Talk:Mitsubishi Colt

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitsubishi Colt article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Untitled

Were any 3 cylinder Colts sold in the USA? Canada?

Complete re-write/split

This page is a mess. The "first generation" mostly discusses the Colt 600, an unrelated kei car which already has its own article. The Colt 800 and Colt 1000/1200/1500, all these cars are separate models in Mitsubishi's '60s line-up and I don't see how they bare any relation to the later cars (besides the use of the "Colt" name). The second to sixth generation discuss whatever Mirage or Lancer happened to be called a "Colt" in whatever export market. I think there is unnecessary detail here as the Mitsubishi Mirage and Mitsubishi Lancer articles cover these cars extensively enough. Then there's the 2002-present car known internationally as the Colt - again, a car unrelated to the previous Mirage/Lancer.

What I think should be done with this is:

Make this a set index article
Include a list of Mitsubishi vehicles that have used the "Colt" nameplate (which I'm sure has been used on other export Mitsubishis too), maybe some thumbnail images or a gallery - something like the Dodge Charger article, for example
Get rid of all the redundant content about the '60s cars, Lancers/Mirages (merge any unique content from here to the relevant article)
Make a separate article for the current car, call it Mitsubishi Colt (2002 car) or whatever is deemed most appropriate (is there a known name for the platform/chassis? All I see is "Z21A/23A" on the Japanese article which is a bit unwieldy to put in an article title IMO)

Does this sound reasonable? --Zilog Jones (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support you, but have some suggestions and (minor) reservations.

- Instead of the set index article layout, I would suggest making the "Mitsubishi Colt"page consist of a history the name, its uses, and it's relevance to Mitsubishi, followed by a set of links organized as this loverly "link gallery" used on the German VW Passat page. Easy to view, comprehensible and predictable. Much more fun than a disambiguation page.

- Mention of "Colt", as used as a brand instead of Mitsubishi, would make an interesting section. Colt has been applied in so many ways, and to so many cars, that it deserves this sort of space.

- (nitpick) - The Colt 600 was the first instance of Mitsubishi's use of the name, and it is the ancestor of all following Colts down to and including the Z21A/23A. It is of some relevance. It was also definitely not a Kei car, as Kei regulations of the time limited engine size to 360 cc and dimensions to 2,995 x 1,295 mm. See Mitsubishi Minica. However, I do agree that "Colt 1962-78" shouldn't only consist of Colt 600 stuff...

Now we just need to start work on separate articles for all the Colt iterations, anyone besides me and Zilog want to help?

⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all your suggestions. I tried doing the same thing with Mazda 121 with regards to the gallery, but there is certainly more room for expansion on this article about the name as it is more significant in Mitsubishi's history. I see what you mean about the Colt 600, I seemed to have forgotten that 600 cc was too big for kei cars back then. Yes it is of importance for this article, but my issue is that the current article seems to give the impression that it is the direct predecessor to the 1978 Mirage-based Colt which I don't think is really correct - I guess the Colt 800/1000F/11F was the predecessor in the Japanese market but still there's a gap of about 8 years between the two cars and the formation of Mitsubishi Motors so I wouldn't consider them strictly part of the same lineage.

As for separate articles, not sure if you have checked through them already but it's all more or less here:

Mitsubishi Colt 600 - could do with some work, also a better picture (current one is barely visible behind a Mitsubishi 500)
Mitsubishi Colt 800 - needs work, Colt 1000F, 1100F and 11F derivatives are mentioned in the Japanese article
Mitsubishi Colt 1000 - similarly Colt 1100/1200/1500 should be mentioned here (there's currently Mitsubishi Colt 1100 with an incorrect picture, and Mitsubishi Colt 1500 but I don't think these are necessary as per the equivalent Japanese article and should be merged)
Mirage and Lancer for the 1978-2002 stuff - these are both a bit messy due to the frequent overlapping of the two models and the further confusion caused by selling Mirages as Lancers (and maybe vice versa) or both as Colts in export markets. I'm sure improvements can be made with these but again I don't know an awful lot about the models outside of European (and somewhat Japanese) timelines. For now I don't think each generation needs separate articles, doing that can make things terribly unwieldy (like with Toyota Corolla) and I don't think there's enough info there to justify it yet. Trim level lists (Lancer page is full of them) could be made collapsible to tidy up things, maybe?
An article for the current Colt is the only one that needs to be created IMO, but that can mostly be split from the section here.

