Jump to content

Talk:Nissan Sunny

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older discussions

[edit]

All the early B10s delivered to Australia had 3 speed column change gearboxes, well all I have seen and I have two of them at the moment. How do I get this article corrected? Laidlaym (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Mark[reply]

Saying "Tsubame" "means" " put me on top" in Spanish is ridiculous. That would be "súbame" and anyway, just like with the Nova myth (that of "no va") nobody would notice, nor care.

I thought Pulsar and Sunny were the same model? Not Sunny and Sentra? --Nzhamstar 03:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In countries such as New Zealand, the Sunny and Pulsar ranges were combined into a single model range, the Nissan Sentra—which differed (apart from the station wagon) from the models sold under the same name in the United States. Nissan EXA (aka Pulsar NX) (N13) Nissan EXA (aka Pulsar NX) (N13) In Europe, it was sold as the Nissan Sunny, unrelated, however, to the Sunny sold in Asia. In South Africa it was sold as the Nissan Sabre. There were three-, four- and five-door sedans. - My bad... --Nzhamstar 04:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


WHO WROTE THIS ARTICLE ENDING ALL SENTENCES IN AN EXCLAMATION MARK? User:Dermann69

I don't know how to revert things, so I've taken the article, copied it into Word, replaced all of the exclamation marks with periods, and put it back as the article. Problem fixed, but it screwed up a couple things in the process. --Guroadrunner 08:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the person who wrote this was smoking, but in the B12 section he said that squared off cars were very unfasionable in the '80's. Every car from the 80's is square shaped.

It doesn't make any sense to me either. It should be removed. --190.21.254.27 (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"B210 Series" section not neutral?

[edit]

It seems to me that the "B210 Series" section sounds kind of opinionated (saying that the car was very ugly, the equivelant of putting lipstick on a pig). I don't know how to put a neutrality tag, but it seems like this section could use one. --09SentraSpecV (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vannette

[edit]

The Vanette section declares that it is completely unrelated to the Sunny - it even says it twice. Should the Vanette section be deleted?  Stepho  (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Datsun Sunny 140Y 1980.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Datsun Sunny 140Y 1980.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Datsun Sunny 140Y 1980.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True identity of the European "Sunny" of the early-to-mid 1980s

[edit]

Hi,

From the Nissan Pulsar and Nissan Cherry articles it appears that

  • Nissan Pulsar N10 and N12 (late 70s to mid 80s) were sold in Europe as the "Datsun Cherry" and "Nissan Cherry"
  • Nissan Pulsar N13 and N14 (mid 80s to mid 90s) were sold in Europe as the "Nissan Sunny".

As far as I can see, this is correct. However... the "Nissan Sunny" name was *already* in use in the UK during the early 80s for this model:-

1986 registration 1983-84 registration 1984-85 registration

(This would have been on sale at the same time as the N12-based "Cherry" AFAIK).

Does anyone know if this model went by a different name in other countries? Is it the same as the Nissan Sentra of the era? It doesn't appear to be mentioned on Wikipedia.

I would also suggest that a Nissan Sunny (Europe) page would be useful for clarifying the use of the "Sunny" name in Europe. (This would intentionally be very light on content- possibly little more than a dab page- linking to other pages or subpages for the in-depth detail). Ubcule (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The B11 is mentioned on this page, it even has its own section. It was sold alongside the Cherry, but when Nissan restrained themselves and stuck to a single line of C-segment cars, the "Sunny" nameplate ended up on the Pulsar. A Sunny Europe dab page would be very useful indeed.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not replying to this sooner. Yes, I had a look at the B11 section later and wondered (if allowing for minor cosmetic variations) if that was basically the same as the one sold in Europe, so thanks for clarifying that. I may write something to clarify the situation for casual browsers once I figure out the best way to handle it. Ubcule (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny B11 in Greece.

