 | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Mitsubishi 3000GT Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Mitsubishi 3000GT Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
They actually aren't exactly the same car. Same base model but with enough changes to warrant it's own article, in my opinion.
- The 3000GT and the GTO are the exact same car. What changes are you talking about? -- ApolloBoy 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Mitsubishi 3000GT sounds much cooler than GTO and therfore keep them separate.
- No offense, but that's a ridiculous reason. There are the exact same car, cool name or not. -- ApolloBoy 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this should be merged with the GTO page. In fact, looking at the articles' respective histories, they've been merged previously and this has been recreated since.
I added some info to the GTO page for the original '70-'75 model, so from a personal point of view I'd rather see the other article kept intact ~ it gives a more contiguous history of both cars. It has less detail, but I don't think this one's been brilliantly written (e.g. "The car was unique in being one of the few performance cars of the era that could be had with all-wheel drive." - if it's one of the few cars, it's definitely NOT unique).
- I fixed that "unique" comment taking the "unique" out and simply leaving it as "The car was one of the few performance cars of the era that could be had with all-wheel drive." --CD
Also, there's a very large excerpt from an acknowledged copyright article. This is OK (I don't know Wikipedia's policies regarding reproduction of such material)?
Finally, for the record, anyone who thinks GTO doesn't sound as 'cool' as 3000GT clearly doesn't know his automotive history. Pontiac and Ferrari fans can put you right on this matter. ;) -- DeLarge 11.15am GMT, 12 April 2006
They are 2 different name plates, 2 different models, if you wanted to merge 3000GT and GTO, you might as well merge the Stealth also. This is an encyclopedia, why doesn't the 3000GT get it's own entry? - Gomez
It looks like the Dodge Stealth entry HAS been merged - it's been redirected here since November '05. So the obverse question is: if the Dodge Stealth doesn't have its own entry, why should the 3000GT/GTO get one?
They're NOT two different models. They're the same car, from the same factory production line, with a slightly different badge on it. The 3000GT shouldn't get its own entry because there's nothing to say that can't be said in the GTO article. Having two pages when one (plus a redirect) would serve just as well is unnecessary duplication. -- DeLarge 10.00am GMT, 18 April 2006
Maybe change entry to Mitsubishi GTO/3000GT? Looking at the other Mitsubishi pages, that they have Monetro/Pajero listed as that, and we're discussing a similar situation; same car, namesake change only due to market area. - Gomez 19:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
---
I'd like to point out that while these cars shared the same chasis in order to keep costs down for the amount of features this car adds, the cars were developed comepletely seprately, hsraing only hard points for certain portions of the body design. There are very distinct differences in styling and history that demand a seperation in their histories. I can go on and on about the differences. I also have specific development stories that confirm this. If a detailed account would be vauaable I can write that out at some point.
-Bill, deft racing
Try looking at these 2 models and they still are the same, any manufacturers will always make changes to adapt them to a different market
The 3000GT and the GTO are the same car, with the same engine, chassis, interior and body, with very minor probable changes to meet U.S. emissions regulations. Merge them. - M.H.C., Editor, ModernRacer.com
The Dodge Stealth has a different body but is listed under 3000GT. Since the GTO shares even more, there is no reason to keep it in a seperate article.
These cars are similar, im not saying they are exactally the same, but functionality they are the same. If you guys were to debate about these 2 cars, then debate about all the other cars that are alike like the Charger, Roadrunner, SuperBird, SuperBee, Coronet. Essientally they were the same, same chassis, engines, it was all B-Body, ya they looked a lil different, but they are trying to appeal to the market. There are more cars out there but i do agree, the two should be put together.
This is a very complete and informative article, but it has language that implies a POV ("this vehicle is a masterpiece"), as well as unnessicary adjectives ("powered by an enormous 3.0L [engine]"... enormous is a relative term), especially the conclusion ("The 3000GT has been with us for nine years and has kept up its promise of reclaiming the Mitsubishi name and having its self as contender in the racing arena."... the use of "us" implies POV and "has kept up it's promise of reclaiming the mitsubishi name.." sounds like an auto advertisement).
-Charlie
I think the only reason that the Americans called it the 3000GT is because GTO was the name givin to a Pontiac car: and using it would infrince on the copyright laws.
I think these two topics should be merged because the car is essentially the same.
Just more automatics were sold in the USA i guess =)
That is the exact reason why the 3000gt was never named the GTO in America as it is in Japan. (Because of the Pontiac GTO)
So rather "stealing" the name the decided to call it the 3000gt which is the same exact car as the Japanese GTO. The Dodge Stealth should also be merged with these cars as it is also the SAME EXACT ENGINE and CHASIS. They ONLY difference is the body sculpting. But besides that they are the exact same cars with the exact same specs.