Anything else to add? Anyone else want to comment on this issue? --Zilog Jones (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't have a lot of interest in the post-bubble era cars (anything past 1995, really) - the new Colt is all yours. I do have lots of info on earlier things, albeit mainly from Euro/Jap perspective. I reckon that if we do an image gallery, several of them could link to one article until we have written separate ones. The Colt name was used for the '69 Galant, which was introduced as the "Mitsubishi Colt Galant" in Japan. Following your lead I suggest the following changes for the early Colt articles:

Mitsubishi Colt 600 - remains as is for now, I did some minor work but other things are currently more pressing.
Mitsubishi Colt 800 - becomes Mitsubishi Colt 800/F - Colt 1000F, 1100F and 11F derivatives included as well as 1100F picture currently incorrectly used on Colt 1100 page.
Mitsubishi Colt 1000 - becomes Mitsubishi Colt 1000-1500, merging what little unique content there is on Mitsubishi Colt 1100 and 1500 pages.

As for the Mirage/Lancer, Mitsubishi has made things incredibly confusing. I suggest starting work on making the Colt page into a gallery á la the Mazda 121 page (but with smaller pictures since there are so many iterations), which will probably make it clearer which versions need separate articles and what to name them. All the best, looking forward to this! ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK, except for the name changes of the Colt 800 and 1000 pages. I think "Colt 800/F" may be misleading into suggesting there was a model that went by that name, and listing a number range like "1000-1500" could cause confusion. I'm not sure what's normally done with names, the naming conventions stated here don't cover this particular issue. There's a similar case here - Fiat 1300/1500 - but "Colt 1000/1100/1200/1500" is probably too long. Personally I would prefer keeping it as Mitsubishi Colt 1000 (like the Japanese article) with redirects from Colt 1100, 1200 and 1500, but I would like to see what other people think. --Zilog Jones (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too worried about what the pagenames are. How about Colt 800 series and Colt 1000 series? One source I got lists the fastback ones as Colt 800 / Colt F, which I kind of like. I can't find any internal model codes to use, strangely enough. The F stood for fastback, so Colt Fastback is another option. However, since the Colt F was also available as a station wagon (sorry, "Van") this could also cause some confusion. I still like Colt 1000-1500, as I think it both fairly clear while also inclusive, but it is really not too important to me.

By the way, here's an article that should definitely be linked: Colt Car Company. It is authored by Mitsu-obsessed DeLarge, whom I have also invited to weigh in here. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it as "Colt 800" and "Colt 1000", for the same reason we have the page Mitsubishi Diamante and not "Mitsubishi Diamante/Sigma".

Also, due to the fact that the Mirage is basically a Lancer, those pages should be merged, preferably under the Lancer title. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party, but here eventually. And "Mitsu-obsessed"? Hehe, I'm really just a completist... or maybe a specialist. I'll try and cover as much as possible of the points raised above in my first answer here. The page is on my watchlist anyway, so I'd probably have chimed in eventually if I felt anything important hadn't been said, but so far you seem to be on a very solid path, so I don't really think I'm needed.

First, I'm all for a rewrite of this article, which has multiple issues. I believe I may even be personally responsible for at least some of the maintenance tags at the top of the page? However, before the more drastic splitting and so forth, can I recommend a copyedit first? I think doing a split/tidy would be easier if we knew better what we were dealing with. To me, it's like rearranging of the furniture in the house—you should spring clean first, otherwise you'll end up moving stuff around which is just destined for the trash later.

As seems to be the consensus, I'd try and avoid going too much for the set index style. "Mitsubishi Colt" can mean several different things in relation to the company, and as recommended I think a kind of history/overview (in prose text) is the most encyclopedic way of presenting it. I tried to do that with the first paragraphs, but it was a real five-minutes-on-the-back-of-an-envelope kind of thing, and could definitely do with an overhaul. By the way, in my defence I didn't call that section heading "First generation (1962–78)"; my choice was just "1960s". An anon IP did that in September last year, while at the same time trying to merge the Mitsubishi Mirage article in with this one. I suspect that may have been a root of the current problem, since the page went from 12k to 31k in one edit.