[edit]

Article says : "Most markets received 1.3 or 1.5 litre four-cylinder engines, although for some markets with strict taxation (such as Greece), the 50 PS (37 kW) 1-litre A10 engine was also available"

Truth is that Sunny never came with the A10 1.0 litre engine in Greece. Only Nissan Cheery came with this engine. The locally produced Sunny B11 sold with 1.3 & 1.5 litre engines in Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.153.85 (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Sunny and Renault Samsung SM3 merger

[edit]

I will be clear, I oppose for a simple reason: the current SM3 is not a rebadged Nissan Sunny, is a Renault Fluence. It would be necessary to split the first and second generation into the Sunny and Fluence articles, which would be very confusing. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

The Japanese-named product that has served as their alternative to the Toyota Corolla, is, and has been, internationally successful. Nissan's naming stragety of using multiple names to suit global market conditions is well justified. However, it's the same car, regardless of what front bumper cover Nissan decided to use, or the name attached to the back of the car. It's a Sunny. There are requests for reference improvements on all articles identified, and this merger would do just that. A merger proposal was recently requested by me concerning another Corolla competitor, called the Mazda Familia/323, and the Sunny and its international versions is sorely needed. If Nissan built the Sunny sedan as a hatchback, it's still a Sunny, and if they took the Sunny Wagon and called it an "MPV" it's still a Sunny wagon. (Regashee (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • Thinking about it, I also oppose Nissan Wingroad merger. It is even of a different class and has enough differences to be considered a different car. The fact that it shares many elements with the Sunny is not significant. Many cars from other companies only differ by the body style. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for the following reasons.
  • Sentra, Pulsar, Tiida: not all the generations are linked with a Sunny, so merging would be too confusing.
  • Wingroad: not all are Sunnys
  • Pulsar GTI-R: if it should be merged with anything it should be with Nissan Pulsar. Merging it with Nissan Sunny could suggest it was based on the contemporary Sunny B13 rather than the Pulsar N14. The Nissan Sunny article explains the marketing of the Pulsar as the Sunny well enough.
  • Almera: most of them are/were Pulsar-based not Sunny-based.
  • Presea, Primera, Almera Tino: not the same platform, never sold as a Sunny
  • NX: not a Sunny, only the platform is shared
  • Bluebird Sylphy: the first generation's Pulsar-based not Sunny-based
  • Renault Scala: not all Sunnys (the first is a Samsung SM3 = Nissan Bluebird Sylphy which is Pulsar-based)
  • Renault Samsung SM3: neither generation is Sunny-based.
Granted, some of these were sold as Sunnys, but that doesn't justify merging pages. 81.157.116.80 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. What are we trying to do, merge as many different vehicles into one page? Might as well throw in some Chevys for that matter. Completely unnecessary, would cause mass clutter and confusion, and overall would be one huge mess. GG360 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Decide what the article is meant to cover:
  1. Basing it on the name is a losing strategy because Nissan sold the same car in different markets using different names and also used the Sunny name on completely different cars. A quick mention in the lead can link to other cars that used the Sunny name.
  2. Basing it on the platform has some validity
  3. But the article is already organized to cover the B series. This seem the most logical way to continue. Vehicles not in the B series should be removed, perhaps with a small note to say that they used the Sunny name or took over from the B series in certain markets.  Stepho  talk  03:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, consensus seems to suggest that the Sentra should be merged into the Sunny (note to North Americans that the Sunny came first) while the hatchback bodystyle of the Sunny called the Pulsar remain as a separate article. All Pulsar derivatives should then be combined into the Pulsar article, with the various performance and bodystyle changes located in the Pulsar article. This then could mirror the Sunny's traditional Toyota competitor the Corolla, while the Pulsar is Nissan alternative to the Sprinter. (Regashee (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Every user minus yourself said no to that, hardly a consensus in your favor. GG360 (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regashee added a lot of Sentra material. I was a bit brutal and reverted everything he added last night (included some good edits but it was too onerous to sift between the good and unwanted edits). Consensus should be reached before action is taken.
It seems to me that we should make a map of the models involved, so that we all know what we are talking about.
  • The Sunny started in 1966 with the B10 as RWD and went up to the B310, still as RWD. It was sold as known as the Datsun 1000/1200/120Y and similar names (depending on engine size).
  • It had a twin in 1970 called the Cherry E10 which shared many parts but was FWD and had a different body of similar size. It was also known as the 100A. The next generation Cherry was the simialr F10, also known as the 100A/F-II and similar. The Cherry name was then applied to the Pulsar N10, which replaced/succeeded the Cherry.
  • The FWD N10 was released in 1977 and was known as the Pulsar/Cherry/Langley/100A/310 and similar. It continued as the N12 to N17. In markets where the B series was not sold, it sometimes had the Sunny name applied.
  • The Sunny became FWD in 1981 and changed its model codes to B11, followed by B12 to B15.
  • The Sentra also used the B11 to B15 model codes in the same years as the Sunny.
  • The Sunny name was then applied to the N17 in 2010, presumably sharing the Pulsar platform.
My suggestions are:
  • the Sunny article should concentrate on the B series platform from B10 to B310 and B11 to B15.
