Talk:Renault/Archive 1

Reference

I have corrected a reference to the immediate post-war period. Contrary to the earlier version, the Provisional Government in France in 1944 was not socialist. It was headed by general De Gaulle. And Renault did collaorate with the Nazis, producing trucks for them.

80.169.162.100 (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rankings

Doing a ranking here (France's number one or number two car manufacturer) is pointless because the ranking differs with the criteria of which are abundantly many: do you count passenger cars and light commercial vehicles (LCV) seperately or do you count them together? Do you count the brands (PSA includes the two brands Peugeot and Citroën) separately or added? What about European/worldwide numbers? Currently the situation including passenger cars and LCV in Western Europe counted in terms of brands (a lot of paradigms, right?) is per April 22nd according to Financial Times Germany, printed edition, page 12:

Renault 10,0% VW 9,3% Ford 9,2% Opel 8,9%

And then are those numbers rapidly changing - so I propose to leave it at "traditional manufacturer". Jost ammon 08:42, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The one-box concept was introduced with the Renault Espace which was designed and constructed by Matra despite being branded Renault. Ericd 10:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have noticed than some Wikipedian added in various article a contribution about the Renault being "unreliable". A few ill-fated models were notoriously unreliable like the Frégate. But most of the Renaults were reliable. The quality wasn't to German standards but the engines were very reliable. Ericd 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

An autopsy later proved that his neck had been broken, suggesting that he was murdered. Source? (Sounds like Commie-bashing.) David.Monniaux 13:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi ! :-) I'm the happy owner of R4 GTL model 1983. I think I will have to change the water pump. Isn'it a proof that the Renault are unreliable ? Ericd 10:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What isn't really called a Supermini of the 90s (National Geographic mentioned that the Clio was introduced properly in 1996) was actually introduced in a horrific night of noise (riots may have happened) as the (UNEARTHLY) Versailles Inc Jingus in 1990 as Nat Geo mentioned one day in 2001.

Choice of photo

Do we really have to pick an old pre-WWI Renault as an illustration for the brand? Why not a Clio, the current most-selling model and certainly more representative of the brand?

Pronunciation

I've only ever heard people pronounce Renault as reh-no, and never as ruh-no like the article suggests. Where do they say ruh-no? If nobody protests, I'd change that section to say that the correct pronunciation is reh-no and not ren-alt as sometimes mistakenly called. --Notorious Biggles 13:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Just from watching Formula 1, I can tell you it is often pronounced as ruh-no. In the United Kingdom, Renault and the names of their cars are often incorrectly pronounced. I would imagine this is where reh-no comes from. Ruh-no would be closer to the French pronunciation. 24.66.77.252 19:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use IPA to clarify exactly what pronunciation we're referring to, as in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). I could read the pronunciations you've each listed a couple of different ways. — Mohrr 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is only one correct pronunciation of the name Renault. It's the French one, and that's Ruh-no (for English speakers, of course). It's a French name therefor it should be pronounced with a French Accent. Southwestsoul (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Turbo

In the history section it says "In 1899, Renault launched the first production sedan car as well as patenting the first turbocharger." I can't find any evidence that Renault patented the first turbocharger. Everything I find lists Alfred Buchi as patenting the first turbo in 1905. Does anyone have any information that shows Renault has an earlier patent? Elbarto90se (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its mixed with supercharger, Louis Renault patented one in 1902. --— Typ932^{T | C}  00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

dmvvgjlkvjjvtgjklwjtsnjgmggnffjngnji nnjnvfjvknkjkjvjhjgujmbvuttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttvvvvvvvfad;vmpiupm526bvpty2mvu958-6 5=-9u6ck5ti ,iy9vc.45 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.65.227 (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Renault-Nissan

I suggest create an article called Renault-Nissan, about this alliance and common goals and actions. --Nukeless 08:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's time to give the Renault-Nissan alliance their own article. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So do I. This way, anyone who wants to learn about the Renault-Nissan can have a convenient way to do so. And003 (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think an individual article about the alliance should be created. However, I do not think the Renault and NISSAN pages should be merged - the article would be way too big and complex to navigate. There should be an article which should just focus solely on the alliance colloberation. 01:17, 11/12/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.235.93 (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to create the article out of the current redirect if this is still something that is wanted? Wikiwoohoo (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should do it now, Wikiwoohoo, if you are still willing. This alliance is growing in complexity and needs its own page. Lars Reidar (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Article title

