strong editing, as well as the engines section, which seems full of highly specific information that belongs in more of a service manual than an encylopedia article -- or perhaps in their own Wikipedia article. I'd see a much more spare article overall with more filtering and prioritizing of information. Thanks everybody for participating. The idea is to collaborate and the sense of collaborating is very clear in the comments here. 842U (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The accurate and complete sections on the cars engineering and engine have not been offered up at any site, and are useful as a balance to the Problems (and solutions sited), and together a complete picture is given. That's what makes a neutral article, which this one has been judged for quite a while now. Your biased Legacy idea is just biased point of view, like a blog. The criticism will stand on its own, with the praise, past and present by source. The sources also tell a story. Automotive press sources clearly give a more accurate and balanced summation of the car's "legacy" compared to the incomplete and biased summations from certain medias, hense the separation by the Criticism subsections. Both the Praise and Criticism, past and present is presented in a neutral, unbiased way. It speaks for itself without a point of view generated by one User. The reader gets the whole picture in Reception as from 1970-2010... Reviews AND historical perspective. And..The car's "legacy" is not based on only its Criticism from non-automotive sources (i.e. Time and Newsweek) but from all sources, and all sources are presented, and that's what is required in a Wikipedia article, because THIS IS NOT A WEB BLOG, and it will remain complete, and neutral, without a point of view.

Oppose re-write 842U and Biker Biker are the reason for the article lock as I complained both Users were making major changes to the article without listing on the discussion page first, so they are in violation of the rules here, and changes were against previous discussions, nor does the article require a re-write. As Mr. Choppers said - It doesn't need major pruning, and any changes should be approved first. The article as it is, is the result of many Users suggestions, and contributions over a two year period. The main supporters of a so-called rewrite have not contributed anything other than one section (which was not reverted) and constant rewriting of the lead (842U) and changes in image locations and External Links deletions (Biker Biker). The rewrite request from them is only because the daily MAJOR lead changes over a two month period were reverted, as the current lead was approved in the group discussions, and properly summarizes the article, nor did more than a couple of Users agree his lead was better. Many of the 35 Users watching had their say in the discussion 842U started, but did not contribute to, other than his objective "to get views from as many Users as possible". Well, we made major changes (none of which were suggested or made by him) He did not like the result of that projects discussion. BIKER BIKER AND 842U HAVE NOT PARTICIPATED IN ANY PREVIOUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS, yet they want to rewrite it, discounting over two years of hard work from many Users, not just the few discussing here. The article has been judged neutral and complete. 842U will not upset the neutrality of the article with his legacy framing. The criticism will stand on its own without his framing or opinions. Reputable sourced opinions are in quotes not from 842U. He doesn't own it, hasn't contributed anything other than one criticism section (non-automotive) so isn't even qualified to rewrite anything, since he isn't concerned with Wikipedia's main goal. NEUTRALITY. Here's a sentence of one his many (daily) lead changes..The final sentence in his April 9th edit -

with The car was hugely damaging to General Motors[10][11][12][13] and to this day remains remains widely disparaged.[14][15][16][17][18][7][8][10]

THAT'S 12 (count 'em) LINKS IN 1 SENTENCE! and he wants to re-write the article? Nice try but I don't think so.

He duplicated in the closing lead sentence just about every URL reference of non-auto criticism he listed in the Criticism section. This mess was deleted from the lead, but he kept it up..for months, all done without discussion approval. Anyone agreeing to a rewrite as suggested by 842U or Biker Biker will certainly help to render the article a non-neutral mess, like the sentence above. The current lead is neutral, stating the facts without opinion by a User, without framing criticism, and properly summarizes the subject of the article.

My edit replacing above and reverting back to previous...A poor public perception of the Vega had developed from early model engine[3] and fender corrosion[4] issues that damaged General Motors reputation for build quality.[5]

Then this is how the lead closes (approved in several discussions) The 1975 Vega-derived Chevrolet Monza, and later, the lower-priced Chevrolet Chevette, offered alternatives.[6] After a three year sales decline, despite efforts to improve the car's image,[7] Chevrolet canceled the Vega and its aluminum engine at the end of the 1977 model year.[8]

(Barnstarbob (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

Could you please post links to the discussions to which you refer? Thank you. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ebikeguy - Previous Group Discussions and improvements to article.

• April 2009 - NPOV
• April 2009 - Making article better
• April 2009 - Good, Bad and Otherwise
• June 2009 - Article issues
• November 2010 - Automobile Projects discussion

the Projects Automobile discussion was started by 842U but he failed to contribute anything during that discussion. However,he clearly didn't like the outcome, suggestions, and changes resulting from that discussion, as when it ended, he proceeded to make major changes without listing them on article talk page FIRST, and has been doing that since, ALMOST DAILY.

I started three new articles during and suggested at that discussion - Chevrolet Cosworth Vega, Pontiac Astre, and General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine, to reduce the size of the Vega article. In addition, sections were trimmed, including engine info which added to GM 2300 engine, all from suggestions in that discussion. NO User deletions or major changes were reverted resulting from that (or any) discussions. This has been a joint effort of many Users, but not 842U or Biker Biker, but they should rewrite the article? I don't think so. Too little, and too late - A rewrite is not needed nor beneficial. It's nothing but bull, and they can't prove or substantiate it is needed, and...I did not delete any of the above discussions showing all the changes that were made, and ALL MAJOR CHANGES WERE APPROVED AND MADE DURING THE DISCUSSIONS.

842U will not frame the lead that the Vega was a poorly engineered car, just because his Criticism 1990 Time entry says so. It does however, belong in Criticism. Motor Trend and Car and Driver said it was well-engineered. Did I put that in the lead? No, its in Praise. Time, MT and C&D comments are opinions, and opinions do not belong in the lead paragraph, framed by a User (842U) to bias the article to a point of view. They belong as quoted in Praise and Criticism, on their own. (He initially agreed to this). Rest assured, all opinions are presented, past and present, WITH NO BIAS FRAMING by a Wikipedia or a User (842U). He is the only User that has consistently tried to do this. So, General FACTS belong in the lead to summarize the article and the current lead does just that - The intro date, the name source, the models, including a limited edition with a hand-built engine, a sales peak, then a three sales drop due to a poor reputation developed and new in-house models - the causes (engine, body issues), response (added development), the effects (damaged company reputation), and the result (cancellation). It covers what is important for a an accurate summary of the subject. Users have said don't change a thing. But NO. 842U says we have to "put it all up-front" so he makes a mini-article of all the trash he added to Criticism (non-auto and internet) and uses 10 duplicate URLs from Criticism in one sentence to close the lead, but fails to properly summarize the article and renders it non-neutral in the process, all without discussing his major change (I should say his 30 versions of his major change) first - in a group discussion. The current neutral, approved lead is all up front...The facts are all there, but it is, after all, supposed to be a summary of the subject, not a biased consumer warning mini article or an opinionated blog as 842U would like it to be. He has failed so has resorted to this nonsense. Now let's see who falls for it.