  • the Sentra shares the same model codes as the Sunny and should be merged into the Sunny article. Each generation should mention it was sold under both names. The Sentra article should be a redirect to the Sunny article.
  • the Cherry and Pulsar are quite different to the Sunny and Sentra and should only be mentioned as siblings in the Nissan stable that sometimes use the Sunny name.
  • the N17 Sunny is really a Pulsar and only needs a short paragraph linking the Pulsar N17 as the Sunny successor/replacement. The B series ended with the B15.
Comments?  Stepho  talk  23:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Only really wondering about the generations of North American Sentra, minus the current one, since the year 2000, which had a different B15 and an unreplicated B16 line. Would those remain as a separate Sentra article, or be merged into the page similar to the Honda Accord/Civic/Odyssey "split market" sections? GG360 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really familiar with the later Sentra's. If it's just a couple of anomalies (only two models out of many) then they can still be part of a single article. If it's a lot of anomalies then a rethink is in order. It can hardly be worse than what Toyota did with its Vitz/Echo/Vibe/Yaris line.  Stepho  talk  06:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After the B15 the Sentra used a B16 platform that wasn't shared with a Sunny, then a B17/BN17 platform which is shared with the Pulsar (and the Sunny, and the Latio). So if the Sentra article was merged with the Sunny we'd have to consider what to do about the B16 Sentra - having a Sentra that was never a Sunny in the Sunny article seems worse than the current situation of having some information repeated on different pages.
The Sentra differed from the Sunny in various respects over the years; for example, the B12 had a 3-door hatchback bodystyle that doesn't seem to have been offered as a B12 Sunny, and the B15 was offered with larger engines than the B15 Sunny. (There may well be more differences than that - those are just the first couple I noticed.) I'd suggest putting a "see also" link on each of the B11-B15 models' sections pointing to the relevant section of the Sunny article, and a similar link on the B17 section pointing to the B17 Sunny section or some replacement for it. I'd be inclined to leave most of the Sentra information on the page, and just move the bits that don't directly refer to a Sentra (eg the UK-market B11s).
As to where the B17/N17/BN17 information should be: if not Nissan Sunny I suggest Nissan Latio. Currently Nissan Latio redirects to Nissan Tiida, which isn't correct for the second-generation Latio; we could have the information for the B17/N17/BN17 cars at Nissan Latio and link to that from Sunny B17, Sentra B17 and Pulsar NB17. 86.168.252.115 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. If nothing else, we have established that the issue is a complex one. Which anyone not deeply familiar with the subject(s) before starting would have known simply from reading the entry. The more complex an issue is, the more vanishingly unlikely it becomes that a group of people - even of intelligent and knowledgable people - will bring similar underlying assumptions concerning what makes sense to the table. That's not your assumptions that you know about: it's the ones that reside in your stomach and of which, on a conscious level, you are most of the time largely unaware.
Separating out the strands of complex wiki-entries into separate entries makes it more likely that people will be able to find what they're looking for when using wikipedia for reference purposes. Bear on mind (unless you disagree) that the most important customers for this stuff are not the experts who already know most of it. The most important customers are those approaching from the perspective of readers who wish to learn more. Keeping it simple helps learning.
In terms of internet plumbing, there used to be a rough and ready rule of thumb that entries longer than 30,000 bytes are too long and need to be split. Like everything if this nature, it's a Guideline and NOT a rule. But it's a helpful guideline for users who have to live with a third world infrastructure and for whom large pages download either very slowly or else not at all. Applying that guideline, then, the Nissan Sunny entry looks like a candidate for further splitting. In terms of "howso?", the Toyota Corolla entry is one which provides a good benchmark, and one on which various here present contributors appear to have been active over the years. But there are others.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just created a Nissan Latio page (since the 2nd-generation Latio isn't equivalent to the Tiida any more), so if the consensus is to move the N17 information from the Sunny page it could go on the Latio page. I can see arguments for keeping the Sunny N17 section as the main home for the info, not least that the car was called a Sunny before it was called anything else. However, as long as we provide links between the alternative names, I don't think it matters which name the information is under.
I agree the article probably has enough sections that it could be split, but I'd like to see more content for the later models before making the split. The Toyota Corolla articles from the equivalent times (E80-E120) have noticeably more information than the Sunny sections. Possibly making the sections into articles would encourage people to expand them - but I don't know how much effect it would have. 86.168.252.115 (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - these cars are separate lines although their development often intertwines and Nissan Europe complicated matters by often slapping "Sunny" badges on Pulsars, but I cannot support any of these mergers.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the basis of these mergers need to be thoroughly reconsidered. Some of the models listed share platforms or drivetrains only, but the main car is differnt (e.g. Nissan NX has unique bodywork; Nissan Presea also has unique bodywork; Nissan Wingroad is mostly unique, with just the VB11 series looking closely related to the Sunny).

