This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Renault article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. Some people erase arbitrarily some information and before erasing they should get some genuine knowledges. I will complete this discussion, but as example here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault&diff=648688784&oldid=648437641 : it is not relevant to erase Louis Schweitzer from the "key people". The claims of Urbanoc and naive and false. Carlos Ghosn did not "help" Louis Schweitzer. And in a big company, 2 or 3 years spend before the new CEO could have an influence. Ghosn "drove" what Schweitzer built !
What I tell here comes from my deep knowledges of the car industry, and so from dozens of articles, but if needed I could give some references as far as it is possible, but if some people want to get some better knowledges then they can read reports, interviews, articles by themselves. When I add something, Urbanoc immediately erase it. It is his war. Yet, I am much more savant than him, and this behaviour is bad for the quality of the article. Urbanoc does not respect the rules : erasing is not justified, he can "tag" or open a discussion. Urbanoc does as if he owned this article, but it is false. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 08:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The source that I added cites some HISTORICAL FACTS. Notice that precisely, this source cites all the sources from some business magazines that it used to sum up them. So it is reliable. So, do you both change your mind ? According to you what is not true in this source ? L.Schweitzer was not the CEO when to decides the expansion in Brazil and opening a new plant, there, buying Nissan, Dacia, Samsung Motors, and making a long term agreement with AvtoVAZ and building a factory in Moscow ? Yes, he was the CEO and he drove all that, and chose Ghosn. What is false according to you to censure this source ? Prove that these information are not true. They are obvious and historical. It is a kind of revisionism to disagree with historical facts. This source sum up HISTORICAL FACTS and is reliable. On the contrary, the tabloid source added by Warren Whyte is not a serious source in a WP article about automotive industry. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 17:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Daily Record is a tabloid, it is not my opinion, it is the reality. The article added by Warren Whyte has been written before the launch of Kadjar, so it has to be replaced for this too, because it said non-informed things. In addition, the tabloid shows a photo of the Kwid, another vehicle (so it makes people wrong) and cites "cage a googoo" and their photos what has nothing to do with the automotive industry and Renault. It is just bad jokes about Renault, to denigrate, like tabloid do. Tabloid are not reliable sources and it is strange to have found this very unknown source and to have added it in first position in the article, in replacement of another source. For the source about Louis Schweitzer all the fact are true and historical, that is why you failed to find one that is not true, whereas I asked you to do that. There is no interpretation. Schweitzer really did all that and transformed Renault into a 5 big brands group, whereas it had only 2 (Renault and Alpine) when he arrived as CEO. I don't understand why you deny the HISTORY. Strange behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry that you ignore so much about Schweitzer, because he is pointed out as a precious example of key management, like in this MIT source for example, so I am happy to teach you that. You're welcome ! http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/building-ambidexterity-into-an-organization/ Renault, the French automobile company, went through a radical transformation during the 1990s. When Louis Schweitzer became CEO in 1992, the state-owned company was languishing. Schweitzer cut costs through a number of well-publicized plant closures, but he also invested in new-product development (leading to such models as the Espace and Megane) and began the search for a strategic partner to take Renault into the top tier of the industry. After an abortive merger with Volvo in 1993, Renault gained control of a struggling Nissan in 1998 and, to the surprise of many observers, quickly turned around its performance. By 2001, the Renault-Nissan Alliance had joined the ranks of industry leaders and was one of the most profitable auto companies in the world. How did the transformation take place? Schweitzer developed a simple and consistent strategy built around what he called the “seven strategic goals.” The strategic planning and budgeting processes, and the bonuses and stock option plans, were all aligned with these goals. The communication of the message was, in the words of one executive, “doggedly consistent.” At the same time, the company developed what one executive called a “deep desire to adapt.” The seven strategic goals were updated every two or three years, the organization had an informal style of management in which expressing alternative views was encouraged and managers developed a self-critical approach, always looking to improve. The result was an organization that became proficient at continually making small adaptations to its strategy without losing alignment. Renault’s transformation during the 1990s involved a shift from the country-club to the high-performance context. Until 1990, employees had viewed the company as a comfortable and secure place to work, with an informal atmosphere. Over the following 10 years, a number of changes were brought about, primarily through top-down initiatives revolving around cost reduction and quality and through greater focus on, and commitment to, KEY STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. One executive commented that his business unit was run as a “commando-type organization — appraisal and evaluation interviews are run in a pyramidal form and compensation is [now] geared toward short-term objectives.” Most of these changes were instituted through a new executive team that gave people more structure, which led to a focus on new products and new opportunities as a means of delivering on the more ambitious goals. Stated slightly differently, the emphasis during the transition was placed on performance management but building on the social support that had existed in the early 1990s. Indeed, two of Schweitzer’s seven goals were concerned with the internal organizational context (develop a coherent and open group; work more effectively together). Renault achieved it by building a performance context around its existing social support. // If you were interested by finding some information about Schweitzer instead of judging first, then you could have found several sources that mention his key role, but I am happy to have helped you to clarify your mind. Do you still deny Schweitzer's key role ? Actually, more text in the article is needed about Schweitzer too, in addition to the "key people" line, as you can notice. Anyway, my previous reliable source from Oxford University press is already clear also about his actions : "Renault's long-standing chairman and chief executive, Louis Schweitzer transformed Renault into a successful company". Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 16:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
As for the word "bizarre", I do not have problems with that, but as I say before the IP has showed that he follows a disturbing French-nationalist WP:ADVOCACY agenda and his intention is that all material that is not an outright compliment to Renault will be deleted from the article. He even removed mentions to other marques....