An articles objective on Wikipedia is to provide concise information about the subject without biased opinion or framing of the subject from Wikipedia Users. FACTS ARE FIRST. ALL THE FACTS. WITHOUT BIAS. The cars vices are mentioned in Development, Engineering and in detail in Problems, and then the Critisism of those problems are in Reception. (and...the cars virtues are presented, as well, in Reception) The vast information is presented with FORM. and with NEUTRALITY critical in an encyclopedia article.

Recent Comments in favor of the locked article and locked lead section of the article-

• I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• -You are welcome. It's a very strong article. I wish every car article on Wikipedia was as well-researched. [User:ObtuseAngle]
• Looks good. I wouldn't change a thing. The shortened intro makes the article stronger. ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC01:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• the article fairly describes the vehicles as it is currently written. There are both positive and negative sections which deal with the inherent capabilities and shortfalls in a very understanding manner. 69.14.207.132 16:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(Barnstarbob (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Oppose, with suggestions. This article is a good example of what an online encyclopedia article can be: a summarization of the collected knowledge and opinion about a subject, drawn from multiple sources which would be hard for a person interested in the topic to access through a search engine.

The challenges in writing an article about the Vega include but are not limited to the facts that (a) the car's checkered reputation is its most salient feature, and (b) in the past thirty years, very little has been written about the car that isn't a rehash of (a). I do not sense that Barnstarbob has been trying to "bury" criticism of the Vega but rather wants the article to say something more than "the Vega sucked." Likewise, I don't feel that 842U wants the article to be a Vega hatchet piece but has legitimate concerns that the car's negative perception is not sufficiently prominent in the article, particularly in its introduction.

I would hate to see a massive amount of careful research and the contributions of many people wiped out just because some editors can't agree on (a) how much detail should go into the article, and (b) where the line of accurate negativity, for lack of a better term, happens to be. This article stands at the outer limits of how much detail should be included in a general-interest article, but hey, some article has to. The Vega is primarily notable for its design and manufacturing flaws, but those flaws are not the only notable or interesting facts about the car. Much of the detail in the article which could be seen as cruft describes innovation in design and manufacture which is plausibly relevant to the Vega's quality issues. I think that information should stay, and that's yet another reason why I oppose a blank-screen rewrite.

I would suggest--suggest--the following:

• A third party or parties should rewrite the introduction to the article so that it does not reflect the work of either of the two main parties in this dispute.
• Some sections could be spun off or significantly reduced; this list includes but is not limited to the "stillborn engines" and Lordstown Assembly sections.
• The "Reception" section should have an introduction which reflects how the car was praised at first by the automotive press but over time came to be a symbol for the problems of the American auto industry during the 1970s.
• If more information about the compromises Chevrolet was forced into during the design process can be sourced, this should be included in the article, because IMO this was likely a factor in the Vega's quality issues and the article doesn't adequately reflect this.

However, there is too much good content in this article for me to endorse a complete rewrite. ObtuseAngle (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This response sums up my feelings very well. Seconded entirely.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting a blank screen re-write. To restate the major part of what I'd like to see - the intro needs to be re-written, and the reception section needs to be reduced in size and converted to prose. If just that were to happen then I'd be happy, so on that basis what you are suggesting is very welcome and sensible. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to Close RfC

I move that we close this RfC, as all interested editors have had access to it and have had the chance to comment on all associated discussions posted to date. If anyone wants to make any last-minute comments, now would be a good time to do it. All participating editors are encouraged to register their opinions on closing the RfC, below. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to see it closed and look forward to collaborating with all the editors who have contributed to this productive discussion. We can make some really positive changes throughout this article with a goal perhaps of improving it from its current state to GA standard within the month. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, if Barnstarbob has nothing more to add (bearing in mind the courtesy and consideration shown him in keeping the RFC open an extra week to accommodate further contributions from him). I don't think it's urgent to get the article's status upgraded. However IMO the article does need some serious pruning, shaping, and balancing for neutrality. Also obviously there's the ever-present need for consensus. Writegeist (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Radical change while RFC is still underway

I just reverted a series of changes to the "Reception" section of the article. These were fairly radical and had the effect of completely removing some criticism and masking a lot of the rest. I feel that such a radical change should not be made to a section that is currently under discussion in the RFC. Better to wait until the RFC is complete. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there are comments in the RFC about the "Reception" section. A radical change to that section while the RFC is still active makes it very difficult to put comments in the RFC into context. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... Barnstarbob has ignored this discussion, and has reverted the article back to his version. I have therefore requested that the whole article be reverted back to its protected state, i.e. before all of today's edits were made, and protection applied again. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I call radical changes deletion of material or sections (sound familar) All i did was put the reviews of the car with the quotes of the praise and criticism of each review together. The Criticism and Legacy (added) section is not the road tests or the reviews. They are opinion of the car as editorials, with both auto sourced and non-auto sourced sited in the section, and all the negative criticism from the road tests (reviews) is retained in the reviews section.(Barnstarbob (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Why not leave it as-is until the RFC is complete? --Biker Biker (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not take a look at the section. I think you'll like it.(Barnstarbob (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob. You have tremendous passion for this subject and bring expertise. On the other hand, there is a concerted effort by a group of editors to recraft the article very carefully. It would be more congruous probably after your being blocked, for you to consider this discussion carefully and consult here before making edits. 842U (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have and will consider all opinions, as I have in three discussions working with many Users on this article. After two years of fine-tuning it and keeping it neutral without a point of view, I will not allow the time and work that went into it be wasted by a few Users need to change it...for what reason, I have no clue. No major changes are needed as determined in the Automobile project discussions which comprised more than four Users. I haven't made major changes since that discussion, and I didn't delete sections, but I have split three sections into three new articles as per that discussion and other sections were trimmed...I and other Users have made a good article. This is the only Vega article that states all the facts without a point of view, as per Wikipedia standards. There hasn't been a Neutrality flag on it for years. There is no need to use opinionated quotes from the web re-written by a User in the lead as suggested here which will surely render it non-neutral and biased. That is for Criticism (in quotes) where it resides. The referenced facts will remain presented without a point of view of a Wikipedia editor. I keep stating this requirement, yet I see suggestions showing otherwise. I think you'll like the Reception section...done without deleting anything, so it's not really changed, except for the format.(Barnstarbob (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

The article has now been restored to where it was when the RFC was started and is locked down so no further editing can take place. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega Article Rating

The article should be rated B (not C) with a review pending for A rating, as it meets all criteria. This would be more constructive for the article at this point in time, and is long overdue. It was recommended by an administrator (who also worked with me on the lead) for a GA review long before the Automobile Projects discussion several months ago.

A rating states the article is well-organized and essentially complete (it is) having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like or elsewhere. (it was) Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. Very useful to readers. (It is) A fairly complete treatment of the subject. (It's complete) A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. (An expert would find nothing wanting) Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article (done) and style issues may need addressing. Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, (it is) It should be of a length suitable for the subject,(length was actually trimmed and three sections were split) appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources.(it is) It should be well illustrated, (it is) with no copyright problems.(none) Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate.