Rather than merging everything into one, most of the articles should probably remain but with summary sections for model series that are rebagded from other Nissan cars. As others have noted, Sunny and Pulsar seem logical as the head articles. For later models, I believe the Nissan Bluebird Sylphy page would become the primary page. I think we should try and use the Japanese market as our naming reference due to the high number of export names.

  • Nissan Sunny — keep largely as is, merge most of Sentra with Sunny. Latest N17 model to be moved to Nissan Latio as this is the Japanese name (export markets use a multitude of names).
  • Nissan Sentra — B11 to B15 could be reasonably merged with Sunny but with each section retaining a summary of the series. B16 would remain as is because it is a unique to. B17 models would be summarised and the contents largely merged with Bluebird Sylphy.
  • Nissan Pulsar — leave N10 to N15 as is, merge N16 and B17 with Bluebird Sylphy.
  • Nissan Cherry — leave first and second generations as is, summarise third (N10) and fourth (N12) series models and merge with Pulsar.
  • Nissan Almera — convert to a short summary page, merge detailed content to Pulsar (N15 section) and Bluebird Sylphy (N16 section).

Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 02:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Almera (hatchback)
Nissan Almera (sedan)
Nissan Bluebird Sylphy (sedan). As can be seen the Almera sedan and Bluebird Sylphy are the same model (same basic front end, just different bonnet, grille and bumper). As per Wikipedia:CARS/Conventions#Titles the Bluebird Sylphy home market name should be used. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to a few of those. The Pulsar GTI-R should retain a separate page, as it is a competition special and has enough independent notability of its own (like, say, the Ford Escort RS Cosworth, which it is regularly compared to.) Likewise, I strongly oppose the merger of the Almera to the other pages; the nameplate was used in far more countries than the Pulsar name was for the N15 generation, and the Bluebird Sylphy name was used in even less places - and was only available as a saloon. In fact, the Bluebird Sylphy/Almera merger becomes even more absurd when you see they have different chassis tags, very different engine ranges, and a very different front-end. They don't even use the same damn platform - the N16 Almera is on the MS platform, whilst the Bluebird is on the FF-S platform... I suggest you revisit some of these. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought the GTI-R would have been the least controversial. Past precedent would dictate that I would likely gain merger support (Toyota Camry Hybrid, Subaru Impreza WRX, various AMG models, Lexus IS-F). I don't support the deletion of the Almera page either, just the transfer of most information to the donor vehicle pages. I would hope that Almera would end up looking like Isuzu Rodeo or Toyota Yaris—with clear links and images pointing readers to the right place. This would also allow us to include brief information about other Almera models sold elsewhere on that page (i.e. the N17 since 2010). Bluebird Sylphy (sedan) and Almera (hatchback) are the same car—the MS and FF-S platforms are the same thing (FF-S redirects to MS). The Almera and Bluebird Sylphy have the same front-end except for grille and bonnet, same front quarter panels, same front doors, same interior—just a different bodystyle. There was even an Almera sedan, further bridging any (small) gap. In Australia both were sold as N16 Pulsars. The different engines are irrelevant really, but most are common between both models, with Europe getting less petrols and gaining diesels. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not comparing apples to apples with the GTI-R, when you reference things like the hybrid Camry. The WRX was a whole range of different things, and not just one "special" - the WRX STI was the proper rally special, for starters. And I can cite just as many precedents as you can - BMW M3, Ford Escort RS Cosworth/Ford Sierra RS Cosworth, Porsche 911 GT3/Porsche 911 GT2, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution... And the Almera is by far the most common usage of the name for both the N15 and N16 generations - if any merge happens, it should be the exact inverse of the one you propose. If the platforms are the same, fair enough, but a lot of our articles are too big and confusing as it is... this is part of the reason why I was unhappy with the Mitsubishi Lancer merger, which made a messy situation worse. And there are plenty of precedents for keeping cars with different front ends separate as well. In my view, it is much more useful to have separate articles on the motorsport specials, such as the Delta Integrale, that have their own notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, based on previous mergers I would gather getting support for the GTI-R merger would be relatively easy. Most other similar merges for small, one-off cars like this have been merged when it has been proposed to do so. To be honest, I'm not that worried about the GTI-R, as it probably the least important aspect of this messy situation. My main concern lies elsewhere...
Regarding the Almera, your preference does not fit with the convention that states,
"Each article shall be titled with the model name used in the subject vehicle's home market, unless a single name other than the home-market name is used in English-speaking markets, and the home market is not English-speaking. In such cases, the article shall be titled with the model name used in English-speaking markets."
The Almera name was for Europe, Australia and NZ used Pulsar, Japan used Bluebird Sylphy, other Asian markets used Sentra or Sunny. The convention is clear that if all English-speaking markets do not use the same name, then use the home market name. I can't think of any previous merger proposal where the consensus was to keep the articles separate because front end styling was different. Sure these articles may exist, but that is merely because no one has bothered to do anything about it. As the photos show, there is very little difference between the cars. The headlights are even the same, Nissan has just changed the grille—hardly justification for a separate page. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that about the only things that should be merged is the Pulsar GTi-R. The Arna has plenty of independent importance (as one of the worst cars ever made, according to many European commentators) and certainly the worst "Alfa" ever. It also had unique engines. I don't think that there are currently any problems serious enough to justify all of these major upheavals. As for the Almera and the Sylphy, the Almera has more bodystyles and is probably of more importance to most readers. No matter what, there is very little overlap in terms of content between the two - being sold in different parts of the world with completely different equipments and mostly different engines. Plus, these mergers will anger/confuse many readers and editors who have a less global viewpoint.
While many of these badges share underpinnings, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of shared content between the articles. Some minor pruning of duplicate content could be carried out without wholesale mergers and redirects. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all this and we've gotten nowhere. Now, wouldn't it just be easier to leave everything as is instead of renaming, merging, dicing up articles, removing articles, and a causing a huge mess? It's fine as is, there's no reason for all this arguing. Everyone seems against this, the only partially agreed upon subject is the Sentra's merger, but even then, leaving two/three generations of a vehicle and redirecting the rest? Why not just leave it as it? This whole thing is a solution to a problem that never existed. GG360 (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good place for a break

[edit]

It seems that merging the Pulsar into here is strongly opposed by nearly everyone. I suggest we drop that line of thought completely.