Please read WP:BRD. Also, when you fold all of your edits together, there is really no way for me to delete the disputable material without also reverting whatever useful things you have managed to accomplish. You are becoming nearly impossible to work with, always assuming bad will on everyone else's part, such as in this very unpleasant edit summary: Official and neutral ECOTY website sources to replace the denigrating or broken links"sources"added and not controlled by the"patrols". I'm not sure exactly what it means, but I feel that you are not being pleasant. Please consider communicating in a more productive fashion, and perhaps edit some articles on something else to lower your adrenaline. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I don't know how you interpret my sentence, the facts :
Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
-> Thank you Serge. M.Choppers wrote : "there is really no way for me to delete the disputable material without also reverting whatever useful things you have managed to accomplish.". FALSE, there is a way to revert ONLY this part, and not the 9 other changed versions, as it was ONLY here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault&diff=650430686&oldid=650398033 But there is no relevant reason to reverse this one either anyway... Anyway, I mentioned later that the "homeland" brands were before Renault, what is not needed as I wrote that Renault is 3rd, and it is an article about Renault, not the "homeland" brands in UK. Notice that Germans thinks that Ford and Opel are German, British think that Ford and Opel-Vauxhall are British, American people think that Ford and Opel are American, so mentioning these 2 brands in another company article just brings confusion and as there is absolutely nothing to do with an eventual business connection between Renault and those brands there, then this WP over-linking is not justified at all. Happy to have clarified your mind. You're welcome ! You erased many sources that I added to answer to Urbanoc's challenges "citation needed", before he could erase many parts of the Renault article, that becomes poorer and poorer by the way, because of that. So keeping these sources is very important, as you know, as they answer to his requests. You're welcome ! Cheers. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
-> Hello. Many arbitrary accusations and personal interpretations with no proofs, but no problem, because I am good faith, I only cite some reliable facts and statistics, so I am not afraid by false accusations. To answer to your many accusations, here are my factual answers :
False, I did not accuse M.Choppers. I mentioned what some other Professors noticed and some calculations that show strong correlations. As to me I asked if he would like to cooperate on a new article. So your interpretation is false, I did not accuse anybody. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, especially Urbanoc, for the detailed account of concerns, this was exactly what I was looking for. I just wanted to make sure that the IPs additions weren't being refused just because he has been difficult in the past.
I can't conclude who is right or wrong, all I can say is that there seems to be a clear, plausible, policy-related consensus against the IP's changes, and when there's no consensus to make changes, no changes are made. So the article should, at least for now, stay in its current state.
IP, you've got 2 options. One, you can try to persuade these editors into changing their mind. You guys have already discussed at length though, so I don't know how much longer I'd recommend that route. The other would be contacting relevant WP:WIKIPROJECTs or starting up an WP:RFC to see if you can get other editors involved, to persuade enough people to change the consensus into your favor. Either way, you need to do this yourself, as I'm getting tired of intervening all the time... Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
=> I did not speak about me, but for example "Dr Harrison holds qualifications from London, Salford, and Leeds Universities" who wrote that Schweitzer had the key role in "transforming Renault into a successful company". I did not have time to answer to Urbanoc, so no conclusion can be done. For example, he wants that the Motorsport section to be erased a lot, yet The Ford main article has 2 pages of "Motorsport" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company#Motorsport in addition to other Ford Racing, Ford World Rally Team, Ford GT Racing articles. Renault Motorsport has only 1/3 of that length of Ford and it would too long according to Urbanoc, Ford Motorsport is 3 times longer and it is not too long. It is an obvious bias and favouritism. It is an obvious difference of treatment, and no acceptable "fake vote" can establish some different rules among articles ! SAME RULES FOR ALL ARTICLES ! Else a lobby can vote some different rules, and so treat better a company than an other. Constitutions of democracies say : same laws for everybody, if laws are different for some categories of people, then it is not democracy, and such a vote has no value. This point is a key one, as you know, and that is why Urbanoc claims that he disagrees with it above, read ! Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
At 146kb, the Renault article is getting unwieldy. My browser can't even load the whole page in wikiEd. The history section looks excessively long to me, I think it's time to hive off a chunk of it into a History of Renault article. Any objections? Vrac ( talk) 17:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No, don't reduce the Renault history.
=> So the "showed" number of characters on the history page are mostly because of the numerous "sources" asked by Urbanoc, Vrac etc.