Having looked at this article, it looks as if its almost entirely on Renault cars, as the trucks only get a passing mention and tractors not at all. The sale of Renault tractors to class of Germany is not mentioned ! The article needs expanding to reflect a full Renault company profile, and split the car division off into a separate article, or rename as "Renault Cars" which is the main basis of this article (90%). -- BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a Renault Trucks page, and as Renault Group sold this division to Volvo in 2001, I think the general car bias of the Renault page is fair enough. I have added the sale of the tractor division to CLASS in the introduction. According to Renaults financial data, 95% of the group's income is from cars, with the other 5% from finance (which I have also added reference to: RCI Banque)Warren Whyte (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

After further work, I think there is a missing element from this page, or perhaps further details on Renault Trucks as the story of Renault and its non-car products is far from clear on this page by ignoring its role in bus, tractor and train (see autorail prior to the formal establishment of Renault Trucks division (or Renault Véhicules Industriels) in 1978. Post 1978 seem to be well covered on these other pages. I suspect the main article needs a restructure to accommodate a more general view of the company. Warren Whyte (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken Frames

This article breaks my frames. (Ehburrus (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)) New comment moved from top of page as part of tidy up as per talk page guidelines--BulldozerD11 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)>

Infobox, Net income

For some reason, net income in the infobox was from 2006 figures though stamped as 2007 here, and also incorrectly marked as a loss. [1] Not sure how to tag the ref properly in the infobox so we don't have duplicate refs. 212.27.60.48 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Have re rated as class C as fails the 6 class B criteria mainly on:

1. References - Has over 70 % of article with no references
2. Subject - Has most of article dedicated to cars, yet lead indicates the Renault Company
3. Structure - Some sections out of balance, several lists of models, excessive external links

That summarises my reasoning why - BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Income

Operating income ▲ €1.354 billion (2007) , Net income ▲ €2.669 billion (2007)

How can the net income be higher than the operating income? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.118.217 (talk • contribs)

I *think* that's because of Renault's shares in Nissan & Volvo Equendil Talk 16:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

R11 Sedan?

"were replaced by the R9 (and its R11 sedan variation)" Shouldn't it be "(and its R11 hatchback variation)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southwestsoul (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Renault in the UK

Renault are frequently criticised (albeit not in the media) for their right hand drive models sold in the UK. Often, they are not 100% reversed, can we include a sentence about this under the 'Renault in the UK' section. Examples include the electronic dashboard on the Renault Scenic, where the radio display is in the drivers line of sight, yet the speed-o-meter and other more important read outs are to the drivers left, far from their view. Other examples include the cover for the mirror in the sun visors on twingos and some clios are included on the passenger side, but not on the drivers side, where it is more important. There are many models where coat hooks and seat handles are located in illogical places on right hand drive cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.125.228 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Renault sport section and car list

To help reduce the duplicity of material elsewhere in Wikipedia, I would recommend a significant edit of the sport section (see Renault Sport and Renault F1) and to remove the car list as this is already present on List of Renault vehicles.Warren Whyte (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also propose that the main article (especially the 1980-2000 sections) needs a significant edit as a lot of individual model details are included which makes it difficult to get a overview of the development of the company, and duplicates information that is better suited to the model specific pages. Warren Whyte (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress, especially on the timeline getting the key events incorporated into the main article. Some still to do though! Warren Whyte (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Renault in the US

The Renault story in the US is quite interesting, but is rather lost in the general article. As with the existing Renault in the UK section, I propose moving out the detail into a new section so that the story is easier to read, and make better reference to existing AMC/Alliance articles. Hopefully other sections such as Renault in South America could be added in time. Warren Whyte (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian plant closure 1981

The loss of the Ford Cortina wagon assembly contract in 1980 did not of itself force the plant to close. The contact expired in July 1980 and 150 staff were retrenched. (reference: The Heidelberger, 18.06.1980) The factory now making Renault only (no Peugeots for some years) was not profitable. It lost 17.4 million dollars and closed at the end of 1981 (reference: the Heidelberger 07 April 1982) - Alan Baker 58.165.25.224 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in introduction?