For the various individual pre-MMC cars, I created them under their current names... well, for want of a better idea. It seemed to fit the WP:CARS style of the time, and I wanted to associate them with Mitsubishi, but in retrospect, were they ever sold as anything other than just Colts? That is, would Colt 600, Colt 800, Colt 1100, et al be more accurate locations for them? I think Mr Choppers is the expert on 1960s Japanorama and can best confirm this. We can easily use the prose text and categorization to maintain a link with the current company, even if it's not reflected in the articles' titles.

I note with amusement that everyone else is, like me, rather exasperated with Mitsubishi's byzantine naming conventions. I've already gone through similar contortions in the past trying to sort out categorizations and redirects for the various Mitsubishi Challengers, Mitsubishi Pajeros, and Mitsubishi RVRs, that last one proving that Mitsubishi's as bad now as it ever was in the past. Sometimes I wish I'd started to tidy up something like Mazda instead... The whole Colt/Lancer/Mirage mess is risible, and if this page ever gets sorted to our satisfaction, I think it'd be good to try and clean up Mitsubishi Lancer and Mitsubishi Mirage as well. (And those ridiculous trim level lists can be the first things to go.) I will say that because MMC doesn't really have any single dominant "English language" name for its vehicles, I think this is an example of where the now obsolete WP:CARS naming convention—giving priority to the home (i.e. Japanese) market—is probably the most sensible with regard to the Colt. For that, Mitsubishi has a rather good "timeline" page in its 2005 annual report pages 26–27 at this link which can be used as a crib sheet.

Still, overall this actually seems like a fairly straightforward project. We're editors with a common interest, but it looks like we don't overlap too much in our areas of "expertise" [sic]; Mr C knows ye olde vehicles, ZJ covers the new (European) cars better, OSX does MMAL, and I'm interested in the history of the company as a whole. Yup, old stuff and non-American cars are ideal things to edit if you want peace and quiet on Wikipedia...

Oh, and a PS. I created Colt Car Company ages ago, but if someone took it to AfD now I don't think I'd vote to keep it. I reckon it fails the notability guidelines of WP:CORP, unlike the other Mitsubishi subsidiaries who are responsible for manufacturing cars, and who are much more significant within their marketplaces. --DeLarge (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to do the slightly unrelated job of merging Mirage and Lancer if everyone is okay with that (the Mirage is a three-door hatchback version of the Lancer; the Lancer coupe and sedan have also been sold at least in the U.S. as Mirages). OSX (talk • contributions) 23:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that accurate? The three-door hatchbacks (like Mitsubishi Mirage (CE2 MY02) 3-door hatchback (2010-07-10).jpg this one) have been sold as both Mirages and Colts, but never as Lancers that I know of. And there's lots of gaps in engine configurations too—the Mirage Cyborg's 175 hp MIVEC engine never made it to the Lancer sedan, while the 1.8 and 2.0 litre turbos that were the progenitors of the Evo never made it to the Mirages. Even when they licenced the designs to Proton, the Malaysians sold them as two separate models; a Satria 3-door, and a Wira 4/5-door. So I'd dispute that one was merely a bodystyle variant of the other. To cite a WP parallel, they're less related to each other than Volkswagen's Jetta and Golf, which we deal with on separate pages.

I'm now tempted to argue that the 1978–2002 versions of the Colt should be covered on the Mitsubishi Mirage page, since that's how they seem to have been sold in at least two major English-language markets (North America and Australia) as well as Japan. That would leave the post-2002 supermini to occupy Mitsubishi Colt by itself. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any hatchback iteration was ever sold as a Lancer, but plenty of Lancers have been sold with Mirage nameplates. Mirage and Colt, pre-2002, should both be on the Mirage page, as they usually refer to the same cars. The Lancer EX and Evolution models alone are grounds for keeping the Lancer page separate. This is sort of why we were hoping to turn the Colt page into merely a group of links which would then take you to the respective articles, instead of just being a bunch of duplicate content:

Mitsubishi Colt Galant A50 series, 1969 to 1973
Mitsubishi Colt A150 series, 1978 to 1983
Mitsubishi Colt Z20 series, 2002 to present

A note on model codes: The Mirage, for instance, had the model codes A151/152/155/156/157 depending on which engine was used, so I reckon calling it the "A150" series works fine. No other Mitsubishi ever used the A15 prefix. The same holds true for all other Mitsubishi products I can find data on, with the last digit sometimes denoting a facelift or 4WD version. Hence Z21/Z23 Colt, A101-A107 Minicas, and A31-A33 Debonairs to name a few.