B rating states A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. (not needed) Expert knowledge may be needed. (not needed) The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. (not needed) Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.(it's very complete and would satisfy experts)(Barnstarbob (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

The article will most likely be B rated when the changes that result from the RFC are made. Right now it's only just a C, certainly no better than that. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of all this unproductive fussing.(Barnstarbob (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

So stop your fussing and move on. The rating was discussed recently - Talk:Chevrolet_Vega#Reassessment_for_Wikiproject_Automobiles. The problem is that your assumed ownership of the article means you aren't well placed to make an objective assessment - as shown by your assessment of the criteria above. Please let others assess the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The accuser (you) is guilty of assumed ownership, and should not be allowed to assess the article, as your edits (842U's edit of the lead and reception-locked out) were made against previous disussion consensus, and not beneficial to the neutrality of the article; and please stop accusing me of WP:OWN. It is clear I have not used WP:OWN on the article.... Read the discussions-I have provided all the links. I know, you didn't participate...making up for lost time. Too bad these discussions are not productive and offer no real improvement. It's been done already...And you have yet to help the article. Nice try on your re-write attempt. You're down to those two sections now... The only real major changes you've attempted. If they offered an improvement over the conclusions of the Projects discussion outcome, I guess we wouldn't be having this conflict, but they don't. (Barnstarbob (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Looking at the criteria, I'd rate it a C, too. It passes the B structural & sourcing requirements, but the POV is so strong... There's no B-, which it really deserves. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have asked an uninvolved editor who is an expert on automotive articles to rate this article on WikiProject Auto's quality scale. If he does, I think we should all accept his rating as reasonable for the time being. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Great move, thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob, how many people does it take for you to consider that possibly you are owning the article? You use this kind of defense very often: The accuser (you) is guilty of [[WP:OWN|assumed ownership. Since when? That not how life works. By default, the accuser isn't necessarily incorrect. But when so many people are pointing out to you that you are owning the article, you need to take stock. You and you alone are putting your knowledge and passion at risk. 842U (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Before I start, I was asked to comment here by Ebikeguy as an uninvolved editor. I have read the messages that have been brought up constantly over the past two or so years at WP:CARS, and I did make some recommendations and small changes around Christmas last year. For me, the article sits as a high-level C. Here are some potential changes:

1. Reference the article: while 164 references is "high", the article is also quite long and large amounts of information remain uncited/poorly cited.
2. Reception/praise/criticism: this tends to be the focus of the article. The article not only discusses praise/criticism in almost every section, we also have an "awards", "problems" and "reception" sections. My preferred method would be to discuss the praise/criticism in the section where it is relevant, thus removing these "problems" and "reception" sections if possible. I think someone else said the article should reflect the changing status or the car by the media (rated as a good at launch, later becoming a poor quality car, and then near the end of its life improving).
3. Mention the Pontiac versions in the lead (just name them, no details necessary).
4. Delete Car and Driver's Showroom Stock #0 in its entirety (anecdotal, mostly irrelevant).
5. Delete the gallery at the bottom of the page and make sure only the most important images are posted. Although the intention is good, it is unworkable to include a image depicting every colour, every model year change for each body style, et cetera.

Overall there are lots of small changes that need to be made (too long to list) that once complete would collectively make a substantial improvement to the article. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all your points there OSX. The article has a huge amount of content, so hopefully some very knowledgeable editors will be able to implement your recommendations. ARDawson (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Descrition of edit

• Lead paragraph reverted to shorter version with present tense as per discussion - "Looks good. I wouldn't change a thing. The shortened intro makes the article stronger." ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

notes: Framed criticism removed. The car's noteworthy issues retained for introduction. All issues are listed in Problems and Criticism sections as approved in two discussions. Shorter lead paragraph approved in discussion.

• In Criticism - Shortly after the car's discontinuation, in her 1974 book...- [car discontinued in 1977.] changed to - In her 1974 book Paradise Lost: The Decline of the Auto-Industrial Age,

• Legacy reverted to - Criticism sections by source. 842A You don't select which sources shape the car's "legacy." It is not determined souly from Time, Newsweek and internet web sites as you have framed it. The car's problems and all reliable sources form the "legacy" including auto experts from automotive sources first and foremost. Using only your non-automotive and internet criticism for the car's "legacy" was biased, non-neutral (and from biased sources). There are current Motor Trend and Collectible Automobile reviews in Criticism as well, explaining the car's "legacy". ALL Criticism back under Reception- and a neutral balance of Praise and Criticism remains. 842A - This article, with the additional non-automotive sourced Criticism you added, will remain neutral without bias from you as per Wikipedia article standards. I told you, you will not upset the neutrality of the article no matter how much trash you add.

• Several non-relevant or inconsequential internet criticism, fluff and polls deleted as per discussion

"and neither are 'Top ten worst cars evar as written by a Prius driving society journalist' articles a substitute for good research and well referenced, easily verifiable, reliable sources. If doing good research is 'taking advantage' of those people who have no interest in the subject beyond some fluff, Wikipedia needs some more, stat. Nevard (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• (1)not relevant criticism of the car - thetruthaboutcars.com from Volt article Chevy Volt: Vega Redux?] fluff - "The Vega became a cause of national interest: if Americans could beat the Russians to the moon, GM could damn well beat back the imports"....
• (2) not relevant criticsm of the car - Newsweek from Cruise article "UAW Dispute Tarnishes Launch of Chevy Cruise" internet fluff - "referring to the Vega as famously crappy."
• (3)not verifiable internet fluff. Car Talk 2000 Worst car of the Millennium poll
• (4) not relevant criticism and fluff - CarandDriver.com The 10 Most Embarrassing Award Winners in Automotive History, - "It’s been 38 years since the Vega appeared, and the stink still won’t wash off."
• (5)Repeated from Problems section Carlustblog.com repeats, almost word for word, Chevrolet engineer's factual account in Problems section and is irrelevant repeating it in criticism, "The engine's vibrations also caused the screws holding the Rochester carburetor together to work loose.... remaining text is not relevant criticism of the car and fluff - "There were millions of dollars in losses from the turmoil at Lordstown and the warranty claims and recalls, but GM could afford it. In 1977, as the last Vega rolled off the line to end this shameful chapter in automotive history, GM was still one of the most powerful industrial corporations on the planet, and it still had around 45% of the U.S. vehicle market. It was easy to just attribute it all to bad luck and ignore the underlying problems."
• (6)not relevant criticism of car and fluff Popular Mechanics.com "By the mid-1980s, Vegas were being junked so aggressively that some salvage yards in Southern California had signs up saying they wouldn't accept any more. When even the junkyard won't take a car, that's trouble.
• (7) not relevant criticism of car -Money U.S. News.com "Millions of customers—many from families with a long history of loyalty to Ford or Chevrolet or Chrysler—swore off domestics forever."