Truthfully, except for some MINOR differences the GTO and 3000gt are the same car. However, they are different versions of the same car so there at least should be a seperate section for the GTO describing the diferences. The most important thing to consider is SAME ENGINE/DRIVETRAIN = merge them. Everyone agree with that? -Luke
Non-Auto person here. If there is this much to put into one article, why should it all be on one page? It would just make one huge article that should be split anyways.-- Attitude2000 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Might I ask what the purpose of this section is for? And I do agree with Attitude2000. Big pages are extremely discouraging and oftentimes harder to keep up with. Colonel Marksman 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting with the cleanup work. Feel free to do other edits, but maybe we can wait for splits, merges, and trimming until we've got a clean article to work with. -- Mikeblas 23:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's it; I think I've done everything I can for the cleanup. I'll take another pass through and try to offer conversions for more uints, but I've done the best I can to improve the existing text. The article is a little shorter, but there's still some redundancy, particularly in the descriptios of the different models (and the different options over time), the description of the special features (which also explain which models had which options over time), and the generation discussion (which explains which features were on which model years). That's a little more than I'm ready to address. --
Mikeblas
14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and: the giant quote could probably just be deleted, since it's got little context and few ties to the rest of the article. And the whole thing needs references. --
Mikeblas
14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the huge quote because I didn't feel like there was anything I could salvage from it. -- Mikeblas 16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the cleanp tag. I hope ya'll agree that the article is a much better read now, even though it is a bit redundant. -- Mikeblas 01:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and: the giant quote could probably just be deleted, since it's got little context and few ties to the rest of the article. And the whole thing needs references. --
Mikeblas
14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Was the car available in Canada, or not? Under "History", the first paragraph says that "Canadian 3000GTS were distributed". The second paragraph says "the 3000GT was never sold in Canada". Under "Models", the article says that Canadian models included the base, SL, and VR4. -- Mikeblas 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Dodge Stealth and 3000 GT are totally different cars; especially in Canada where there was only the Dodge Stealth.
I've just finished a major rewrite of the Mitsubishi GTO article, which basically involved splicing together everything on that page and this one and doing some pruning. I reckon it'd be OK to now redirect this page to that one (something that's been done in the past before this page was recreated). Any thoughts or will I be bold...? -- DeLarge 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good to me. I'm glad you folded the long reundant text in this article (about features being added and removed over time). I stopped short of the merge because people here were still arguing about the cars being of the same lineage. -- Mikeblas 15:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, no other feedback, so I'm going to be bold: making this a redirect. -- DeLarge 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mitsubishi GTO which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 04:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
|
| This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Mitsubishi 3000GT Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Mitsubishi 3000GT Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
They actually aren't exactly the same car. Same base model but with enough changes to warrant it's own article, in my opinion.
- The 3000GT and the GTO are the exact same car. What changes are you talking about? -- ApolloBoy 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Mitsubishi 3000GT sounds much cooler than GTO and therfore keep them separate.
- No offense, but that's a ridiculous reason. There are the exact same car, cool name or not. -- ApolloBoy 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this should be merged with the GTO page. In fact, looking at the articles' respective histories, they've been merged previously and this has been recreated since.
I added some info to the GTO page for the original '70-'75 model, so from a personal point of view I'd rather see the other article kept intact ~ it gives a more contiguous history of both cars. It has less detail, but I don't think this one's been brilliantly written (e.g. "The car was unique in being one of the few performance cars of the era that could be had with all-wheel drive." - if it's one of the few cars, it's definitely NOT unique).
- I fixed that "unique" comment taking the "unique" out and simply leaving it as "The car was one of the few performance cars of the era that could be had with all-wheel drive." --CD
Also, there's a very large excerpt from an acknowledged copyright article. This is OK (I don't know Wikipedia's policies regarding reproduction of such material)?
Finally, for the record, anyone who thinks GTO doesn't sound as 'cool' as 3000GT clearly doesn't know his automotive history. Pontiac and Ferrari fans can put you right on this matter. ;) -- DeLarge 11.15am GMT, 12 April 2006
They are 2 different name plates, 2 different models, if you wanted to merge 3000GT and GTO, you might as well merge the Stealth also. This is an encyclopedia, why doesn't the 3000GT get it's own entry? - Gomez
It looks like the Dodge Stealth entry HAS been merged - it's been redirected here since November '05. So the obverse question is: if the Dodge Stealth doesn't have its own entry, why should the 3000GT/GTO get one?
They're NOT two different models. They're the same car, from the same factory production line, with a slightly different badge on it. The 3000GT shouldn't get its own entry because there's nothing to say that can't be said in the GTO article. Having two pages when one (plus a redirect) would serve just as well is unnecessary duplication. -- DeLarge 10.00am GMT, 18 April 2006
Maybe change entry to Mitsubishi GTO/3000GT? Looking at the other Mitsubishi pages, that they have Monetro/Pajero listed as that, and we're discussing a similar situation; same car, namesake change only due to market area. - Gomez 19:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
---
I'd like to point out that while these cars shared the same chasis in order to keep costs down for the amount of features this car adds, the cars were developed comepletely seprately, hsraing only hard points for certain portions of the body design. There are very distinct differences in styling and history that demand a seperation in their histories. I can go on and on about the differences. I also have specific development stories that confirm this. If a detailed account would be vauaable I can write that out at some point.