Although Renault and Nissan have indeed made a significant contributions to the field in recent years, I'm not so sure it's fair to say that they are 'leading elctric car development'. Especially not in the first paragraph of the article. Call me cynical, but this stinks of marketing. 86.129.210.82 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Renault-Nissan

Is there a manufacturing entity called 'Renault-Nissan'? OICA still lists Renault and Nissan as two separate manufacturers (see [2]). There is Renault-Nissan b.v., which manages the Renault-Nissan Alliance and also manages Renault Nissan Purchasing Organization and Renault-Nissan Information Services but does that count as a manufacturer? I realise that Renault bought 43% of Nissan and that has allowed them to put quite a few Renault executives on the Nissan board but that's quite common among large businesses and doesn't necessarily mean that Renault owns Nissan (although it can act like it in practice). I also realise that there is significant cross licensing of vehicles between the two companies but, once again, that is quite common and doesn't mean they have merged.  Stepho  talk  14:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Tangier and Chennai factories are owned by the alliance, and the shares in Alliance Rostec Auto BV in Russia, and the 3.1% stake in Daimler, according to the Alliance "Facts & Figures 2012. Not quite a merger in the traditional sense, but definitely steps in that direction. Warren (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting document. Page 7 shows a list of worldwide sales that closely matches OICA's list of worldwide production. The only major difference is that the alliance list inserts a combined Renault+Nissan+Lada as #3, even while still showing the three individual companies lower in the list. But I've reread the article and perhaps I've overreacted against what I thought was a problem.  Stepho  talk  02:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Turbo production

Listing Renault's turbo production in the early eighties:

Second generation engines

Model	1981	1982	1983	Jan-Jun 84
R5 (FF)	13,426	17,625	24,182	6,270
R5 (MR)	1096	235	904	570
R18	24,408	12,960	15,538	5930
Fuego	—	—	11,997	3729
R20 TD	—	—	5814	1222
R30 TD	—	11,536	7062	946

I don't know if this might be of interest to someone?  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Awards

I find the listing of several country-specific awards to be somewhat detailed for what is supposed to be an article about the company. Detail such as this, if notable, is better off in the specific model articles. Any thoughts, as one IP editor appears to have a strong view on this? Warren (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. That "awards" list seems a problem for many reasons. First of all, where we draw the line of notability? I mean, almost all the countries in the world have a "Car of the Year" award of some kind. For example, the third-generation Twingo was named "Car of the Year" a few days ago... in Estonia. Should we include that award here? Who says the Spanish or the Irish awards are more noteworthy? The awards for individual models may be helpful in the specific articles, because such awards are a not-so-biased and verifiable way to indicate the general reception of the specialised press for a car in a country.

Second, "Renault" doesn't mean the same all over the world. Outside Europe, the entry level cars of the Renault group are sold as "Renault" while in Europe, Northern Africa and some places in the Middle East they are "Dacia", as a result of the company's decision of moving the Renault marque upmarket within Western Europe, starting in the 1980s. Some Dacia cars won "Car of the Year" awards as Renault... This article, although mostly covering the Renault operations with an Eurocentric perspective, is also an overview of the Renault group (Renault, Renault Samsung Motors and Dacia marques), as a separate article titled "Renault group" doesn't exist. It's similar to Renault's "ally" Nissan article. The focus of this article should be much more general than that of the Peugeot, Citroën and Volkswagen articles, which only cover their namesake marques. An even in those articles, I don't think to list awards for models is a good idea... --Urbanoc (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Awards for individual vehicles are relevant for articles about those vehicles. Awards for the company itself, if such a thing exists, would be appropriate for this article. Recent edits have given the article a distinctly promotional tone. Vrac (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

- I disagree with removing the awards in this article and the others. An article is made to learn more things, and that's what this awards section does. The name 'accolades' is strange, by the way. For the other articles, it is 'awards'. Why is it different here ? Who will read 60 articles about the car models ? A summary for the awards here is really a good thing. It is good to keep it. And in the other brands articles too. Asking to remove the awards only in the Renault models articles seems to be a strange request too. It seems a way to bull especially Renault.