• flag removed as per discussions..."again I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation." ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I would like to separate any possible issues with Chevrolet Vega from the problems of User:Barnstarbob entirely, which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And PLEASE Stop contantly reposting and crowding everyone's talk pages, and this discussion page, with your non-auto sourced criticism and internet fluff list. The relevant Criticism on the list belongs in Chevrolet Vega#Criticism, without framing and without your opinions or tags for the article to remain neutral. (Barnstarbob (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob / Vegavairbob: It's not really for you to tell me or any other editors what to do here: we are collaborators whether you like it or not.

• The material that I added to the article was not mine. There is no rule that information must be "auto sourced."
• The sources that I added to the article are relevant.
• The car's legacy is incontrovertible: it's a failed product that damaged the US small car industry and it's regularly excoriated as one of Detroit's most miserable excrescencies. Like the Edsel, the Pinto and many other notorious vehicles, the Vega's legacy is already in place -- and like those vehicles, the article needs to address it head on. The undue attention the article places on puffery and trivia needs to be trimmed – these inflations bury and obfuscate the most salient points about the car, whitewashing its "famously crappy" (Newsweek) reputation.
• There is no scarcity of time or space when it comes to discussing this article.
• Even just looking at this current discussion page, it's clear there are many editors who agree there are serious problems with the article, including the oft cited COI and OWN issues.
• Please also consider the preponderance of other editors that have cited the opportunities to improve the article.
• Please reconsider all the warnings you've received and our ability to collaborate. 842U (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

842A I'm not telling you to do, or not to do anything", but YOUR opinions will be deleted from this article as per Wikipedia standards whether you like it or not... count on it.

• You have framed your criticism entries by labeling them.
• no scarcity of time or space? That's a switch.. In several months you complained article was too large, then you proceeded to delete complete sections including Origin, and Praise (in Reception), and several images, then started discussion article was too large, then you double size of lead paragraph, then you add countless amounts of biased, internet fluff. Then ignore EVERY suggestion of other editors. Great editing.
• All editors suggestions are used in my lead intro edit and Criticism edit reviewd in two discussions.
• I know you won't consider the warnings you have received. I'm not even going to ask anymore.
• I never suggested all Criticism should be auto press sourced.
• Some of the material you used is biased unverifiable internet fluff as per discussion and some of it was not relevant to the car itself (see above).
• your comment - "it's a failed product that damaged the US small car industry and it's regularly excoriated as one of Detroit's most miserable excrescencies" is YOUR OPINION . YOU CAN"T USE YOUR OPINION in this Wikipedia article..nor should you frame internet criticism (Time.com, etc) by labeling it "legacy". All have been retained in article as Criticism entries because that's all they are....Criticism.
• Save YOUR opinions and criticism for reader feedback in those internet sourced fluff articles.

Don't lump Edsel with Pinto with Vega:"Like the Edsel, the Pinto ". Edsels were Good cars, no real problems except the steering wheel electric shift (which never worked on any car; be it Ford, Rambler or Cord.). It is just ugly and with a funny name. Pintos are dangerous. Vegas aren't dangerous but lackluster. Three different points.68.231.184.217 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead section (again)

To begin again at the beginning (the earlier “Please come to agreement on lead section” section having ballooned into disagreements with BB on just about everything else).

A good start would be to revisit WP:LEDE and then to use it as a guide to revision of the lead section. Writegeist (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Something roughly along the following lines, perhaps?

The Chevrolet Vega is a subcompact, two-door, four-passenger automobile that was produced by the Chevrolet division of General Motors for the 1971 through 1977 model years. Innovative in its engine design, and initially well-received by buyers and the motoring press, the Vega competed successfully at first with subcompacts from AMC, Ford, Toyota, Datsun and Volkswagen. It later developed a reputation for engine problems, poor build quality, and corrosion, which led to its eventual discontinuation after a three-year decline in sales.

The Vega was available in hatchback, notchback, wagon, and panel delivery body styles. A limited-production performance model, the Cosworth Twin-Cam, with a smaller but more powerful engine, was introduced in 1975. Also that year, General Motors introduced two Vega-derived Chevrolet models, the Monza and the Chevette – the first of several rebadged Vega variants.

Although the Vega was an overall sales success its problems damaged the reputation of General Motors, such that it has been described as “the car that nearly destroyed” the manufacturer.

Writegeist (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone said that circa 1977 (nearly destroyed the manufacturer) but the effect of the Vega on GM pales on subsequent events. At the time it was GM's second spectacular failure to design and build a small car in North America. But how important is that now? GM went on to two more spectacular small car failures, the Citation and then Saturn, and with its recent sourcing of platforms from Opel, has essentially admitted its North American operations can't design any size of competitive car. So assigning the Vega this level of significance, while believed perhaps 3 decades ago, certainly isn't appropriate today. Bradkay (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I like what Choppers suggested also: the car was praised at first by the automotive press but over time became symbolic of the problems of the American auto industry during the 1970s. I think this begins to succinctly capture the Vega's legacy. And importantly, it would be good to wrestle the entire article from its overwrought magnitude; the story of the Vega is more novella than novel.842U (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Writegeist version is biased and is using a web article quote (the car that nearly destroyed GM) for the lead in an encyclopedia article. No good. Also the Chevette is not Vega derived, but mentioned as it stole Vega sales (referenced) The current lead states the reputation was damaged using a reputable source and is neutral. The article is supposed to state the facts while not stating a point of view. - A poor public perception of the Vega had developed from early model engine and fender corrosion issues that damaged General Motors reputation for build quality. The 1975 Vega-derived Chevrolet Monza, and later, the lower-priced Chevrolet Chevette, offered alternatives. (Barnstarbob (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for your observations and corrections. My offering was intended only as a rough outline for the salient points of the Vega story -- what it is, who made it, what the competition was, how it was received, its fate, and the reasons(s) for its demise, etc. I thought it might help to get these agreed first, before proofing for detail accuracy. A general discussion to arrive at a consensus about what does and doesn't belong in the lead section could be a productive place to start, if this is agreeable to the other editors.

BTW it's my understanding that Popular Mechanics is a longstanding, respected specialist automotive publication that now also publishes online. IMO a WP:RS for the quote. Your mileage may vary. Writegeist (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested lead with addition and minor tweaks-

The Chevrolet Vega is a subcompact, four-passenger automobile produced by the Chevrolet division of General Motors for the 1971 through 1977 model years. Introduced in September 1970 as the Vega 2300, the car's name derived from the star Vega and the engine size in cubic centimetres. The Vega's two-door body styles include a hatchback, notchback, wagon, and panel delivery — each using a 140 CID 2,287 cc (139.6 cu in) aluminum-block inline-four engine. The Vega competed with other domestic and imported economy cars. By 1974 the Vega was among the top 10 best-selling American cars.[1] The Cosworth Twin-Cam, a limited production, performance model was introduced in March 1975 — using a 1,994 cc (121.7 cu in) all-aluminum, hand-built inline-four engine.[2] A poor public perception of the Vega had developed from early model engine[3] and fender corrosion[4] issues that damaged General Motors reputation for build quality.[5] The 1975 Vega-derived Chevrolet Monza, and later, the lower-priced Chevrolet Chevette, offered alternatives.[6] After a three year sales decline, despite efforts to improve the car's image,[7] Chevrolet canceled the Vega and its aluminum engine at the end of the 1977 model year.[8] (Barnstarbob (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Aluminum Block?