-Bill, deft racing
Try looking at these 2 models and they still are the same, any manufacturers will always make changes to adapt them to a different market
The 3000GT and the GTO are the same car, with the same engine, chassis, interior and body, with very minor probable changes to meet U.S. emissions regulations. Merge them. - M.H.C., Editor, ModernRacer.com
The Dodge Stealth has a different body but is listed under 3000GT. Since the GTO shares even more, there is no reason to keep it in a seperate article.
These cars are similar, im not saying they are exactally the same, but functionality they are the same. If you guys were to debate about these 2 cars, then debate about all the other cars that are alike like the Charger, Roadrunner, SuperBird, SuperBee, Coronet. Essientally they were the same, same chassis, engines, it was all B-Body, ya they looked a lil different, but they are trying to appeal to the market. There are more cars out there but i do agree, the two should be put together.
This is a very complete and informative article, but it has language that implies a POV ("this vehicle is a masterpiece"), as well as unnessicary adjectives ("powered by an enormous 3.0L [engine]"... enormous is a relative term), especially the conclusion ("The 3000GT has been with us for nine years and has kept up its promise of reclaiming the Mitsubishi name and having its self as contender in the racing arena."... the use of "us" implies POV and "has kept up it's promise of reclaiming the mitsubishi name.." sounds like an auto advertisement).
-Charlie
I think the only reason that the Americans called it the 3000GT is because GTO was the name givin to a Pontiac car: and using it would infrince on the copyright laws.
I think these two topics should be merged because the car is essentially the same.
Just more automatics were sold in the USA i guess =)
That is the exact reason why the 3000gt was never named the GTO in America as it is in Japan. (Because of the Pontiac GTO)
So rather "stealing" the name the decided to call it the 3000gt which is the same exact car as the Japanese GTO. The Dodge Stealth should also be merged with these cars as it is also the SAME EXACT ENGINE and CHASIS. They ONLY difference is the body sculpting. But besides that they are the exact same cars with the exact same specs.
Truthfully, except for some MINOR differences the GTO and 3000gt are the same car. However, they are different versions of the same car so there at least should be a seperate section for the GTO describing the diferences. The most important thing to consider is SAME ENGINE/DRIVETRAIN = merge them. Everyone agree with that? -Luke
Non-Auto person here. If there is this much to put into one article, why should it all be on one page? It would just make one huge article that should be split anyways.-- Attitude2000 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Might I ask what the purpose of this section is for? And I do agree with Attitude2000. Big pages are extremely discouraging and oftentimes harder to keep up with. Colonel Marksman 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting with the cleanup work. Feel free to do other edits, but maybe we can wait for splits, merges, and trimming until we've got a clean article to work with. -- Mikeblas 23:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's it; I think I've done everything I can for the cleanup. I'll take another pass through and try to offer conversions for more uints, but I've done the best I can to improve the existing text. The article is a little shorter, but there's still some redundancy, particularly in the descriptios of the different models (and the different options over time), the description of the special features (which also explain which models had which options over time), and the generation discussion (which explains which features were on which model years). That's a little more than I'm ready to address. --
Mikeblas
14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and: the giant quote could probably just be deleted, since it's got little context and few ties to the rest of the article. And the whole thing needs references. --
Mikeblas
14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the huge quote because I didn't feel like there was anything I could salvage from it. -- Mikeblas 16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the cleanp tag. I hope ya'll agree that the article is a much better read now, even though it is a bit redundant. -- Mikeblas 01:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and: the giant quote could probably just be deleted, since it's got little context and few ties to the rest of the article. And the whole thing needs references. --
Mikeblas
14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Was the car available in Canada, or not? Under "History", the first paragraph says that "Canadian 3000GTS were distributed". The second paragraph says "the 3000GT was never sold in Canada". Under "Models", the article says that Canadian models included the base, SL, and VR4. -- Mikeblas 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Dodge Stealth and 3000 GT are totally different cars; especially in Canada where there was only the Dodge Stealth.
I've just finished a major rewrite of the Mitsubishi GTO article, which basically involved splicing together everything on that page and this one and doing some pruning. I reckon it'd be OK to now redirect this page to that one (something that's been done in the past before this page was recreated). Any thoughts or will I be bold...? -- DeLarge 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good to me. I'm glad you folded the long reundant text in this article (about features being added and removed over time). I stopped short of the merge because people here were still arguing about the cars being of the same lineage. -- Mikeblas 15:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, no other feedback, so I'm going to be bold: making this a redirect. -- DeLarge 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mitsubishi GTO which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 04:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)