To conclude, there is no emergency to do that, on the contrary, to validate the Louis Schweitzer input and adding some texts are a bigger priority. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
2015-03-14 => No, the question is not simply "do you split or not ?" the relevant question is :
=> I am sorry if you felt upset by what I wrote, but I have never accused you, only mentioned some third party assessments, based on several modifications like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault&diff=639122385&oldid=639096407 As to me, I have tried to defend you on the contrary, and that is why I have proposed you to write a new article also. So, you are really, really wrong by thinking that would not "like" you. Have a nice day. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
=> You ignore all my arguments and refuse to answer, because they are good, so read what is at "11:59, 14 March 2015". The main purpose of the main article is precisely to tell the history not only what is actual, and so your claim is a total non-sense. History is not only the actual operation ! Anyway, it has no sense to make this request only for Renault, whereas VW has a 50% shorter history, an history text as long as the Renault one yet, and the same people who want to remove the main part of the Renault article, does not do that for Ford etc., so it is obviously a deliberate unequal treatment of the articles. You always say, "we will do it in the other articles too, but you never do that in GM, Ford, VW etc.", so these false promises are an obvious unequal treatment and bias, with a purpose. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest this input in the Renault in the UK §
Renault is known in the UK for its support to the British architecture and design innovations by hiring the young architect Norman Foster in 1978, in order to build the Renault Distribution Centre [1] (1980-1982) in Swindon, UK. Therefore, the headquarters that Lord Norman Foster designed for Renault cars has been given Grade II*-listed status in 2013 by English Heritage, in order to "protect post-war architecture". [2] This Renault warehouse had some full glass walls, a metal structure -yellow steel "umbrella masts"-, a floor area of 24,000 m2 and was structured by twenty four square modules, which if needed could be extended to 30,000 m2. The yellow colour was chosen for this building, to fit the Renault's graphical identity. This Renault warehouse won four awards, like the "European Award for Industrial Architecture", Hanover – First Prize and the 'Financial Times' "Architecture at Work" Award. The Renault Distribution Centre was chosen for its innovative and futuristic shapes, [2] for some scenes of the 1985 James Bond film, " A View to a Kill", staring Roger Moore and Patrick MacNee. The innovative Renault building in Swindon had a key role for the Norman Foster international promotion [3] [4] in addition to the promotion of the British design.
The Renault Centre is Foster's first unequivocal work of structural expressionism
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Foster is now the corporate architect 'de nos jours'.
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
=>
=> False, this building has to be mentioned in the main article, as well in the "History" § than especially in the "Renault in UK" § the actual name or not the BBC, the tourism office, Norman Foster and anybody still calls it the Renault building, it is yellow, because it is the graphical identity of Renault, and above all these relevant arguments, this building was inspired and created for Renault, that ordered it, chose the architect, ask him to do something futuristic, paid for it, and thus contributed to the promotion of the British design, the British architecture, Norman Foster himself (sourced) and the UK promotion, and all the awards have been given to the Renault Distribution Centre, not to another name. It is obvious that this information has to be mentioned in the main Renault article, and it is quite strange to oppose to that. It is a revision of history, what is typical of some people. All the good things are systematically erased from the Renault article, and it is an obvious bias. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. As usual, the same group of users erase some true and neutral information and statistics, and begins an edit war, with no argument, only arbitrary judgements to CENSURE the content in the Renault article.
This content is not promotional : "Renault has a strong interest in British design know how. In 2014, Renault asked the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove to "dress" its Twingo III with leds, as the Twin'Z concept car [1]. In 2015, Renault participated to the Clerkenwell Design Week 2015 [2]. Renault is also acknowledged for its contribution to design by the British professionals, like for example the Renault Twingo III has been awarded the title of "Design of the Year" in the 2015 Fleet World Honours [3]."