Whoever wrote the Vega and Cosworth twin cam article definitely is biased--"loose carb fixed with locktite", "valve stem seals", etc. Again; Vega's Problem was the aluminum block--Every single one needed steel liners put in after 40,000 miles or so. Most after 1977 had them or weren't on the road. That the writer seems ignorant of this obvious problem Is biased. His glossing over some obscure, easily fixed problems that occurred with a few Vegas does not excuse being blind to the obvious fact.

Corrosion--I never heard that. It is very probable, as it would be worse with aluminum, especially if no good ground to the chassis and battery negative.68.231.184.217 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

All interesting points, but they are original research without good references.--Biker Biker (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Reminded of the old advice to attornies, when the facts are against you, argue the law. (In this case, argue the rule against original research.) However, its two sided. The article as I last read it is packed with original research. Bradkay (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

NO, Biker--Not "Original". Ask any mechanic working in that era or Vega owner. It may not be on the internet, as it was so long ago, but it's true. Check a previous article:

"In Problems - Under a revised 50,000 mi (80,467 km) engine warranty for 1971–1975 Vegas, an owner with a damaged engine had a choice to have the short block replaced with a brand new unit or a rebuilt steel-sleeved unit. This proved costly for Chevrolet. GM engineer Fred Kneisler maintaines that too much emphasis had been put on overheating problems versus the real culprits: brittle valve stem seals and too-thin piston plating. Regardless of the cause, damaged cylinder walls were common."

Perhaps I am being redundant but this Needs be addressed in main article.68.231.184.217 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

[Special:Contributions/68.231.184.217|68.231.184.217]] (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When Biker points to original research, he is pointing to the specific rules that Wikipedia applies, as seen in WP:OR. Please read them carefully so you understand what is allowed. Also, I suggest you look at WP:RS to get a feel for what types of sources are considered reliable enough to be used to back up a claim. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Truth is Truth. The Facts are in. This article is obviously biased by those who had stock in GM at the time. I and many others (mechanics, Vega owners, and a GM worker in the US, ) saw this with their own eyes. We don't like to be called Liars here in the U.S. We don't necessarily only need references on the internet, as not all is on the internet as yet--even so, that doesn't necessarily make it Gospel. I DID give a reference from Fred Kneisler. What do you Want; Charles F. Kettering? Thomas Midgeley, Jr?

Bad needs be put with the Good, especially an all-encompassing problem with All Vegas--not just an a occasional: " loose carb" or "bad valve guide seal". Check back issues of Car and Driver or something.

The sky is Blue, not Green. It's like saying Audi 100LS's didn't have valve guide problems--or, Pinto's don't blow up, etc. (see YouTube) Everyone knows this except the writers, and, you guys. 68.231.184.217 (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the Lead - post RFC

Now we have successfully concluded the RFC and have consensus that change is needed, I have copied the old version of the lead to a subpage - Talk:Chevrolet Vega/Lead - and suggest that we use that page, rather than work here on the main talk page, to discuss changes and come to agreement on a new version. Once we have the lead sorted, then perhaps we can move onto other sections. Is that OK? --Biker Biker (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Superb idea! Ebikeguy (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. OK I put my strawman up. Think of it as a Piñata, so have at it with your sticks and cudgels. I promise I won't get upset, I won't have a hissy fit or throw my toys out of my pram, I just want to start some discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Total awesomeness. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Shortly, I will post the edited lead per the conversation referenced above. The changes are evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and they represent a collaborative effort amongst several editors. Still, the "new" lead is, by no means, set in stone. Please feel free to edit it if you think you can improve it. Understand, however, that un-discussed, point-blank reverts will not be tolerated and will be viewed as sufficient justification to request admin help on this issue. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC - which section next?

So which section shall we approach next? "Reception" and "Awards"? If so then go to Talk:Chevrolet Vega/Reception, otherwise make your suggestion. The awards & reception sections obviously aren't going to be as straightforward and quick as the lead was so perhaps it would pay to spend some time on it. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, obviously this isn't catching on quite like "let's revamp the lead!" did. How about this? How should the article be organized? Currently it leads with in-depth technical information and details on the manufacturing process, followed by a bit of history on the genesis of the project, a brief detour into criticism ("Vega versus competitors" and "Awards"), then the technical problems, the larger criticism section, and finally a section on modified Vega versions.

This may be my bias as a reporter showing through, but I'd tend to lead with a narrative history of the car, pulling together the disparate sections on and references to its creation, initial sales, developing problems, decline and finally cancellation, before going into exhaustive detail on its engine block, assembly process and contemporary reviews. As it stands some of that isn't in the article at all, most notably actual coverage of its cancellation by Chevy - the only reference to the line being terminated is in the lead. ShaleZero (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea. Would you also like to comment on the Talk:Chevrolet Vega/Reception page, or are you suggesting we abandon that in favour of a wider change? --Biker Biker (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have already been abandoned; that's why I decided to go ahead and post this. But in general, yeah, I'd think it's more important to hammer out what sections we should have and where they should go, before getting into the nitty-gritty of writing each one.ShaleZero (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reception section

This vast section outweighs all others. I think that's inappropriate (WP:WEIGHT). If other editors are in agreement, let's prune it. Writegeist (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do with my blessing. We decided a while back to do this in the big RFC but then lost momentum after we "won". --Biker Biker (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, see what you think. I've gone over the Praise and Criticism subsections; trimmed them back. Feel free to revert if you don't like what I've done! Writegeist (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

At one point I had added several citations from books as well. I'll dig them up again and add a few. The section can still probably be trimmed.842U (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I just got to this page but i checkt out your edits, its looking a lot better. Good work.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I took it a bit further by simplifying the headings and re-ordering slightly. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Great. I like. I'm a little concerned at the loss of most of the contemporaneous specialist-press criticisms and wonder if one or two of those paragraphs can be reinstated without overly weighting the section? Writegeist (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

any consumer tests on engine durability after the "fixes"

I had a 74 Vega - I remember the problem with having to get a kit to adjust for the body flexing so the car could be aligned properly after so many miles -

My car started gulping oil like crazy after about 50K miles -

I would love to know how these engines that had the "fixes" on them held up over time - I read of the engine testing for 60K - but I expect a car to last way longer than 60K if I take care of it.

My car also had the rusting around the back hatch -

The car did have many positive points, I did like driving it, except for the very hot black interior - which I hate on a car.