- For the awards, apparently, Autobest is voted by more than a dozen countries, not only one, so like the European car of the year. Why deciding that it is not important ? Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey are big countries and Czech R./Slovakia/Hungary/Slovenia... are involved in the car industry too. Estonian awards are not listed, so there is no problem about that. And Italy and Spain are two big western Europe countries. Their awards are valuable. Spain builds more vehicles than France and its 3 car makers. The Irish awards are normal in the Wikipedia written in English. And the awards in Australia have an historical interest. Awards have a value when they are numerous, like an average instead of only one mark. So to show these awards in a summary is good. Let's keep this section for all the brands. All these explanations are good to keep the award section in all the brands articles. This is what the millions readers want. Also, why attacking the Renault and Dacia badge for the same car, whereas there are some awards there are also the Vauxhall/Opel/Chevrolet/Daewoo badge on the same car ? Like for the Mokka/Trax. This request and your arguments are strange and focused only on one brand. It doesn't seem honest. How long this discussion against Renault will be opened ? 193.252.173.168 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)— 193.252.173.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What seems strange to me is that an unregistered IP from France, who has never edited anything else, suddenly joins this debate with the same opinions, "us versus them" attitude, interest in automotive article content, and linguistic quirks as the unregistered IP from France that made the awards changes to begin with. Are you familiar with this? Vrac (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would accuse me of being somehow "anti-Renault" (as a matter of fact the ip asked for my help on my talk page), and I find the lists of awards boring and not particularly elucidating. Awards are mostly useless, excepting perhaps COTY and a few others.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

IP, it's not a discussion "against" Renault, this is a discussion to try finding a consensus concerning the relevance of car model awards within the Renault company article. And I repeat, I'm opposing all the lists of awards you've been adding in marques and car companies articles, I don't think they're a good idea.

First I am not "193.252.173.168", so talk to me, not to someone else. Everybody understands that you "opposite all the lists of awards #I# have been adding", but you do not oppose to the equivalent list in the Volkswagen article, because you are arbitrary and you harass Renault and you support VW especially. The same rules must be applied to all the articles, and it is a non-sense to ask to remove only the awards that I added, because I added them for consistency purpose among articles and because such a section exists in the VW article, then it is normal that the same section is added to ANY other constructors. Why tolerating it in the VW article, but asking to forbid it for the other brands ? It is BAD FAITH. What proves that your request itself here is arbitrary and harasses some brands, but not some others. This request must be cancelled. And if by cheating with a fake discussion, the bad faith people remove the award section for some brands, then the award section must be removed from ALL THE BRANDS INCLUDING VW, because there is no fair reason that VW could get some privileges, even if it is what you want to get. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your explanations of why the awards you included must be kept are pretty interesting, but they prove my point. You are deciding notability using made up criteria, you're not based in third-party coverage. The contradictions and problems of your method are exemplified by a list of awards you seem particularly fond, the "Autobest," and its clear issues. First, I barely could find independent coverage of the awards given to Renault, I found them in the Renault press site (where are all the awards Renault collect...) and in blogs which mostly reproduced verbatim the Renault press info. The fact the award is given by a lot of countries doesn't seem enough to me, a good third-party coverage is more relevant. Second, you list the Logan and Duster awards in three different articles: Renault, Automobile Dacia and each car article, which is a nonsense. If the awards are relevant in some way, they are better placed in the car articles.

The above brings me to a point I missed but that was raised by Warren and Vrac. All the awards are for car models, not for marques. They are not a recognition to Renault in a general way, but to specific products. Initially, I was OK with keeping the European awards because of general relevance and good third party coverage but, after searching through better-rated articles, I'm now opposing it. The ultimate goal of the edits must be improving the Renault article, and featured articles like Holden or B-class like Ford Motor Company are pretty well without "awards" lists....

Finally, if you, IP, persist with adding the awards over and over again and you can't provide or accept a compromise (as, for example, return the article to the awards originally listed), I think this discussion must be moved to another level. Regards --Urbanoc (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• First, the people with an extreme right speech, saying that "IP" are less legitimate than the people who have a pseudonym (= false alias name) as account is anti-Wikipedia. Anybody can contribute, it is the rule and the pseudonyms are not "more legitimate".

Hello honest people. Notice that I wrote already. These 3 people (Urbanoc, Vrac and Warren Whyte) have no argument to remove the awards from the Renault article. Anyway they spend their time to remove some true information in the Renault article and to add the usual anti-Renault rhetoric. Their request targets Renault and they want to apply a different treatment to this brand. These 3 guys vandalize the Renault article, some general articles and also these of a few other brands. Not VW, Ford, GM, Jaguar (obviously).