As work on this link gallery progresses, it should become pretty clear what content belongs in which article. The Colt article ought to begin with a brief history of Mitsubishi's use of the Colt name, and would also be able to incorporate the content from Colt Car Company since DeLarge doesn't seem to mind a merge and redirect. Notes on usage of Colt nameplate by Dodge would also go nicely here.

"Yup, old stuff and non-American cars are ideal things to edit if you want peace and quiet on Wikipedia..." ← Very true - and I hadn't even realized I was using a strategy. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is body style enough to separate? I don't think reliable sources explaining the development of the three- and five-door versions of these Lancers badged as Mirages are going to be found. We're are just going to find ourselves with two articles that essentially repeat themselves. Below I have compiled a list based entirely on what is mentioned at Mitsubishi Mirage and Mitsubishi Lancer. There may be even more Mirages badged as Lancer and Lancers badged as Mirages that are not listed.

Third generation:

3-door hatchback (Mirage)
5-door hatchback (Mirage)
4-door sedan (Lancer)

Fourth generation:

3-door hatchback (Mirage)
5-door hatchback (Mirage)
4-door sedan (Mirage and Lancer)
5-door wagon (Mirage and Lancer)

Fifth generation:

3-door hatchback (Mirage and Lancer)
5-door hatchback (Mirage and Lancer)
4-door sedan (Mirage and Lancer)

Sixth generation:

2-door coupe (Mirage and Lancer)
3-door hatchback (Mirage)
4-door sedan (Mirage and Lancer)
5-door wagon (Lancer)

Seventh generation:

2-door coupe (Mirage and Lancer)
3-door hatchback (Mirage)
4-door sedan (Mirage and Lancer)

Little things like the fifth generation "Mirage" three-door being sold in Australia with the rest of the Lancer range sort of highlights the pointlessness of separating these articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with the list presented above. For me, combining Lancer, Mirage, and Colt would be alright if it weren't for the strong tendency towards using "Lancer" for traditional 3-box sedans (underlined by the existence of the Lancer EX and Evolution). As far as "generations" go, which ones are you referring to? Mirage or Lancer? I have a hard time responding since I am not entirely sure of which cars you are referring to - I think that an agreed terminology for each car is a good start:

A150
intro '78, no Lancers/sedans until '82
C10
C50/60/70/80
No wagons
CA/CB/CC/CD/CE
CJ/CK/CL/CM/CP
last Mirages, last hatches
CS/CT
CY/CZ

Once we can all agree as to which car we are referring to, we may start determining what to call respective articles. In support of keeping Mirage and Lancer separate, I still haven't seen any instance of a hatchback ever using the "Lancer" nametag, although I suppose that there could be some antipodean version that I don't know about. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Lancer generational lineage. The C50/60/70/80 "Mirage" three-door was sold as "Lancer", and the current model CY/CZ has a five-door hatchback body style, known as "Sportback". OSX (talk • contributions) 07:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Lancer article should not be merged with Mirage as the early RWD Lancers and the last two generations had no Mirage equivalents. I think merging even just the related generations may just make things more confusing. I think maybe the Mirage article should more closely follow the Japanese market history (i.e. primarily hatchbacks and the Asti coupes - but not completely ignoring other markets) to avoid too much duplication between that and the Lancer article.

The above suggestion for use of chassis codes sounds good, a similar decision was made with Toyotas and that seems to have worked out OK so far. --Zilog Jones (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the three-door (hatchback) C50 hasn't ever been labelled Lancer, and the five-door (sedan-based liftback) C60 was never available with Mirage badging. While the Sportback does have a rear hatch it's conceptually a version of the sedan. I wish I knew why Mitsubishi thought it necessary to have two separate names with only very slightly different roles... To me, Lancer originates in the RWD sedans of 1973, then the Mirage lineage develops with the '79 Hatchback. There was a long period of considerable overlap, but they never completely merged.

My view on the naming is that Lancer is generally used on three-box designs, more grown-up and sedate, while Mirage generally seems to have a slightly more youthful image. Kind of like the relationship between Nissan Sunny and Pulsar. "Colt" is simply a catch-all export name, between 1972 and 2002 at least. Of course, export market names often confuse matters here, especially when generations overlap.