I will write more later. Thank you ! 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 13:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
=>
Now give some objective arguments to explain why my content is censured, and even some 2 sales statistics, but not just claiming wrongly and arbitrarily that it would be promotion. It is not. When the statistics are bad, you and your friends don't oppose to add them, you even both add them yourself. The only thing that annoys you, is that the objective figures are better. You oppose to positive news, never to negative ones. Urbanoc etc add some very denigrating content like "proved uncompetitive" or "proved unsuccessful", yet nobody could check that this claim was really in some "sources", but for that you don't oppose, as it is denigrating against this company. The people here just erase the positive news, to prevent the content to be balanced, and add some negative ones, and even add some negative claims that are FALSE. In addition, when people read this article, it claims that Renault more helped the Nazis than the German companies do in their articles, what is obviously totally false and a strange revisionism of the History. Who has interest to claim that German companies are cleaned and a company from France is dirty ? As you are particularly interested to the "origins" of people, then answer to that ;-)
I removed "viral success" about the viral video, yet it is, as usually Renault videos have 10 times or 100 times less views. Thus no reason to remove this content. In addition, some professionals also wrote : davidreviews.com "maybe this extraordinary film for Renault is going to help them corner that particular market It's a fully committed piece of work and, if you're not a fan of this musical genre and you stay with it to the end, you may feel as though you deserve a free Renault Twingo. It is clever too... it must work on a loop as it ends more or less where it starts - although you may not notice that a musical number has just finished when you watch it the first time" It is independent and positive. My other source points out also a positive analysis about how the story and video are made. So, 2 independent reviews by some people that analyse the marketing approach are positive, why removing these proofs ? 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 16:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
=> Stop your arbitrary accusations with no proof. You even don't take into account my arguments above, sources and proofs : totally arbitrary deny with no analysis. Citing statistics is not promotion, on the contrary, the fact that a group of users add the decreasing statistics of 2012, but has never added the increasing statistics of 2013, 2014, 2015 (THREE YEARS), is itself a proof of a bias, as well as the opposition, "edit war" and blocking when I add these NEUTRAL STATISTICS published by the SMMT. I add only facts. Mentioning the Ross Lovegrove has nothing promotional, it is just a fact. But a fact that some people do not want to appear, as it seems positive to them. Some professional of marketing point out the good approach of the viral "chorus line" like maybe this extraordinary film... It's a fully committed piece of work and the TWO sources that I added, and that have been ARBITRARY ERASED. I will certainly not stop contributing here. It is a part of our study. "Everyone here is against adding it" : a group of people, a dozen, out of 7 billion potential readers ? Statistically unnoticeable. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> YES, "junk" is a very denigrating personal attack, as well as when you write "It requires a fairly poor grasp of English to think that it is". You even don't talk about my arguments above, sources and proofs : totally arbitrary deny with no analysis. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> YES, I added some photos in some articles. The question is : why do you want to transform the normal action of adding some photos in some articles into a "promotion crime" ? You make some false and totally arbitrary and hostile judgements. Many defamations. I do not make "edit war" on the French Wikipedia, or anywhere. Like here, a user, who likes adding some photos of the Golf everywhere (...), erases my references there too. Like when I change the word crossover to SUV, because this vehicle is precisely a SUV, what is proven by a source from a serious magazine,then this user erased my reference, and wrote crossover again. This is how the people, who add some photos of the Golf everywhere, behave on WP. When I added some information about the Renault's engineer Bézier, he also removed them, arguing that it was "promotional" (the same rhetoric and the same false excuses than here, what is certainly not a coincidence). Bézier's work is historical, not promotional. And so on... On the PSA article, there were some accusations telling that they sell to much Diesel engines, yet the official statistics of 2008, are close to 90% Diesel for the German brands and 75% for PSA in 2008 for example. This user did not erase these false information during 10 years. Because they were false and denigrating about these companies. I am guilty of nothing, even if you want to change the truth into a fuzzy false dream. Each word that I add is relevant. But the people make edit wars to me, because I dare to write some true information that are not negative, have certainly no fair intentions. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that you make personal attack, but you never discuss about my reliable sources mentioning Ross Lovegrove and the relevancy of the "chorus line" viral video that is congratulated as well as professionals than the people. QED. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 11:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that except having a typical bashing rethoric "go away, nobody wants you here" ("No one has any interest in your promotional waffle, so go and find something else to do away from Wikipedia") and using some denigrating words like "waffle" as a personal attack, you have no argument. And obviously, a little number of users is not everybody. You even lie :
Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 18:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> FALSE. I notice that you make personal attack, but you never discuss about my reliable sources mentioning Ross Lovegrove and the relevancy of the "chorus line" viral video that is congratulated as well as professionals than the people. QED. I added some photos, some statistics and some true information, and fortunately most of the time they have been validated, but yes as Mr Choppers said previously "there are a lot of VW fanboys" and some other marques fanboys to or professionals who use WP as a way to make a bias in some articles. These 3 companies articles are/were extremely biased, so I had to intervene. I removed some false contents, showing some proofs and statistics, and some people admitted that I was right. So stop saying that it is the world against me, it is only a group of fanboys that want to harm some companies on WP. The bad statistics of 2012 are shown, and Urbanoc erased the better sales figures of 2014 too. QED ! 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 11:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that you only make some personal attacks and you even do not discuss about the real questions about the content : Why did Urbanoc erase the sales figures of PC and cars and vans in 2014 when there are better, but not these of 2012, when there were worse ? Why not mentioning the work of the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove ? Like you opposed to mention the Renault Centre and N. Foster. Why not mentioning the Clerkenwell design week ? Why not mentioning the viral campaign that has a big success as well as towards people than among the professionals ? Etc. I do not expect any fair or relevant answer from you obviously. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 19:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that you only make some personal attacks and bullying, but you do not discuss about the real questions : Why did Urbanoc erase the sales figures of PC and cars and vans in 2014 when there are better, but not these of 2012, when there were worse ? Why not mentioning the work of the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove ? Like you opposed to mention the Renault Centre and N. Foster. Why not mentioning the Clerkenwell design week ? Why not mentioning the viral campaign that has a big success as well as towards people than among the professionals ? Etc. I do not expect any fair answer from you obviously. I make no POV content, only FACTS, so your accusations are defamation. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 11:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that you only make some personal attacks and bullying, but you do not discuss about the content. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 11:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
ADDING THIS CONTENTS WITH INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY REFERENCES, IT IS FACTUAL. WHICH ITEM IS NOT ?