• Why removing the awards from the Renault article and not from the articles of the other brands ? For neutrality, fairness and consistency : no reason to apply a different treatment to Renault.
• Why removing the awards in the models article also, but only for Renault ? For neutrality, fairness and consistency : no reason to apply a different treatment to Renault.
• Why making a difference between an award to a car model and to the brand that made this car ? The awards are for the car and its constructor, obviously !
• Why using some arbitrary and inconsistent "reasons" to target Renault, but not using the same "reasons" for the other brands that are in the same situation ? Urbanoc says that the Renault badge is not logical as the Dacia badge also exist and that then the awards have to be removed. But all the Dacia models are conceived only by Renault. Dacia can not make such cars. So no problem actually. And most of these cars are sold with the Renault brand, e.g. 70% of the Duster were sold with the Renault brand in 2013. On the contrary, GM sells with the Cherolet/Opel/Vauxhall brands some cars CONCEIVED by Daewoo ! But as GM is not Renault, then the same fake "reason" is not used by Urbanoc against GM, because his motivations are arbitrary and malevolent against Renault. When VW buy Bentley, Porsche, etc they buy some brands that make better cars, but Renault went from nothing with Dacia. Dacia is only made by Renault. But Lamborgini is not VW and Daewoo is not GM either, for example. Malevolent motivations against Renault.
• Why saying that the Motor trend car of the year in the USA is not official enough to be mentioned in the Renault article, but the same award is mentioned in the VW article and then they don't ask it to be removed ? Not neutral request against Renault. Unfair treatment, malevolent motivations against Renault.

Why Urbanoc speaks about the award in Estonia ? I added no award from Estonia. The awards that I added are considered as very important by the professionals of the automotive industry.

• these awards are not french, so no problem of fairness for Renault, but only for Fiat/Chrysler and VW
• these awards are officially voted by the automotive journalists unions, or by several serious magazines, not less serious than the few ones that participate to the COTY in western Europe. In addition, there could exist a dozen of different awards for COTY in Europe, voted by as much of sets of different magazines.
• Autobest is voted by 15 countries, representing more than 300 million people. It is equivalent to the COTY in western Europe. No reason to remove these awards.

Spain and Italy are important countries for the car industry too :

• Italy has a long history for the car industry, and Volkswagen even buy their companies
• Spain has plants of all the brands, so it is involved in the car industry and it has no reason to be nicer with Renault than VW, GM or Ford etc.
• their population is approximately the same than this of the UK

So no reason to remove these awards from the Renault article.

And no reason to apply to Renault a different treatment than this for Ford, GM, VW etc.

So no consensus for this malevolent request. Anyway 3 accomplice "opinions" do not make a consensus. And Wikipedia is made for the readers, not for 3 guys... or one guy with 3 different pseudonyms = false alias names. The hundreds of thousands readers want to read this information and don't want it to be removed only from the Renault article.

In addition, for consistency purpose, the award section must be placed after history and named "Awards", like in the VW article, and not put at the end of the article (...) and named "Accolade" like ONLY for the Renault article...

I wish a nice day to honest people.83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should we include awards lists for car models in this article?

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.

---

Should we include awards lists for car models in this article? --Urbanoc (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Hi. It gave some weeks ago many arguments and the people that want to remove these awards have none. I don't understand that the Renault page is attacked and that the changes are done already. Someone even removed that Renault is a strong competitor in Formula One. It is worse and worse to destroy this page. The reasons to keep the awards :

- Wikipedia is done to give these kind of information, not to remove them from some pages, but not from some others

- Italy and Spain are some important countries for the industry of cars and for awards. I worked for Mercedes, so I know that these awards are valued. Mercedes does not need any award yet.

- The awards are given to the constructors and to the cars too, so it is normal to sum up them here

- I checked the Volkswagen page as someone wrote about and there are some funny awards like "Green car magazine", but you removes some big international and national awards like 'Auto Europa' and 'Autobest' etc. It is astonishing to be so unfair.

- The awards are given to both Renault and Dacia if the cars are sold with both badges, it is the same for GM/Opel/Chevrolet/Daewoo and so on.