Gas mileage did not really seem better though than what my I got using my moms 66 Chrysler Newport, with the 383 2 barrel - at least, on the highway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appledude1 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Cosworth Vega merger

I propose that Chevrolet Cosworth Vega is merged into this article. A low volume model, whose main difference is the engine, doesn't warrant a separate article and could easily be covered (in fact mostly is already covered) within this article. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure how long will this article grow if merged? this is already quite long -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but there is already quite a bit of duplication so it probably wouldn't grow too much, especially if we took the opportunity to reduce some of the guff that is already there (in both articles). --Biker Biker (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree there's beaucoup guff that could be jettisoned. Writegeist (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No...There was a separate Cosworth Vega section with infobox in the Vega article (January 2011) and that article was judged too large. As per discussion I trimmed the article including making the Cosworth section a separate article. So now you want to increase the size of the Vega article again? There is an exclusive history of this vehicle that warrant a separate article. Moving it back again would mean increasing the size of the Vega article (again) or worse still by reducing it, there by leaving out the relatively unknown history and gestation of this limited production vehicle. (Barnstarbob (talk))

(ec) Sorry to say I don't remember any discussion that delegated you in particular ("I was told to...", as you said in your post before you changed it just now) to trim the article (diffs would help here). Also I don't remember any discussion about making the Cosworth bit a separate article - diffs would help here too, please. Please don't take offense. All I'm saying is I don't remember; I don't deny the discussions you cite took place, but I can't find them in the talk page history. Please direct me to them. Writegeist (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You weren't involved in the discussion when the Vega article was much larger, I created the Cosworth Vega article in January 2011.

There was a separate Cosworth Vega section with infobox in the Vega article (January 2011) and that article was judged too large. As per discussion I trimmed the article including making the Cosworth section a separate article. So now you want to increase the size of the Vega article again? There is an exclusive history of the Cosworth Vega that warrant a separate article. Moving it back again would mean increasing the size of the Vega article (again) or worse still by reducing the Cosworth text, there by leaving out the relatively unknown history and gestation of this limited production vehicle. (Barnstarbob (talk))

I already checked the Jan 2011 history. I didn't see discussion about making the Cosworth section a separate article. Please help by providing diffs. Thank you. Also please datestamp your posts. Writegeist (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on trimming the size of the Vega article. There were suggestions on which sections should be eliminated as well. The Cosworth Vega section/infobox was one of the larger sections in the article. Instead of deleting text and images, a new article was made, actually several new articles were made. The Cosworth Vega warrants a separate article anyway. (It wasn't an engine option, it was a separate model. (Barnstarbob (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

Thank you. Again I ask you please to provide a diff showing where the removal of the Cosworth section was discussed. As I already told you, I can't find it. Writegeist (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It goes back a year. I remember the discussion was not in the Vega talk page but WikiProject Automobiles (Barnstarbob (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

So you're saying now that the removal of the Cosworth was not discussed on the article talk page? Please provide diffs for the discussion at WikiProject Automobiles. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I remember pretty much everybody blasting Bob for making the Vega article too long and too detailed. After much arguing from both sides it was trimmed back substantially. Regardless, let's discuss the two articles on their merits. The Cosworth Vega was sufficiently different from the main Vega - true, the main difference was the engine but that totally changed both the power and the handling of the car. And for an American car it was truly different from the usual pattern of putting in the biggest lump of cast iron available. The Cosworth article has enough information to stand on its own - their is some duplication of the main article but it provides needed context and is not excessive. Whereas the main Vega article is already rather large - even after the Cosworth information is trimmed of duplication it will add more length than we really want. I recommend that we leave them as separate articles.  Stepho  talk  22:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a section relating to the size of the article and deletions-

Vegavairbob, what are your thoughts on moving most of the powertrain information to a separate article, such as GM 2300 engine? This would go a long way in reducing the length. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has been reduced a total of 50k bytes - from 128k bytes to 78k bytes. I reduced the article 8k bytes (equal to the size of the Dura-Built 140 and Aluminum engine block sections) from 86k bytes to 78k bytes trimming sections without deleting entire additional sections. Trimmed were the Design, Engine, Cosworth Twin-Cam, DeLorean and Criticism sections and the large production/changes chart was replaced with a much smaller chart. The largest section, Reception was already deleted as was the large Vega variants section, and I just deleted the Stillborn Engine section (4k bytes) including the Wankel since it was never produced, later planned for the Monza, and is (still) featured in the shorter Monza article. Engine section should remain as unlike other GM engines (excluding Corvair) the 140 engine was designed for, and associated with one car - the subject of the article, is the car's notable feature, and the Engine section (including the aluminum block development and Dura-built 140 Durabilty run) is part of the history of only this car, and balances the article's neutality with the Criticism engine subsection. If an engine is only associated with a particular car it should be encompassed in the car article, not just a mention with a link to an engine article. In such cases the seperate engine article should be considered subordinate, a reference. Vegavairbob (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed the article further by removing Cosworth Vega section and infobox (added one image of Cosworth and the engine paragraph to Engines) Chevrolet Cosworth Vega a new seperate article.Vegavairbob (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC) While I'd agree a lot of detail on it shouldn't stay in, does anyone else think at least a mention of engine proposals should stay in? IMO, something about GM's mooted direction (& a comparison to where GM actually went) merits inclusion: so, mention (if not extensive detail) of the Wankel & Z32 (? aluminum V8) deserves inclusion. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A large Wamkel section with images is in the Chevrolet Monza article as it was (in the final hour) planned for that car. It was included here as well but article was reduced from 128k bytes to 73k bytes by trimming most sections and deleting three. A paragraph on the aluminum V8 prototype is in the last section of the article. I agree on a smaller section (paragraph) on the Wankel added back. Vegavairbob (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wankel sub-section added back (a smaller version-4k bytes)Vegavairbob (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Thx. Not only preserving the info, I learned something: it was a 206ci. (!) :D Would that have been a hot rod Vega! (And GM didn't build it... :( :( ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, and Vegavairbob I'm quite sorry if I offended you. You have clearly added a lot of valuable content to a lot of pages. While I stand by my statement that you are rather single-minded (nothing wrong with that!), I also said "it seems we are all Vegavairbob's greatest defenders, as everyone finds something interesting everywhere." I like your work, but what I like the most is your willingness to cooperate and even prune to the point that the rest of us are beginning to ask you to put stuff back in. I think splitting off the Cosworth Vega was the best way to make this page of a reasonable size (interesting in light of current merger-madness), but I don't see a lot more trimming being at all necessary. Now go help me write an article on the Talbot-Lago T150, one is sorely needed! ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Stepho and Barnstarbob. So there was no discussion on the article talk page. Neither, AFAICT, was the move discussed at WikiProject Automobiles. The move was done by Vegavairbob/Barnstarbob without discussion - a fait accompli. He then informed the project and somebody agreed with the move. Am I correct? Writegeist (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering the policy WP:BEBOLD and that no-one complained for a year, I'd say whether or not he did it on his own or under orders is irrelevant to the current discussion. Shall we get bogged down in this side discussion or shall we discuss the issue at hand?  Stepho  talk  23:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Support merge. Agreed, Barnstarbob has every right to be BOLD. However, I understood him to be saying that the split was discussed, and that it was done per this discussion. As I had no memory of the discussion, and couldn't find it by searching the history, I asked to be directed to it for clarification. As it turns out, the reason I couldn't find the discussion is that it's non-existant. Enough said. Writegeist (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Support merger as per original poster. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on trimming the Vega article in Wikiprojects Automobiles January 2011 - a section of it shown above, The Cosworth Vega article was made in response to the Vega article being too large and by putting the Cosworth article or part of it back in the main Vega article defeats the purpose of the previous discussion, thereby increasing the size of the Vega article..again. When I made the separate Cosworth article, only a small paragraph and photo was retained for the Engines section of the Vega article, listing the Cosworth engine along with the 140 engine and the 140 Dura-Built engine as well as one '76 Cosworth Vega photo in Model year changes. The Cosworth Vega is a totally separate model with its own history- the separate article is appropriate. I haven't seen a valid reason for deleting the article. (Barnstarbob (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