As for the chassis codes, I mainly listed them so that we could have an easier time knowing which car is being referred to. If we were to use them for article headings, I would recommend using only the introductory code, i.e. Mirage C50, Lancer CY - just like using "Colt 800" to include 1000F, 1100F and 11F iterations. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement—no merger of Lancer and Mirage. There's certainly been plenty of crossover with the nameplates in certain markets, but if we use the Mirage page to document the 3-door hatches and coupes, and use wikilinks/hatnotes to redirect readers to the Lancer page where appropriate, we can cut out a lot of the current content duplication. I certainly don't think there's any way we can legitimately include info about (for example) the CJ/CK/CL/CM/CP Mirage 3-doors on the Lancer page, since I don't believe that model was ever badged as a Lancer anywhere; it was only ever a Mirage or Colt. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CJ/CK/CL/CM/CP Mirage 3-door was badged "Lancer" in Australia from 1989 to 1991 [1], [2], [3]. Obviously due to opposition from everybody else I am not going to bother pursuing the merger any further, but in my opinion, it is the most logical solution based on the considerable overlap. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the rewrite etcetera has fallen off. I went ahead and updated the Mitsubishi Colt 800 and Mitsubishi Colt 1000 pages, with all the other ###s now being redirects. Since everyone else wanted to keep those names for the pages I agree, and kept them as such. Also separated all of the sedan vs fastback information that had gotten somewhat entangled. I may start a sandbox rewrite on Mitsubishi Colt, unless someone else is already working at it.

Oh, and curse those pesky Aussies for applying names in an even more random fashion than Mitsubishi themselves ever managed... we'll just have to have a special Aussie-section in every main section, particularly so since the antipodeans also apply their own modelcodes (CA, LB etc etc). How about an Australian Mitsubishi disambiguation chart? That could be useful, but I'd rather not tackle it myself. Anyhow, any input on my article rewrites is welcome. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on us for being different. I'd be happy to do the "Australian Mitsubishi disambiguation chart"; just come and harass me on my talk page when you want it. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, will do. Just received some old Aussie Chryslerbishi brochures in the mail too, so now I know more. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done or new discussion?

The split request tags are over a year old; either the splits have been done, or there was no consensus at the time - either way, the situation is likely to have changed since the split was first proposed so I am removing the tags as stale. It is not clear to me from the above discussion if the suggested actions were all done; if not, then it would be appropriate to start a fresh discussion. If it is agreed to continue splitting, then that should either be actioned, or a new Split request tag placed in the appropriate sections in the article with a clear rationale left here on the talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second attempt

My suggestion above to partially merge the Mirage and Colt into the Lancer page still stands, so I'll see if there is greater support this time. To avoid confusion, here is an illustrative gallery of Mirage/Colt models and an identifier that can be used in this discussion. The gallery may not be complete, but I have listed the names that I could find that apply to each generation.

A150
3-door (Mirage)
5-door (Mirage)
Sedan (Lancer)
C10
3-door (Mirage)
5-door (Mirage)
Sedan (Mirage, Lancer)
Wagon (Mirage, Lancer)
C50
3-door (Mirage, Lancer)
5-door (Mirage, Lancer)
Sedan (Mirage, Lancer)
CA
3-door (Mirage)
Coupe (Mirage, Lancer)
Sedan (Mirage, Lancer)
Wagon (Lancer)
CJ
3-door (Mirage)
Coupe (Mirage, Lancer)
Sedan (Mirage, Lancer)

Z30 (Colt)
2012 model (Mirage)

??????? | Or - you could actually TRY - to find (live/current) info, such as for the COLT: 1976 - 1978 Japanese EXPORT model T-120-Y Cab/Chassis, sent to New Zealand. | File:13-_Mitsubishi_COLT_1978_T120_-_C27005_PARTS.JPG (http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/File:13-_Mitsubishi_COLT_1978_T120_-_C27005_PARTS.JPG)

Mitsubishi Colt: discuss the Z30 in detail, turn the remainder of the article into an illustrative "history of the name" page, similar to Subaru Outback or Isuzu Rodeo but with section headings and a little more detail. This "history of the name" page would start off briefly discussing the Colt 600, and Colt 1000, 1100, 1200, 1500. It would then briefly discuss the A150, C10, C50, CA, and CJ models which have a corresponding Mirage model in Japan.

Mitsubishi Mirage: discuss the A150, C10 and "2012 model" in detail, turn the remainder of the article into an illustrative "history of the name" page as per Mitsubishi Colt.