So all these bad changes must be cancelled. Including the change erasing the contribution of Renault to the Formula One. As you say here, these people 'vandalize' this page.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.173.168 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC) — 193.252.173.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No: Car model awards are more appropriate for articles about those models. Vrac (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Looking at the articles on other car manufactures (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Volvo), it looks like they have a section talking about the popular models that they make. Darx9url (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment But those articles haven't an awards section and the significant models are mentioned within the article or in a sections covering the company products, barely mentioning "awards". Both things aren't the same or comparable. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. There should be a description of popular and notable models, but an awards list would be over-kill. Darx9url (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment The Volkswagen article has an award section, but Urbanoc cherish this brand, so he does no ask to remove it... Urbanoc is arbitrary and malevolent against Renault. The same for Vrac and Warren Whyte. The proofs are numerous. If the section is removed in Renault, then it must be removed from VW too, else it is inconsistent in Wikipedia and non-neutral.

Comment => Official awards have a true meaning, but "popular" is not a reliable notion.

• What defines "popular" ?
• Junk-food is "popular", but is is not a proof that junk-food is good ? NO.

"Popular" is used to be arbitrary. That is why awards exist : some numerous professionals, with sometimes the people votes, define a reliable notion. Notice that Urbanoc is a fan of VW, so he will say that "popular" means sold "a lot", what is false. For example, the Golf is sold because :

• 10% of the cars sold in Germany are Golf, because they are extremely nationalist
• the German market is MUCH LARGER than any of the other European country ! So with 10% in its home country ONLY, it is already the most sold car in Europe ! So Urbanoc will replace the truth : "sold mainly in its HOME country, the biggest in Europe, for national preference, and because companies and Germans buy automatically it without thinking to an other choice" by a lie : "popular". Ridiculous manipulation. No, the Golf is not particularly popular. Its is not so sold to people outside its country, but mainly to fleet management companies, with global agreement negotiated by financial power of VW. It is the same for GM in Europe : sales to renters and fleet management companies. The same for the Fiesta that is sold mainly in the UK that the second biggest market in Europe, but that is much less sold elsewhere. But it is not very "popular" elsewhere and on average, Ford looses money on each sold Fiesta...

"Popular" is not a clear factor. But AN AWARD IS AN OFFICIAL AND RELIABLE INFORMATION. They must be shown in the Renault article, like they are shown in the VW article. Equality of companies, not an harassment of Renault and some privileges for VW. THIS FAKE DISCUSSION TO REMOVE THE AWARDS ONLY FOR RENAULT IS ALREADY A SCANDAL ITSELF. Shame on these malevolent people.

• No: As Vrac says, car model awards are more appropriate for articles about those models. Also, I think we need to consider consistency, as only a handful of articles about car companies (as Citroën or Peugeot) have an awards section. Moreover, most of the sections were created or significantly expanded by the same editor. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• No, after all, the article is about a vehicle manufacturer, and while it makes sense to note that the automotive industry gives itself fake "awards," listing such advertising propaganda is not relevant. Damotclese (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• No, This article is already massive. There is no reason I see however for the articles not to be in the articles about the individual models. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Hello honest people. Notice that I wrote already. These 3 people (Urbanoc, Vrac and Warren Whyte) have no argument to remove the awards from the Renault article. Anyway they spend their time to remove some true information in the Renault article and to add the usual anti-Renault rhetoric. Their request targets Renault and they want to apply a different treatment to this brand. These 3 guys vandalize the Renault article, some general articles and also these of a few other brands. Not VW, Ford, GM, Jaguar (obviously).
• Why removing the awards from the Renault article and not from the articles of the other brands ? For neutrality, fairness and consistency : no reason to apply a different treatment to Renault.
• Why removing the awards in the models article also, but only for Renault ? For neutrality, fairness and consistency : no reason to apply a different treatment to Renault.
• Why making a difference between an award to a car model and to the brand that made this car ? The awards are for the car and its constructor, obviously !
• Why using some arbitrary and inconsistent "reasons" to target Renault, but not using the same "reasons" for the other brands that are in the same situation ? Urbanoc says that the Renault badge is not logical as the Dacia badge also exist and that then the awards have to be removed. But all the Dacia models are conceived only by Renault. Dacia can not make such cars. So no problem actually. And most of these cars are sold with the Renault brand, e.g. 70% of te Duster were sold with the Renault brand in 2013. On the contrary, GM sells with the Cherolet/Opel/Vauxhall brands some cars CONCEIVED by Daewoo ! But as GM is not Renault, then the same fake "reason" is not used by Urbanoc against GM, because his motivations are arbitrary and malevolent against Renault. When VW buy Bentley, Porsche, etc they buy some brands that make better cars, but Renault went from nothing with Dacia. Dacia is only made by Renault. But Lamborgini is not VW and Daewoo is not GM either, for example. Malevolent motivations against Renault.
• Why saying that the Motor trend car of the year in the USA is not official enough to be mentioned in the Renault article, but the same award is mentioned in the VW article and then they don't ask it to be removed ? Not neutral request against Renault. Unfair treatment, malevolent motivations against Renault.