I notice that except bullying and making some personal attacks, nobody has some neutral arguments to prevents this content to be edited :
=> FALSE
|
|
Notice one thing : WP IS a blog ! WP has no Professor Doctor as reviewer. It is a pity. Because then, a few organised and biased ignorants can make their own arbitrary rules on WP, for example by blocking some contents, by making a "vote" to create a special unfair rule for Renault etc. and bully some users from a WP account.
FALSE : these informations are encyclopaedic. Ross Lovegrove deserves to be cited, as well as the Clerkenwell Design Week, the statistics, the design award by an independent magazine, and the tribute of Renault to the British love for musicals. Even p*rn "actresses" are cited on WP. More encyclopeadic than citing the works of Ross Lovegrove ? NO. So, please, stop your arbitrary blocking to harm especially the Renault company.
And thank you for all your very denigrating words and personal attacks like "you're waffling on" and strange concepts revealing your personality like "kissing Renault's backside". It is a rhetoric of teenagers or low level persons, isn't it ?
ANYTHING ELSE ? Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that you make personal attacks using some denigrating and arbitrary judgement like "silliness" or "you don't understand English". FALSE. Any British, Australian, American, and people who write and speak English understand me, and I understand them ! :D Stop speaking about Hylton as I gave another source : "Next green car". So YOU JUST DENY that I BRING SOME NEW SECONDARY SOURCES, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE AN EDIT WAR. SO no primary source. And anyway, AGAIN, Hylton is not the primary source of the award, the primary source is the magazine that gives the award. Anyway, I brought a new secondary source, and you want to continue a fight whereas, NEXT GREEN CAR is a secondary reliable source. Unruly professionals add their articles in "blog" just because it corresponds to the usual Content management system architecture, to add some content that does precisely not correspond to their own contracts : secondary source. For the people who have an overall knowledges of these things, it is trivial. The blog in the URL is due to the CMS architecture, nothing else ! Sorry that you ignore that, and dare to use ignorance in a wrong way. So you have then absolutely no rational and neutral argument against all these reliable secondary sources, about true information concerning the involvement of this company into the United Kingdom events, culture and best people. These information have then to be published. Obviously, if you want to change some words to present these information with the same meaning, you can make some propositions. They are welcome ! Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
References
Renault outperforms
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
We see our glamorous lead, a sort-of cross between Snow White and a 'Mad Men' character, sweeping into the dealership, instantly stealing the heart of nearby car salesmen. Supporting Renault's adorably-named Twingo, the ad is appropriately playful from the get-go. As the bopping chorus of 'Show me a car, show me a car!' continues, we take a further jump into the fantastical. A backdrop of rolling hills and pristine blue skies appears, accompanied by happy picnickers and prop birds befitting a play at a village fete. In these moments, "#TwingoFlamingo" takes on a lo-fi charm, reminiscent of Max Fischer's madcap theatrical endeavours from Wes Anderson's 'Rushmore'. This post is not part of the commercial plan and is written by the editorial team at Unruly, whose opinions are always independent, sometimes scurrilous, and never knowingly under-researched.
Maybe this extraordinary film for Renault' is going to help them corner that particular market. It's a fully committed piece of work and, if you're not a fan of this musical genre and you stay with it to the end, you may feel as though you deserve a free Renault Twingo. It is clever too... it must work on a loop as it ends more or less where it starts - although you may not notice that a musical number has just finished when you watch it the first time
While archiving some of the older talk page entries I noticed that the article is assessed as a "C" class article, this was done way back in 2008 ( see talk page entry). A lot has been done since then, it should at least be reevaluated to see what needs to be done to get the article back to "B". Anyone have experience with such things? Is this something that is requested through the car portal? Vrac ( talk) 02:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Renault. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
im from sri lanka,
I am going to buy a car , so I want to know about kiwd RXTCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.115.19.70 (
talk)
02:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Renault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rcibanque.com/english/documents/en/publications/reports/Consolidated_Financial_Statements_RCI_Banque_2011-12-31.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Renault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Renault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.autobest.org/?cat=5When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Peace be upon you, Greetings, my name is Yousif Adnan from kurdistan Iraq. I am very intersted for Renault company and i have a Renault car type Fluence. I bought more than one car for this type and Renault fluence its very good car, But i would like to inform you that you have a defect For all Fluence cars. You have a defect in the brakes that all produce a sound when braking. So Please send this message to Renault company. Yousif Adnan My email: yousif.adnan@yahoo.com Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.255.163.137 ( talk) 12:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
removed section
In 2014, two Renault models were among the most numerous on British roads: the Clio (ranked 6th by total number) and the Mégane (ranked 10th). [1]
The first Renaults to sustain sales in the UK were the Renault 5 and Renault 18, both of which attained six-digit sales figures during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
In 1980, Renault commissioned British architect Norman Foster, to build the Renault Centre, an award-winning [2] office and distribution centre in Swindon. It was easily identified by the extensive use of the corporate Renault yellow.
