Talk:Kia Picanto

Automobiles Mid‑importance

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

Brands Low‑importance

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

October 2006

"especially among females" - Eh? Sure the Picanto was well marketed towards women but why would the inclusion of gadgets like a digital audio player be used to appeal to that market? Last time I checked, gadgets were more the passion of gentlemen. 81.77.162.63 18:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the passion of teenage Japanese girls, not gentlemen, but hey, some old fellows have neat digital watches. AdamGoldenApple (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anyone else think this reads like an advert? Charlieonholiday (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is an 1:1 advertisement of KIA. E.G. "Stopping distance from 100 kph (62 mph) is among the class-best at 41.0 metres": this is really not true (at least in Germany, 41m is quite horrible and not among the class-best). But I haven't done anything yet on wikipedia, I don't know what to do with this text (delete or mark it or whatsoever) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.8 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Hi again, if the part for the second generation picanto is not completely rewritten, so that it is no advertisement, I will delete it by end of August. Wikipedia is not the place for cheap advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyp811 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copies of this are all over the web including copies dated before we had the text. Looks like a copypaste of a press release. Regardless it is almost certainly a copyvio.. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In US?

So are these cars (or the other Kia new ones) like not available in the US at all? It would be really convenience if some sort of "regions sold" section could be made or something like that, just so people can get that pretty fast. AdamGoldenApple (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (May 2017)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kia Picanto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (December 2017)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619045257/http://www.kia.com.ph/sites/default/files/brochures/picanto.pdf to http://www.kia.com.ph/sites/default/files/brochures/picanto.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Areaseven's edit

Consensus is to use the blue image. –Davey2010^Talk 22:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Areaseven's and I are having a dispute over what images to include on the article. Claiming that the ones I included are "washed out" and "dirty". I took a closer look at them and they do have traces of dirt but that like 98% of all cars in this world has. I paste what I said here for convenience.

"Full reason: I honestly don't see a problem with small speck of dirt on the car, it nearly impossible to find a spotless example, especially the first gen ones ones. The first facelift pictures were also fine and had a nicely vibrant colour. The infobox picture is lot less tighter crop and it is blurry on one side and quite bad noise issue. If you are still concerned, feel free to take it to the talkpage."

I say it be a lot more better doing it here then rather then going straight to ANI as Areaseven is proposing to do. --Vauxford (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with your style of editing is that you insist that you're the only authority when it comes to posting automotive photography and that you insist that other users are not allowed to change your photos without a committee approval. News flash: You don't own Wikipedia. Your edit-warring is very counter-productive to this article and other automotive articles, so give it a rest. - Areaseven (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I have no intention of being "that person" but you ignorantly refuse to acknowledge that. The logic I see and make sense, if a edit is disputed is to be taken on their talkpage and so fourth. --Vauxford (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's throw in some examples:

The blue Picanto was the main image before Vauxford's last edit.

The red Picanto is what Vauxford chose to be the main image. Now, which one is more fit to represent the Picanto? - Areaseven (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously getting a bit personal with this, seeing you try to stir up past incidents involving a person I can't mention due to my IBAN, which you did here. --Vauxford (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, let's just wait for other users to give their opinions on this issue. - Areaseven (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having compared this revision to the current one I personally would say all images are fine except the red one (which is what I think the issue is here) - The red one looks very reflective and IMHO should be replaced (The white one here is IMHO too dark so should've been replaced),

Inregards to dirt - Dirt cannot be helped and unless the cars look like this or this then I would say dirt shouldn't be factor here. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did this edit to try and include the matching blue image in the latest gen infobox and galley. Reflection is due to be under trees which I kind of agreed, but even so, Areaseven hasn't mention the previous replacement of the older gen just because I took them. He definitely has some form of grudge against me. --Vauxford (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The gray Picanto is obviously much clearer and cleaner than the dirty faded yellow Picanto photos you took. - Areaseven (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The older gen images are fine and shouldn't be replaced, Unfortunately (no disrespect to Vauxford as it's not his fualt) but other than the blue image there isn't really any great images of this model, The grey one look IMHO too dark and too light .... so comparing those 2 I would say the red one is that 5% better. –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The silver car is at a awkward angle and quite reflective, doesn't help it under a roof, another thing to point out is the man in the background which doesn't help. --Vauxford (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the final verdict? - Areaseven (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hi, I never edit in this area but I read the articles to learn about car models, and thought I'd give my opinion. In terms of quality-of-photograph, they both seem to be equally high-quality. However, the Picanto 3 (blue car) is a nicer trim level than the Picanto 1 (red car). The wheels are nicer and the fog lights are nicer, at least in my opinion. I don't know if you consider trim levels or not, but for this reason, I think the blue car photo is better than the red car photo. Also, I think the photo should be flipped horizontally so the car is facing to the left (if the photo will appear on the right side of the page, like a lead image does). ^Leviv_ich 01:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd choose the blue Picanto for the main infobox (cleaner look and less reflective, such as the red one) and the red Picanto for the first generation infobox (better angle the the green one, even though lower trim level and slightly dirty wheel covers - I think they are acceptable). BaboneCar (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been agreed by the majority that the blue Picanto should be the lead pic instead of the red one. - Areaseven (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]