Why Urbanoc speaks about the award in Estonia ? I added no award from Estonia. The awards that I added are considered as very important by the professionals of the automotive industry.

• these awards are not french, so no problem of fairness for Renault, but only for Fiat/Chrysler and VW
• these awards are officially voted by the automotive journalists unions, or by several serious magazines, not less serious than the few ones that participate to the COTY in western Europe. In addition, there could exist a dozen of different award for COTY in Europe, voted by as much of sets of different magazines.
• Autobest is voted by 15 countries, representing more than 300 million people. It is equivalent to the COTY in western Europe. No reason to remove these awards.

Spain and Italy are important countries for the car industry to :

• Italy has a long history for the car industry, and Volkswagen even by their companies
• Spain has plants of all the brands, so it is involved in the car industry and it has no reason to be nicer with Renault than VW, GM or Ford etc.
• their population is approximately the same than this of the UK

So no reason to remove these awards from the Renault article.

And no reason to apply to Renault a different treatment than this for Ford, GM, VW etc.

So no consensus for this malevolent request. Anyway 3 accomplice "opinions" do not make a consensus. And Wikipedia is made for the readers, not for 3 guys... or one guy with 3 different pseudonyms = false alias names. The hundreds of thousands readers want to read this information and don't want it to be removed only from the Renault article.

In addition, for consistency purpose, the award section must be placed after history and named "Awards", like in the VW article, and not put at the end of the article (...) and named "Accolade" like ONLY for the Renault article...

I wish a nice day to honest people.83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sort of - absolutely no need for lists of specific national awards, they are meaningless even on the car articles themselves. I just altered the page, leaving in the European COTYs - Europe being the most relevant market for Renault, and those being of considerable standards. I mentioned in passing some of the lesser awards, including Dacia - but without the long lists of names, worded exactly the same as on the other pages. There are no hundreds of thousands of readers interested in Semperit awards or whathaveyou.

Secondly, I don't see a bunch of awards on the VW page (FWIW I have owned a Peugeot, but never a Renault or a VW product) for national level nonsense. The MT award is mildly special since it was the first time they gave it to a non-american brand, but definitely doesn't need bullet points or separate headers. Thirdly, ip, your copy and pasting of this same exact long harangue twice on this page, on my talkpage, and probably in countless other places doesn't count as fruitful conversation. Fourthly, the reason people give themselves an alias is because it makes it easier to a) address them and b) know who's saying what. I also thought you were the same ip that had been milling about plastering Semperit Irish Car of The Year awards all over the place, an issue that wouldn't arise if you could simply be bothered to give yourself an alias. As for sockpuppetry accusations, the editors in question all have long histories and are clearly not the same person. As for calling it "Awards" or "Accolades", I see no difference as they are both positive. Call it whatever you like. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

* Comment MrChoppers, I just see your edits. I'll be clear, I'm in a general way opposing the awards list, but I can accept the new list of international and relevant awards if it helps to achieve a consensus and if the IP editor also agrees. I see your intentions, and I think they're right although I'm not completely happy with that outcome. This is not about winning, but trying to find a consensus on content.

I reverted myself in the Automobile Dacia article. Altough related, it's clear that's a separate discussion and besides I'm seeing your edit was a WP:BOLD to facilitate a consensus. Better to keep things separated. Urbanoc (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• ALERT : the rules are not respected Hello to honest people.