(1) The Cosworth Vega is another Vega model, not a totally separate one. (2) I believe there is scope in both articles for improvement by considerable pruning, among other things. (3) It's arguable that the DeLorean section belongs in the DeLorean BLP. (4) If the Cosworth Vega were as significant as, say, the Ford Sierra RS Cosworth it might merit a solus article. It isn't. It doesn't. Writegeist (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Cosworth base price was double a Vega Hatchback. That alone proves its not just another Vega model. It has a hand-built, signed, all-aluminum twin-cam engine. 5000 engines and only 3508 numbered cars where built. It's NOT just another Vega model. At the risk of sounding redundant, The separate article is appropriate. Aluminum block section and gallery deleted from Cosworth article. (Aluminum block section already in Vega article)

Is it a Chevrolet Uranus? A Chevrolet Pluto? A Chevrolet Betelgeuse? A Chevrolet Pollux? No, it's a Chevrolet Vega. Ergo, a Vega model. Writegeist (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Listen, you're missing the point. It's a different version of the car. Is a Shelby Mustang different than a Mustang? Is a Shelby Daytona a different Daytona? Is a Roush Mustang a different Mustang? Yes they are different...and a Cosworth Vega is a different Vega. A ZR1 Corvette is twice the price of a Corvette. A Cosworth Vega was twice the price of a Vega. Now, does the ZR1 Corvette have a separate article on Wikipedia? Yes. Why? Because it's a different version of the Corvette (not just an option) that's substantially different and twice the price, just as is the Vega and the Cosworth Vega. Just in case there's a new requirement I didn't know about for Wikipedia inclusion... its relevance or historical significance, read the review section. With all due respect, if I need an opinion, I'll go with the likes Car and Driver and Road Test magazines. C&D quote- "We're talking historical significance here." RT quote- "The Cosworth is American, and a collector's item, and it came close, damn close to winning the whole thing." Sounds pretty significant to me... [(Barnstarbob (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC))

No wonder you piss people off. Typically, you have changed your above post about eighteen times. Kindly desist from this devious behaviour. If you wish to change what you have written, strike it out and add your amendment(s). You've been here long enough to have a basic grasp of Wikipedia etiquette. Writegeist (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Writegeist (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Writegeist (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this is a family rated website and swearing is not allowed. I have replaced the offending word with 'p***' but have otherwise left your comments alone.  Stepho  talk  12:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced your swear word for a second time. Feel free to report me. I will continue to replace it until explicitly told not to by an administrator. Swearing is not appropriate on this page. please note that I have taken care to not change the meaning of your post.  Stepho  talk  22:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Replaced your swear word for a third time. I'll take it as good faith that you thought strike-through would be acceptable but as long as the word is still visible it must be changed. Note: I am still taking care to not alter the meaning of your comment.  Stepho  talk  09:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised at you taking this stance. If you read the guidance at WP:CIVIL (which is the policy that covers incivility on talk pages) you will see that contributors are directed to either remove or strike out their uncivil comments (section WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL). Nowhere does it say that others should do this. As for the phrase "piss people off" it isn't the worst profanity there is. If you search Wikipedia talk pages for the phrase "piss people off" then you will find that there are 7,909 hits which have not been redacted by other editors. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed it the smallest amount and bent over backwards to leave obvious pointers to the original text. But I will desist since it is distracting from the main discussion.  Stepho  talk  11:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WP policies for articles are:

1. Is it notable? in this case the Cosworth Vega is sufficiently different from the rest of the Vega range and is supported by references saying that it is something special. Arguing whether it is a model in its own right or just part of the Vega range is besides the point.
2. Is there enough material to stand alone? This is what I normally call the weight test. Obviously there is enough. Potentially it could be merged into another article if it was small but the Vega article is already big enough (and I don't believe it would be made better by trimming). The overlap between the two articles isn't all that much either.
3. Common sense. Well, common sense apparently isn't all that common :) Generally, I prefer merging whenever possible and reasonable. However, in this case the Cosworth article is quite happy as it is and merging will overload the Vega article.  Stepho  talk  04:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Support, as usual. --Pineapple Fez 07:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose, for reasons given above.  Stepho  talk  12:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support, because the subject matter doesn't warrant two articles. There is a difference between expounding on trivia and vetting information to include what is justly relevant — outside the miopic realm of the fan. The article is already inflated beyond the car's significance or encylopedic merit... and that includes a mild engine variant, however grandly marketed or grandly perceived by the devotee. 842U (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The multiple magazines quoted seem to really like its handling - a major benefit of a light alloy engine. One of them even said it was much better than versions with a V6 or V8 due to the handling. Some magazines compared it favourably with specific well-liked European sports cars. I agree that the language used in the article is a bit gushy. But the information itself is still good and the language style can be toned down without destroying the information. If this was moved to the main Vega article then something would have to be deleted to make room in the already long article. As said above, specific top end models of other cars have had their own articles (as long as there was enough unique information about that car). I really don't see why this article is considered so harmful.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your consice summation here makes my point exactly; there's no reason a single sentence with these points and a few references could not suffice to cover the topic more than adequately.842U (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