Renault enjoyed greater popularity with the arrival of the Clio supermini in March 1991. It was regularly among the best sellers during the 1990s. The successor (launched in 1998, alongside the final instalment of the successful " Papa & Nicole" advertising campaign), [3] continued its success. The sedan/saloon version, Thalia, was not launched in the United Kingdom.
Renault introduced the Mégane in April 1996 to steady sales, although it failed to reach the top ten during the first two years. In 1998, however, sales grew, making it Britain's sixth-best selling car and the second most popular in its sector. [4]
In 2006 Renault was Britain's third most popular brand, surpassed only by Ford and Vauxhall. [5]
In November 2007, Renault UK lost a US$2 million lawsuit against an independent distributor, who had placed orders for 217 cars under a discount scheme. This was intended for members of the British Airline Pilots Association. Three were legitimate, because they had "made a profit of some sort on every vehicle". Two Renault employees were criticised, for having "turned a blind eye" to the very large number of orders. [6]
In 2008 Renault sales started declining, and the marque fell to the eighth most popular, with 89,570 sales (down 29% compared to 2007) [7] and considerably less than 2002's 194,685 sales. [8] Renault suffered more than most main brands during 2009, as the recession deepened and ended the year with 63,174 sales, and a reduced 3.17% market share.
During 2010, however, as the economy returned to growth, Renault sold more than 95,000 cars and increased its market share to 4.71%, [9] before falling again in 2011 to 68,449, yielding a 3.53 per cent market share. [10] In December 2011, Renault announced that the Laguna, Espace, Kangoo, Modus, and Wind lines would be discontinued as a cost-cutting measure, while 55 of its 190 British dealerships would close. [11] [12] By 2014 Renault sales outperformed the market overall growth with a 41.9% increase, [13] in spite of a range limited to the Clio, Captur, Mégane, Zoe, Scénic, Kangoo, Twizy and the third-generation Twingo, launched at the end of 2014. [14] --> Typ932 T· C 08:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Renault Mégane ranks 4th, Renault Clio ranks 9th in UK
Towards the bottom of the articles lead section there is an oddly-placed sentence about a single investment in EV's back in 2011. Given the long history and vast scope of this multinational organization, I fail to see how: "Together Renault and Nissan invested €4 billion (US$5.16 billion) in eight electric vehicles over three to four years beginning in 2011." qualifies as information that would be in the lead. 206.113.15.122 ( talk) 13:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed significant differences in the WW2 history of Renault. In the french version of the article Renault produced tanks for the nazis wich led to sanctions whereas in the english one he produced only trucks. I do not feel confident enough to restore the proper historical version, but I will indicate this source https://www.humanite.fr/politique/collaboration-renault-arrete-ton-char-485955 and https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/11/21/01016-20121121ARTFIG00576-bataille-d-historiens-sur-la-collaboration-de-renault.php The Renault family is trying to rehabilitate their ancestor by rewriting history with the help of an historian married into the family. The allies bombed four times the Renault plant, it was not because of trucks. They were even building an undergroud factory up to a month before the Liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:9D3:B400:1C6E:AE46:E85E:3B69 ( talk) 10:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
When the Renault 4, 8, 10 and 16 were introduced, the model numbers were derived from the CV rating of the engine used. This continued for a while, but the system broke down when new models had engines of similar CV rating as another model; so instead, gaps in the sequence were filled in. Can we find a source describing this? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 10:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Renault article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. Some people erase arbitrarily some information and before erasing they should get some genuine knowledges. I will complete this discussion, but as example here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault&diff=648688784&oldid=648437641 : it is not relevant to erase Louis Schweitzer from the "key people". The claims of Urbanoc and naive and false. Carlos Ghosn did not "help" Louis Schweitzer. And in a big company, 2 or 3 years spend before the new CEO could have an influence. Ghosn "drove" what Schweitzer built !