Mitsubishi Lancer: move the A150 and C10 content to Mirage, discuss all C50, CA, and CJ models here in detail (i.e. Colt, Mirage and Lancer).

An alternative would be to make Mirage the main page, and to move A150, C10, C50, CA, and CJ Lancer information there, thus using the exisiting sections at Mitsubishi Lancer to summarise the name only. This would be a neater solution in many ways, but would make it a little messier if the Lancer Evolution was ever to be merged.

There is simply too much content duplication here to warrant three pages (or even just Mirage and Lancer, as Colt and Mirage are essentially synonymous). The confusing mess is further exacerbated by pages for models by other firms:

Dodge Colt: turn this page into an illustrative "history of the name" page similar to Isuzu Rodeo, pointing readers to the Galant, Mirage, Lancer, Mitsubishi RVR and Mitsubishi Chariot pages for further details.

Eagle Vista: as above, but pointing readers to the Lancer and Chariot pages for further details.

Eagle Summit: as above, but pointing readers to the Lancer and RVR pages for further details.

I know this a big change, but I am confident that it is the best way to fix this mess. To break things down a little, possibly we should just start with the Mitsubishi pages, and then deal with the Dodge/Eagle ones afterwards. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already merged the A150 and C10 contents to Mirage as discussed in 2010 at Talk:Mitsubishi Lancer (refers to the Lancer Fiore), but will leave it at this until further discussion. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with you, except that the Dodge Colt page is probably best left alone - this badge has a history which is largely separate from the global market Mirage, and it will make the Eagle Summit page (and others) clearer if it remains a full standalone. But in general, I support this condensation. Mr.choppers | ✎ 07:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the Mitsubishi side of things is mostly done now. I am quite happy with how the Mirage page has turned out, but it is obviously still missing a lot of content and needs referencing. The Colt page is much cleaner, but could be expanded further I think (plus the Z30 section is still quite messy). Finally, the Lancer page has had the five generations it shares with the Mirage culled and summarised into a few small paragraphs instead. However, the generations that remain at Lancer require substantial work to be anywhere near quality standard—a job for another day. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE WHAT ? (COLT page) IS MUCH CLEANER -- ALMOST DONE? (ONLY BY REMOVING ALL TRACES OF THE COLT T-120-Y TRUCKS) ?

IT ISN'T DONE - it is totally and irrefutably - GONE. Some useless entity - has DELETED IT.. which isn't merging, nor is it modifying .. BUT TOTALLY REMOVED.!!!

 Thus: MERGE what? The useless === Second attempt === ? Maybe do a third and final obliteration attempt - if that is required .. to DELETE ALL MENTION OF COLT.. (won't remove the unit from actual physical existence, but will make Wikipedia into a completely useless reference source.)

There is/has been a complete REMOVAL of earlier info (and pictures) of the original 1976 - 1978 COLT T-120-Y Series of the MITSUBISHI JAPAN, export Cab/Chassis flat deck trucks, from the so-called COLT page.. WHY? That is NOT cleaning - that is obliterating. To clean up, does NOT give anyone the RIGHT to totally remove.

But thankfully someone (AN OWNER OF the Mitsubishi made NZ model COLT "T-120-Y" no less), made sure that there existed a Pick-Up Trucks WIKIA about that exact COLT model.!! ON A SITE ELSEWHERE, NOT HERE.!!!

That everyone here seems to be either completely oblivious about, or is steadfastly determined to extinguish all info about .. even though there exists AT LEAST ONE fully registered original JANANESE MADE model.!!!

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/Mitsubishi_pickup_trucks http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:QUIX4U/QUIX4U's_Blog_(%26_or_Blogs)_on_Wikia.com Or.. check out the CURRENT New Zealand Registration Status: THE VEHICLE IS FULLY REGISTERED _ ON LIVE PLATES https://carjam.co.nz/car/?plate=QUIX (currently re-plated/re-registered as: KDR682 115.188.62.165 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad use of language

Just began reading the article and the first line contains a common mistake; "a myriad of". This is incorrect and should simply read "myriad" with the words "a" and "of" being erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accomotors (talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitsubishi Colt. 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/20061104055323/http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/environment/e/miev.html to http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/environment/e/miev.html

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) 16:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mitsubishi Colt. 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) 21:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]