??? That would have to be one long sentence to cover the details in this article - especially the development of the engine, which I gather is unique to this vehicle. I found this article to be a fascinating read - even if it is a bit gushy. I really love to hear about the development of mechanical things, to hear about how it came about. That's what gives me inspiration. Even the bit about the engine's ultimate failure to survive cylinder wear provides a lesson to be learnt. Condensing this entire article down to a single sentence would void it of any inspiration.  Stepho  talk  15:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to refrain from editing either article until this discussion is resolved. Writegeist (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Reluctant support - I feel that poor, long-suffering Barnstarbob, already much abused, shouldn't have had to go through the effort of splitting up the Vega article to begin with. Sure, he wasn't always the most cooperative of editors, but he has incrementally become more accommodating, more so than I would ever expect of anyone after such a barrage of criticism. Perhaps Bob and a randomly selected group of uninvolved admins could agree on a layout for the Vega and its various versions, and the rest of us (including me) would then agree to edit constructively within these parameters? Nonetheless, the question of whether an article must be split when it reaches a certain size is certainly interesting.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Merger - Per Stepho's arguments. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob, would you be willing to hold off editing either article and allow them to remain stable until this discussion is resolved? Writegeist (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This is exactly the kind of article we shouldn't be merging. It has a huge amount of non duplicate content and can't possibly fit in the parent article. This information is not something only a fan would be interested in, it is noteworthy and well referenced content that if lost would be a real blow to our encyclopedia. I can't for the life of me understand why people think that informative encyclopedic text should be deleted based on some idea about how certain models are too similar to warrant separate articles. This isn't trivia and Wikipedia isn't paper. --Daniel 15:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it has enough nondublicate content and it would make the main article too long -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The dear old "WP isn't paper" warhorse too often gets dragged out to defend serious guffbloat. The Vega articles are both overblown, not least because much of the content is cringe-makingly overwritten, tending towards gush and breathlessness, and reading too often like fanboy pieces. (Maybe because they're lifted wholesale from sources, or maybe that's the way the source material was pumped up as WP text. Who knows? There's hardly an external link in sight; we can't check the sources.) Liposuction is worth serious consideration, IMO; and perhaps a merged article wouldn't be overly long. That aside, does the C Vega seriously merit solus status? For a car with sporting pretensions it's my understanding that it was surprisingly underpowered and slow in the stoplight drags (the litmus test at the time), although apparently it handled well, plus (or rather another minus) it was also vastly overpriced, and a dismal failure in the marketplace - hardly comparable to a ZO6 (somebody raised that corker earlier). I see the CV as another Vega model, albeit a gussied one; generously treated to puffery by obliging hacks on American car mags, and studiously ignored by Joe Public. Supposing the articles could be merged without growing overly long: why not? Writegeist (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent post! This pair of articles have become little more than one author's personal fan page. Together they could make one decent article with some work - after all there are a lot of references which discuss the Vega and its shameful legacy in automotive history. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Writegeist, if you don't like how the articles are written you can fix them, although I can sympathize with the difficulty you might have working with Bob, but that isn't a reason to merge. The fact is there has been significant coverage of the Cosworth Vega in sources that we generally consider to be reliable, enough to write a non trivial encyclopedia article. Your appraisal of the Cosworth Vega's failure, if covered in reliable sources, should only serve to expand the current article and should not be used as a reason for a content losing merge. As for your question, yes, if the articles could fit on one page without losing a quality content, that would be fine by me. --Daniel 21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you as always for the well-considered response Daniel. Writegeist (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob, would you be willing to hold off editing either article for a couple of days to give me a chance to see if I can successfully trim off their fat? Writegeist (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

He's blocked. He won't be editing anything for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action against continued disruption. Writegeist (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there is clear consensus for a merger - there are good points for and against but no obvious and clear cut conclusion. Therefore I'm very happy to withdraw the suggestion, especially given the excellent work that took place on both articles following BS Bob's permanent block. Assuming there's no violent opposition I will remove the merger tags in a day or two if someone doesn't beat me to it. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Liposuction

I've trimmed a lot from the Vega article (as you can see from the relative sizes), including detail on the rebadged variants (which have their own articles) and the Cosworth (has its own article at present). Sorry I didn't trawl through BSbob's recent succession of edits, I just couldn't be arsed - they're usually miniscule incremental changes and self-corrections; I hope these are ditto, i.e. minor changes that he can easily add back in. Sorry if I undid anything important. The praise and criticism sections could both be halved, but I haven't done that yet. More fat can probably be trimmed. If anyone objects to what I've done, they're welcome to revert. Basically I just wanted to demonstrate just how unnecessarily bloated the article had become. Writegeist (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good start, well done. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Biker. I think we can pull more out... Writegeist (talk)

Well, BSbob has started edit-warring the changes, re-adding detail material I'd deleted from the "rebadged variants" section (I'd added directs at the head of the section, per normal practice, to the model-specific pages where the material belongs); also adding photographs of rebadged variants; also a production table for them -- all inappropriate in this article on the Vega but perfectly suited to the model-specific articles. He has also re-added an overly weighty verbatim DeLorean quote which I had reduced to DeL's summary; etc. This despite my edit summary requesting BSbob to discuss here instead of reverting. I have stopped editing, otherwise BSbob will find himself at 3rr on more than one front and I don't want to see him banned again. But I'm somewhat at a loss as to how to move forward now in the face of what looks like wilful unreason. Help! Writegeist (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Given his current trajectory, I am afraid that another ban might be the only way to bring him back down to earth.Ebikeguy (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. He's back to his old ways - owning the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for stepping in. Writegeist (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am saddened by the way things worked out, but as I said, this might have been the only way. If only he could use his powers for good... Ebikeguy (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so for the next stage of the reduction I took the "Comparison with competitors", "Awards", and "Reception" sections and compressed them all down into one. I make no apologies for giving slightly more weight to the criticism, but I hope I have also done justice to both the awards and praise the car received at its launch. The old versions I replaced are obviously in the article's revision history so if anything needs to be rescued it can be. I invite you to praise my ingenuity or insult my impudence, but please recognise my desire to improve the article, which is what drove me to make the changes (that and the voices...) Your mileage may vary so I won't get all huffy or stroppy if you want to change things (within reason of course!) --Biker Biker (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Cut, cut, cut. 842U (talk)

Why is there a "V8 Vegas" section in this article? It may be interesting, but as far as I know, all of these were individual aftermarket modifications and did not see serial manufacture for the public. These cars had no authorization or assistance from the manufacturer. For example, V8 engines were also stuffed into Ford Pintos, but those individual modifications do not rate mention in the article about that model. CZmarlin (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

@Biker Biker: excellent work that improves the article! @CZM: I agree. I think the referenced Chevrolet-built V8 prototype could remain, and the remainder can be jettisoned for the reasons you specify. Writegeist (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made the V8 edit. I hope it's agreeable. Article length now down from 126,390 bytes to 65,088. Writegeist (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Now at 57,260 bytes. Writegeist (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Contributors to this effort (and the resultant demise of BS Bob needn't feel too guilty. Apparently when he was banned earlier in the year he setup his own personal Vega wiki at chevyvega.wikia.com He seems to be the only editor, other than some recent vandalism which has resulted in every single page being sysop-protected so that only he can edit. Hopefully editors of this page weren't involved in some of the childish edits and comments that were made. Anyway, now he gets to play with himself to his heart's content.... --Biker Biker (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have been pronouncing this "Vayga" for 40 years. I suppose in retrospect that that would be a quasi-Spanish way to say it.
No one in my family owned one, so that pronunciation comes from television advertisements (?) presumably.
So, is "Vayga" correct?

I personally pronounce the star Vega "Vayga", like the car, but according to my dictionary, the star is "Veega".
Varlaam (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC) (Canada)

Just don't talk to any astronomers and you'll be fine. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry allegation

It is my assertion that sock puppetry by Barnstarbob is taking place on this article at the moment. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barnstarbob --Biker Biker (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Gtofever (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)