Talk:Nissan Armada

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.

Heyyy..I don't know about you...but the 2006 Nissan Armada is the best pick of fullsize suv...it's longer than Toyota Seqoia,roomier than Ford Expedition, and more horsepower than Dodge Durango. The Nissan Armada comes with three trims...se,se off-road, and le, (being the premium package).

Bull-dozer's dirty cars gallery

Well, this is hardly a "gallery". If you really want to show the different badging, why don't you Armada enthusiasts for close-up photos of the badging? And if you want to have your photos in every article, just make better photos! Bravada, talk - 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the picture of the dirty SUV-it hurts WP's reputation. Also, I understand that the red SUV with the iceycles (?) on the rear bumper has a different badging, but such is not visible. There is no way of telling that the dirty Amramada has a different badging than the clean Armada; thus rendering the picture comaprision useless. I think just a mere mention in the text might do. Aloha, Signature ^brendel 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many pictures?

I'm not going to go so far as to remove the picture of the red car on the page now, but I don't see the need for two pictures that are basically the same, aside from the color of the car and the quality of the photo. The image in the sidebar should be enough, no? Wollkind (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second photo illustrates the facelift that came of the 2008 model year: a new front fascia. IFCAR (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Would someone familiar with this model go through and fix? Several SUV models seem to have been his; an Armada is not 24 feet long. Altaphon (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, as I really don't what to do either in this case. It is extremely overwhelming to go through the past 6 months of changes (diffs) to this article and separate their vandalism from the constructive contributions of other users, in efforts to restore some of the content in those diffs manually.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs Protecting?

It is there a to request for this article to be protected form I.P. editor-based vandalism? This is ongoing and the sock puppetry of one editor through using differing I.P. addresses has been allowing this to occur for months at a time.---Carmaker1 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Adminstrative Efforts

I am very disappointed at the staff responsible for reviewing and maintaining the Requests for Page Protection noticeboard, as I asked for assistance on February 5, 2017 in preventing the vandalism that this article and of other Nissan A60 articles (Infiniti QX56) have seen for the past several months. My request for protection was lackadaisically ignored and dismissed, leaving the same vandal to return under a new I.P. and cause further damage, that of course no one has made any dedicated effort to undo and fix, let alone blockade such destructive actions by the offending user.

At this point, I have no choice, but to by myself undertake the hassle of manually restoring what was there nearly 2 months ago, before this vandal managed to resurface and tamper with text in the article. I do not see how anyone can efficiently and effectively contribute to the Wikipedia Project, when things are allowed to happen like this, by higher-ups deliberately ignoring good-faith users trying to warn against destructive vandalism and dismissing the need to protect the articles that have been repeated vandalized. When User: Lectonar saw any request for protection, they should have taken swift action and put a stop to it. Yet they decided against protecting the page, because it did not concern a hobby or topic of interest to them.

It is a now a mess and a waste of time to fix, when this can easily be prevented and collectively save all users the trouble of undergoing the hassle of manually-done reverts.–––Carmaker1 (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by my decision; also you took almost two months to file this....report. At the time, protection was not necessary. Please read our protection policy. And it being a hobby of mine or not...how would you know? I will link you to WP:OWN instead. And talking about staff: we are all volunteers here, you, me, everyone. Not paid, btw. At least I am not paid. And not a higher-up either. Regards. If you want to follow up this topic...WP:ANI is that way. Lectonar (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]