The article concentrates mainly on the B series, which had a few different names besides "Sunny". I suggest that the article keep its focus on the B series (B10 to B310, B11 to B15) and eject everything else. The Sentra is also a part of the B series and the only real differences are engines and trim. Since many cars differ in the same way when sold in different markets, I suggest that the Sentra be merged in.

The N16 to N17 seem to be re-badged Pulsars and would be better off in the Pulsar article. A mention can be made on both pages to say that the Sunny name was used on them. Likewise, the Tiida and other post 2000 cars seem to be not part of the B series and would be better off as part of some other article.  Stepho  talk  11:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I'm glad to see that this article received the sorely deserved attention it needed. This is one car, made by Nissan, that was scattered into several different, and autonomous, articles. While the current article is much better, in that it makes mention of other versions that weren't disclosed, it does seem that there is still a little protection efforts to keep particular vehicles separate from the Pulsar article. However, this Pulsar article now mentions the other international versions much better, and draws the reader in for further investigation, which is entirely the point of the merger proposal.I support Stepho-wrs' suggestion that the Sentra be moved into the Sunny (a Sunny by any other name is still a Sunny) (Regashee (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I agree, but insist that there are clearly separate model series here that need to be respected. I, like everyone else, oppose merger of all Nissan compact cars into the Sunny page. So far, I have moved the N17 Sunny info over to Nissan Latio, moved post-2000 Pulsar info to Nissan Sylphy, merged the Pulsar GTI-R article with the regular Pulsar page. There is still much more work to do, so hopefully we can reach an agreement with the Sentra, Cherry, and Almera:
  • Nissan Sentra — B11 to B15 could be reasonably merged with Sunny but with each section retaining a summary of the series. B16 would remain as is because it is a unique to. B17 models would be summarised and the contents largely merged with Bluebird Sylphy. IMO, the other mergers are less pressing.
  • Nissan Cherry — leave first and second generations as is, summarise third (N10) and fourth (N12) series models and merge with Nissan Pulsar.
Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 01:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree, but I would like to minimize the merging. Keeping Nissan Almera will be useful to readers, and also to me as an editor. Same thing for the Sentra. These cars don't interest me personally, but I feel that their trajectories are of some importance. I support merging and summarizing, but I would like to propose that we keep a good meaty amount of material in the resulting redirects. Not just for me as a researcher, but also for visitors to gain something useful from these articles. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I realise this might well be a moot point, seen as the GTi-R article has been merged with the Pulsar Article, but there is a lot of information that has been removed from the article and lost in the move. As pointed out several times above, while the Nissan Pulsar GTi-R does share (in the loosest sense) a chassis/name with the Nissan Pulsar N14, it is in fact a vastly different car and has enough of a history on its own in order to warrant its own separate article. If you have separate articles for the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, Ford Escort Cosworth etc then the same should apply to a similar vehicle from the same era. I'm aware that my username and previous (minor) edits on that page do make me somewhat bias, but this is a small part of history that tends to be forgotten about even though it has a large cult following still. FYI I've owned 4 of these cars before and am an admin/moderator on a few of the owners clubs etc, so I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to the differences between the models. I think the fact that from reading above the vast majority of people have opposed this merge, and yet it happened anyway is something to consider when looking at potentially reverting the changes that have been made. To see the 'old' data and compare it to the current then see the version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nissan_Pulsar_GTI-R&oldid=570860982 You can clearly see that a lot of information on there is now missing, that should be preserved. JohnehGTiR (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. IMO, the fact that other articles exist does not automatically justify the GTI-R page. My opinion on those cars is for them to be merged as well. Of the users who explicitly mention the GTI-R, 81.157.116.80, myself, Mr.choppers supported the merger, but Lukeno94 opposed it. I understand that a lot of people did oppose in general, but that was because the original proposal talked about bunching a group of articles together that represented cars that in most cases were not related. What myself and others have done is to isolate individual mergers and discuss these on their individual merits, quite different from the original poster. The only info I removed in the merger is the part about owners' club / fan forums which is not notable, and the overly detailed "specifications" table which is beyond the scope of this project (i.e. compression ratio, gear ratios, bore/stroke, instantaneous fuel usage, axle track, exact tyre details, ground clearance, turning circle, and paint codes). OSX (talk • contributions) 00:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMC A-Series engine

