Talk:Renault Kadjar
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Name
[edit]To Urbanoc who undid my edit last night: You could at least let the spelling correction of the French word jaillir which I verified at the source (http://media.renault.com/global/fr-fr/Media/PressRelease.aspx?mediaid=65125&nodeid=-1) and at Larrousse dictionary (http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/jaillir/44667?q=jaillir#44607) While I accept your arguments against the provocative addition I made last night, I cannot understand such an encyclopedical purism for an article based on a shoddy marketing stunt, a teasing campaign for the social media. Yesterday Renault announced only the name and nothing else of the car and somebody thinks this already makes it encyclopedical stuff? Including a half-wit official explanation of the name? Come on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.179.197 (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not unusual for there to be a stub article when a car launch is imminent and covered by third party sources. The article makes it pretty clear that the meaning of the name is "claimed" by Renault. I'll check some other refs on the spelling of the French, but see no reason not to correct that if you are right. Warren (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- My argument was not against the stub, but its content and timing. Even if I accept someone's zeal to open an article in anticipation of more factual information soon to come, I think it is utterly wrong to base it on anything else than the credible official information. So much more when it is clear that the whole thing is a marketing stunt to stir the public through social media and spoon-fed press. Third party sources you mention were just parroting the press release which not only revealed very little but ran too short to make for even a short article. Thus the motoring journos filled in with their speculations and all sorts of pictures. Unfortunately, given the current rules of their game, they have to do so. But not Wikipedia. On the flipside, I might be utterly wrong and superficial in my belief that spelling of a French word needs no other verification than the French company's official statement in French and the Larrousse dictionary. Bowing to the situation I dared to do some more editing. To the word quad I added a link to the article about ATV, changed the block capital in Jaillir and added the missing part of explanation what it really means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.179.197 (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Seems a tad harsh. This article is not reliant on raw press releases like some - it has been covered by a range of car magazines, and even a national newspaper - albeit they are inevitably fed by press releases like every other product launch. Every car launch is a marketing stunt, not sure why you have such a problem with this particular one! Warren (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- My argument was not against the stub, but its content and timing. Even if I accept someone's zeal to open an article in anticipation of more factual information soon to come, I think it is utterly wrong to base it on anything else than the credible official information. So much more when it is clear that the whole thing is a marketing stunt to stir the public through social media and spoon-fed press. Third party sources you mention were just parroting the press release which not only revealed very little but ran too short to make for even a short article. Thus the motoring journos filled in with their speculations and all sorts of pictures. Unfortunately, given the current rules of their game, they have to do so. But not Wikipedia. On the flipside, I might be utterly wrong and superficial in my belief that spelling of a French word needs no other verification than the French company's official statement in French and the Larrousse dictionary. Bowing to the situation I dared to do some more editing. To the word quad I added a link to the article about ATV, changed the block capital in Jaillir and added the missing part of explanation what it really means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.179.197 (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for undid your spelling correction 89.142.179.197, I didn't notice that. No hesitate to let me know any mistake I make, I'm not perfect! As for the alternative explanation for the Kadjar name, I personally consider it to be logical and interesting, but WP:V applies to all articles.
- The article's topic seems to meet the notability criteria. It is usual to create articles about forthcoming vehicles, especially if there are third-party sources covering them. Urbanoc (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Warren, sorry if I was too harsh. It is probably my advanced age that makes me such. Maybe that is why I distinguish between products of a serious journalist and a PR-fed hack, a major national daily and a sort-of-national tabloid, an ecyclopedia from an aggregatopedia. You downplay the raw press release although it is the official statement of a serious company, but give precedence to a third party, which spiced up a non-release of a non-event with some googoo and Limahl. See why ANE (now reference no. 2) took a day longer to break the news. That's how journalism can respond to silly marketing whims with dignity and professionalism. But, they've done it a whole day after the Wikipedia...
- You wonder, why I have a problem with this article? In case you haven't noticed, we are not talking about a car launch here. We are talking about a car name launch only. The car will be revealed next week and launched (on the market) only months from now. I imagine to know a little bit of this business. So, seeing the first web reports of this name launch and the silly explanation of it, I tried to dig just a little bit deeper as any journo would have to in my rosy world. Imagine my surprise when Wikipedia offered me considerable and interesting information on Quadjar/Kadjar dynasty, which I found very vaguely picked up only by two blogs in Spanish. Then, I saw that our beloved encyclopedia already has an article of a car-to-come of which big chunk is irrevelant marketing trash referenced to a tabloid. Thus disgusted of such utter ignorance in the age of information, I decided to add a tiny compilation of Wiki encyclopedical bits. It was a rather provocative deed, I admit, for which I hoped would incite some curiosity and evoke some reasoning. Well, at least we have this debate here.
- Urbanoc, no problem. Later, I figured out that undoing an edit does undo all of it, even hidden small bits that are right. Rules are rules. Thanks for your compliment. As far as I have learned, there are several interesting underlays of Renault Kadjar name. I do not think them people in Paris stupid at all. It is stupid from us to assume they are stupid because they send out stupid press releases to be stupidly parroted by digital smoke signals. Hopefully, some third party will eventually make a story out of it so it can find its way back to Wikipedia. :-)
Political propaganda with no proof -only personal interpretation- against the car name
[edit]I erased a sentence and 2 sources today : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renault_Kadjar&diff=691437061&oldid=691146402
First, people must know that Renault does not create always the name of its cars, another company is specialized in creating some new names.
Secondly, it is strange to make a political propaganda on the hypothetical intentions of the company that created the name. The article citing a guy called Raphaël Weyland, and after Raphaël Weygand, is not serious. RW says "According to me ... blablabla". He has absolutely no proof of HIS PERSONAL interpretation of the supposed intentions of the people who created the name. These people are even not from Renault. And they have no political intentions, they just want to get a word that seems to sound well. And once again, this company has absolutely no interest in Renault sales in Iran or anywhere. Renault buy them several names like Clio, Laguna etc. The other source is totally paranoid too. Absolutely no proof of Renault intentions in any way, just obsessions that make him imagine a negative theory. These two "sources" denies the official speech of Renault, and prefer to believe their own theoriy with no proof. Why such "sources" and propaganda are written in WP ?
Once again, some people use WP to make a war against Renault. The theories presented here are ridiculous, and with no proof, just "personal assumptions". It is even very strange that such a theory manage to reach this journalist who did "write" a paper about that. Several "judgements" of RW are totally ridiculous. I even do not cite them.
Some people could elaborate some "theories" against some other names like "Polo" or "Golf" that are two elitist sports, even nowadays, or "Fiesta" is an apology of alcoholism, or any negative personal "theories and interpretations" with no proof. Not serious. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)