Talk:Renault Midlum

Trucks Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks 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.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the 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.

Renault Midlum in Nice attack

I removed this partly because the sources did not say 'Midlum', though others do, but also because is it relevant to the marque's history? Do we normally add to vehicle pages all the notable crimes committed with their aid if the make and model are not notable features of the crime, which I think is the case here. Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete I added the sources. The original text was added July 2016 after the attack by someone. I think in an encyclopedia the important uses(good/bad) of a vehicle, or anything, are stated, because Wikipedia is more than a vehicle blog or catalog. fyi, There is a discussion on the Automobile project page regarding your question. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the input of 'vehicle editors' would be welcome. My own personal opinion is that unless, for example, a vehicle acquires a reputation for being ideal for a particular criminal purpose, or similar fame/notoriety, its participation in an individual crime is irrelevant to the vehicle page, though a relevant detail to the crime page. I wonder how many notable crimes have involved other long-standing marques? Pincrete (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose inclusion for basically the same reasons as Pincrete. I think the RfC mentioned by CuriousMind01 should inform how the information is handled in this article. Springee (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was specific to 2 vehicles, as written, was not general and did not include the Renault Midlum. I think this article has to be discussed separately.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it didn't specifically include this truck but the logic remains the same. The RfC showed strong opposition to including this sort of material. (link for editors who weren't involved [[1]]) Also note that several editors have objected to the material and removed it and Pincrete objected above. Springee (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some French sources appear to be reporting a different Renault model, though even if it established that a Midlum was used, Midlum denotes a whole range. I don't see how it benefits the readers of this article to know that one of the range has once been involved in a crime. Are sources pointing to the particular truck type as relevant? Many don't even bother to report the make or model, since 'a 19-tonne truck' is a great deal more relevant to the execution of the crime. Pincrete (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to oppose per Pincrete too - If the vehicle was constantly used for terrorism purposes then I could perhaps understand ...but it's not, I admit I am torn between "well it is relevant" and "no it's not relevant" .... On the whole I'd more or less say it's not relevant to the article. –Davey2010^Talk 16:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Users Davey2010, Pincrete, Springee

1. My position, the text belongs in the article as an important historical use of the truck, and important uses belong in an encyclopedia.

2. Springee, I read the current status is 3 oppose, 1 support. If no other editors respond to support the text, in a wikipedia "reasonable" discussion period then I think you can remove the text. CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CuriousMind01. I think that is a very reasonable approach. It balances respecting consensus with respecting article stability. Springee (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 10 days with no other input. I'm going to remove the information. Springee (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]