[edit]

Was the Nissan Sunny / Datsun 1000 ever produced ('66-'69) with the BMC A-Series engine - the 1100cc Austin Mini engine - as claimed in this edit? If so, were they produced by Nissan or BMC? What markets were they supplied to? Any chance of a source? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does the Nissan A engine fit into this? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore it, it's just a confused ip. I believe only registered users should be allowed to edit, so as to avoid this kind of idiocy.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Nissan A series engine was loosely based on the BMC A series engine. But the BMC engine itself was never put in a Sunny. It was quite a popular option for Morris Minor restorers to replace the BMC engine with the Nissan engine. I've owned 4 cars from the B10, B110, B120 series - all had A series engines. I also had various Nissan motor sports catalogues (one of my cars was a B110 coupe for racing) and none of the catalogues listed BMC parts.  Stepho  talk  19:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation: European Sunnys '87 - '95

[edit]

I notice the disambiguation line at the start of the article was removed here. It's not entirely clear why this was done, as there's no edit summary.

I was going to put this back in, but I decided to add dab lines at the start of sections roughly correlating to the time periods here and here.

Which does everyone think is preferable (i.e. better at clearing up confusion for those seeking the models sold as "Sunny" in Europe during those time periods balanced against minor obtrusiveness for everyone else)?

I appreciate that the N13 and N14 are mentioned elsewhere, but this isn't obvious without reading through quite a lot of the article itself.

Ubcule (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with having any hatnotes as the Sunny name has been thrown around quite a bit on the Nissan Pulsar and Nissan Latio over the years. The "Other versions" section on the Sunny page deals with these models. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "Sunny" models in question are undeniably well covered in the Pulsar and Latio articles (and better placed there). However, with respect, that's not the the point- one has to already *know* that background before it would occur to you to visit those pages. That isn't something I'd assume is clear to the majority of first time readers.
That's what the hatnotes are for- to clarify and inobtrusively point users in the right direction.
Although the intro paragraph touches upon the Pulsar, it's not immediately obvious, and I can still see many European readers looking for "their" late-80s or early-90s "Sunnys" scrolling down to the sections covering that timespan. (*) Even the "other versions" section you mention isn't the obvious place to look in this respect.
(*) If I remember correctly, this is the situation I was in with the article a while back.
Ubcule (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Script errors

[edit]

There are several dozen errors reading "script error" in red — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaetetus (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I can't find "script" or "error" anywhere in the page, nor do I see anything wrong by eyeballing it. Perhaps your internet connection hiccuped - try refreshing the page. If it is still wrong then could copy the bad text (with some surrounding context) to this conversation and we'll look into again.  Stepho  talk  05:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not an internet problem and definitely not confined to one person:

http://s8.postimg.org/lg7jbn46d/se1.jpg

http://s8.postimg.org/c75d1ivad/se2.jpg

http://s8.postimg.org/x6lgt0wyt/se3.jpg

Also, under every subheading in "Other Versions". Suggest w/p is at fault here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.224.151 (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's rock solid on my Win7-64bit computer under Firefox. But it does show "Script error" under IE11 on the same computer - sometimes. A page refresh and the problem goes away. Not sure what causes the problem but I suspect that it is not related to this page - ie it's a problem with WP or IE.  Stepho  talk  14:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nissan_Sunny&oldid=1201586419"