• As an IP, I am less anonymous than the fake pseudonyms, that's why I chose to not open an account. I am a journalist and I want to prove that I wrote from the lap-top of my news paper.
• The rules are not respected, the discussion is not finished, NO consensus and yet you REMOVED the awards only for Renault ! It is unacceptable and I have one more proof that there is a band of people who have stars to "mean" that they are good "wikipedians", but actually they respect no rule, do what they want, harass some brands but not some others, and harass the honest people like me to kick good contributors away. We both know that this discussion is FAKE and that the final fake decision will be to continue to harass Renault... But as you removed the Renault awards BEFORE the final "decision", then it is obvious that the discussion is fake from the beginning...
• Why removing the Motor trend car of the year award in the USA from the Renault article, saying that "it is not important", but you keep the SAME award in the Volkswagen article ? Why treating Volkswagen better than Renault ? Why some different "rules" are applied and not the same neutral treatment ? Such an unequal treatment is strange... Renault is harassed, VW is protected.
• The Renault Symbole II was ONLY Renault, never Dacia, so it is a non-sense to remove the Autobest from Renault and to put it in Dacia. And it is a non-sense to remove it from Dacia and not to put it BACK in Renault. So one more proof that all what you do here is inconsistent and irrelevant, and that you don't know about the automotive industry... You just harass and denigrate some brands, and protect Volkswagen for example. It is the "Volkswagate scandal on Wikipedia".
• The text about Autobest is not neutral : "This award is more focused on economy, as it represents 15 European and Eurasian lower-income countries". It is looking upon and false. The ECOTY is also focused on the costs, else the Mercedes Class S would have had the award. The Mokka participate to ECOTY and to Autobest, but for ECOTY it is not low cost and for Autobest it is low cost ? Inconsistent.

So, I ask that the rules are respected : cancellation of all the removed awards. Removing the Motor trend award for any brand, but keeping it for VW is one of the numerous proofs of non-neutrality and of the "Volkswagate scandal on Wikipedia". The request itself to remove the awards from Renault and its car model is a non-sense, as you don't ask the same for VW. And I will open a new discussion to prove that Urbanoc etc. harass selectively some brands by removing some photos, some cars models in some list, by writing always some negative information and never all the positive one. PROOFS HERE already Non-equal treatment of articles - Vandalization.

You can block my IP, for some fake reasons, I don't mind : I will have a proof that you kick away the honest contributors and we have more than 800 lap-tops in my news paper, so you will have to lock at least 800 IP to prevent the honest contributors to work for the Wikipedia readers... Many of my colleagues also noticed the same "Volkswagate scandal" on the other languages Wikipedia, so dozens of articles about this scandal will be published anyway.

I have some big knowledges about the automotive history and industry, so it would be normal to welcome me, if you were passionate too. But I have not been welcome, I've been harassed. My contributions are all true and neutral, but they have been removed without any proof that they are false -what is a non-respect of the assume good faith rule- and the people like Urbanoc who harasses Renault continues with the help of people who support him, to have a bad faith behaviour, removing the awards BEFORE a final decision is taken. Shame.

I wish a nice day to honest people.83.157.24.224 (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I support a pruning of the Volkswagen (and other articles), and if we can establish some sort of unofficial standard for what makes sense to include then our work will be easier over there. You will notice that I chose to include the MT award in a prose section, as it is of interest since it was the first non-US brand to receive this award. And thank you all for being willing to listen. As for VW, there are simply a LOT of VW fans in the US as it is the only European brand with youth appeal to have been here for a long time. So a lot of VW fanboys write in English as a result, meaning lots of text added to the VW articles. No need to suppose that it's some sort of conspiracy. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that changes that could go beyond the scope of Renault not be discussed on this talk page, as this page is not a forum that would reach all of the interested parties. Comparisons between manufacturers' articles, and theories on how and why they came to be different, are similarly unproductive in this discussion as they could serve to foment the paranoia we are witnessing. Wikipedia has a guideline for avoiding this type of comparison logic. Although the article changes as they currently stand do not exactly reflect what was proposed in the RFC, I personally am satisfied with the compromise. Vrac (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• No: As per Vrac Awards for particular models on their respective pages but awards for the company itself are appropriate for this article. Jschnur (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe what this IP editor is claiming, and his tone and misunderstanding of previous discussions (and he hash't even bothered to review his own talk page). Many editors, including myself, have helped to improve the Renault article over a long time, and he has taken some recent edits as a personal vendetta. A small selection of notable awards is in my view perfectly reasonable and relevant, especially if some of them are over a sustained period, but a complete list of all awards, irrespective of notability, is excessive detail for a company page, though may be suitable in some cases on the model specific page. Warren (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.