What I tell here comes from my deep knowledges of the car industry, and so from dozens of articles, but if needed I could give some references as far as it is possible, but if some people want to get some better knowledges then they can read reports, interviews, articles by themselves. When I add something, Urbanoc immediately erase it. It is his war. Yet, I am much more savant than him, and this behaviour is bad for the quality of the article. Urbanoc does not respect the rules : erasing is not justified, he can "tag" or open a discussion. Urbanoc does as if he owned this article, but it is false. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 08:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The source that I added cites some HISTORICAL FACTS. Notice that precisely, this source cites all the sources from some business magazines that it used to sum up them. So it is reliable. So, do you both change your mind ? According to you what is not true in this source ? L.Schweitzer was not the CEO when to decides the expansion in Brazil and opening a new plant, there, buying Nissan, Dacia, Samsung Motors, and making a long term agreement with AvtoVAZ and building a factory in Moscow ? Yes, he was the CEO and he drove all that, and chose Ghosn. What is false according to you to censure this source ? Prove that these information are not true. They are obvious and historical. It is a kind of revisionism to disagree with historical facts. This source sum up HISTORICAL FACTS and is reliable. On the contrary, the tabloid source added by Warren Whyte is not a serious source in a WP article about automotive industry. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 17:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Daily Record is a tabloid, it is not my opinion, it is the reality. The article added by Warren Whyte has been written before the launch of Kadjar, so it has to be replaced for this too, because it said non-informed things. In addition, the tabloid shows a photo of the Kwid, another vehicle (so it makes people wrong) and cites "cage a googoo" and their photos what has nothing to do with the automotive industry and Renault. It is just bad jokes about Renault, to denigrate, like tabloid do. Tabloid are not reliable sources and it is strange to have found this very unknown source and to have added it in first position in the article, in replacement of another source. For the source about Louis Schweitzer all the fact are true and historical, that is why you failed to find one that is not true, whereas I asked you to do that. There is no interpretation. Schweitzer really did all that and transformed Renault into a 5 big brands group, whereas it had only 2 (Renault and Alpine) when he arrived as CEO. I don't understand why you deny the HISTORY. Strange behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry that you ignore so much about Schweitzer, because he is pointed out as a precious example of key management, like in this MIT source for example, so I am happy to teach you that. You're welcome ! http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/building-ambidexterity-into-an-organization/ Renault, the French automobile company, went through a radical transformation during the 1990s. When Louis Schweitzer became CEO in 1992, the state-owned company was languishing. Schweitzer cut costs through a number of well-publicized plant closures, but he also invested in new-product development (leading to such models as the Espace and Megane) and began the search for a strategic partner to take Renault into the top tier of the industry. After an abortive merger with Volvo in 1993, Renault gained control of a struggling Nissan in 1998 and, to the surprise of many observers, quickly turned around its performance. By 2001, the Renault-Nissan Alliance had joined the ranks of industry leaders and was one of the most profitable auto companies in the world. How did the transformation take place? Schweitzer developed a simple and consistent strategy built around what he called the “seven strategic goals.” The strategic planning and budgeting processes, and the bonuses and stock option plans, were all aligned with these goals. The communication of the message was, in the words of one executive, “doggedly consistent.” At the same time, the company developed what one executive called a “deep desire to adapt.” The seven strategic goals were updated every two or three years, the organization had an informal style of management in which expressing alternative views was encouraged and managers developed a self-critical approach, always looking to improve. The result was an organization that became proficient at continually making small adaptations to its strategy without losing alignment. Renault’s transformation during the 1990s involved a shift from the country-club to the high-performance context. Until 1990, employees had viewed the company as a comfortable and secure place to work, with an informal atmosphere. Over the following 10 years, a number of changes were brought about, primarily through top-down initiatives revolving around cost reduction and quality and through greater focus on, and commitment to, KEY STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. One executive commented that his business unit was run as a “commando-type organization — appraisal and evaluation interviews are run in a pyramidal form and compensation is [now] geared toward short-term objectives.” Most of these changes were instituted through a new executive team that gave people more structure, which led to a focus on new products and new opportunities as a means of delivering on the more ambitious goals. Stated slightly differently, the emphasis during the transition was placed on performance management but building on the social support that had existed in the early 1990s. Indeed, two of Schweitzer’s seven goals were concerned with the internal organizational context (develop a coherent and open group; work more effectively together). Renault achieved it by building a performance context around its existing social support. // If you were interested by finding some information about Schweitzer instead of judging first, then you could have found several sources that mention his key role, but I am happy to have helped you to clarify your mind. Do you still deny Schweitzer's key role ? Actually, more text in the article is needed about Schweitzer too, in addition to the "key people" line, as you can notice. Anyway, my previous reliable source from Oxford University press is already clear also about his actions : "Renault's long-standing chairman and chief executive, Louis Schweitzer transformed Renault into a successful company". Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 16:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
As for the word "bizarre", I do not have problems with that, but as I say before the IP has showed that he follows a disturbing French-nationalist WP:ADVOCACY agenda and his intention is that all material that is not an outright compliment to Renault will be deleted from the article. He even removed mentions to other marques....
Please read WP:BRD. Also, when you fold all of your edits together, there is really no way for me to delete the disputable material without also reverting whatever useful things you have managed to accomplish. You are becoming nearly impossible to work with, always assuming bad will on everyone else's part, such as in this very unpleasant edit summary: Official and neutral ECOTY website sources to replace the denigrating or broken links"sources"added and not controlled by the"patrols". I'm not sure exactly what it means, but I feel that you are not being pleasant. Please consider communicating in a more productive fashion, and perhaps edit some articles on something else to lower your adrenaline. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I don't know how you interpret my sentence, the facts :
Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
-> Thank you Serge. M.Choppers wrote : "there is really no way for me to delete the disputable material without also reverting whatever useful things you have managed to accomplish.". FALSE, there is a way to revert ONLY this part, and not the 9 other changed versions, as it was ONLY here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault&diff=650430686&oldid=650398033 But there is no relevant reason to reverse this one either anyway... Anyway, I mentioned later that the "homeland" brands were before Renault, what is not needed as I wrote that Renault is 3rd, and it is an article about Renault, not the "homeland" brands in UK. Notice that Germans thinks that Ford and Opel are German, British think that Ford and Opel-Vauxhall are British, American people think that Ford and Opel are American, so mentioning these 2 brands in another company article just brings confusion and as there is absolutely nothing to do with an eventual business connection between Renault and those brands there, then this WP over-linking is not justified at all. Happy to have clarified your mind. You're welcome ! You erased many sources that I added to answer to Urbanoc's challenges "citation needed", before he could erase many parts of the Renault article, that becomes poorer and poorer by the way, because of that. So keeping these sources is very important, as you know, as they answer to his requests. You're welcome ! Cheers. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
-> Hello. Many arbitrary accusations and personal interpretations with no proofs, but no problem, because I am good faith, I only cite some reliable facts and statistics, so I am not afraid by false accusations. To answer to your many accusations, here are my factual answers :
False, I did not accuse M.Choppers. I mentioned what some other Professors noticed and some calculations that show strong correlations. As to me I asked if he would like to cooperate on a new article. So your interpretation is false, I did not accuse anybody. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, especially Urbanoc, for the detailed account of concerns, this was exactly what I was looking for. I just wanted to make sure that the IPs additions weren't being refused just because he has been difficult in the past.
I can't conclude who is right or wrong, all I can say is that there seems to be a clear, plausible, policy-related consensus against the IP's changes, and when there's no consensus to make changes, no changes are made. So the article should, at least for now, stay in its current state.
IP, you've got 2 options. One, you can try to persuade these editors into changing their mind. You guys have already discussed at length though, so I don't know how much longer I'd recommend that route. The other would be contacting relevant WP:WIKIPROJECTs or starting up an WP:RFC to see if you can get other editors involved, to persuade enough people to change the consensus into your favor. Either way, you need to do this yourself, as I'm getting tired of intervening all the time... Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
=> I did not speak about me, but for example "Dr Harrison holds qualifications from London, Salford, and Leeds Universities" who wrote that Schweitzer had the key role in "transforming Renault into a successful company". I did not have time to answer to Urbanoc, so no conclusion can be done. For example, he wants that the Motorsport section to be erased a lot, yet The Ford main article has 2 pages of "Motorsport" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company#Motorsport in addition to other Ford Racing, Ford World Rally Team, Ford GT Racing articles. Renault Motorsport has only 1/3 of that length of Ford and it would too long according to Urbanoc, Ford Motorsport is 3 times longer and it is not too long. It is an obvious bias and favouritism. It is an obvious difference of treatment, and no acceptable "fake vote" can establish some different rules among articles ! SAME RULES FOR ALL ARTICLES ! Else a lobby can vote some different rules, and so treat better a company than an other. Constitutions of democracies say : same laws for everybody, if laws are different for some categories of people, then it is not democracy, and such a vote has no value. This point is a key one, as you know, and that is why Urbanoc claims that he disagrees with it above, read ! Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
At 146kb, the Renault article is getting unwieldy. My browser can't even load the whole page in wikiEd. The history section looks excessively long to me, I think it's time to hive off a chunk of it into a History of Renault article. Any objections? Vrac ( talk) 17:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No, don't reduce the Renault history.
=> So the "showed" number of characters on the history page are mostly because of the numerous "sources" asked by Urbanoc, Vrac etc.
To conclude, there is no emergency to do that, on the contrary, to validate the Louis Schweitzer input and adding some texts are a bigger priority. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
2015-03-14 => No, the question is not simply "do you split or not ?" the relevant question is :
=> I am sorry if you felt upset by what I wrote, but I have never accused you, only mentioned some third party assessments, based on several modifications like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Renault&diff=639122385&oldid=639096407 As to me, I have tried to defend you on the contrary, and that is why I have proposed you to write a new article also. So, you are really, really wrong by thinking that would not "like" you. Have a nice day. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
=> You ignore all my arguments and refuse to answer, because they are good, so read what is at "11:59, 14 March 2015". The main purpose of the main article is precisely to tell the history not only what is actual, and so your claim is a total non-sense. History is not only the actual operation ! Anyway, it has no sense to make this request only for Renault, whereas VW has a 50% shorter history, an history text as long as the Renault one yet, and the same people who want to remove the main part of the Renault article, does not do that for Ford etc., so it is obviously a deliberate unequal treatment of the articles. You always say, "we will do it in the other articles too, but you never do that in GM, Ford, VW etc.", so these false promises are an obvious unequal treatment and bias, with a purpose. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest this input in the Renault in the UK §
Renault is known in the UK for its support to the British architecture and design innovations by hiring the young architect Norman Foster in 1978, in order to build the Renault Distribution Centre [1] (1980-1982) in Swindon, UK. Therefore, the headquarters that Lord Norman Foster designed for Renault cars has been given Grade II*-listed status in 2013 by English Heritage, in order to "protect post-war architecture". [2] This Renault warehouse had some full glass walls, a metal structure -yellow steel "umbrella masts"-, a floor area of 24,000 m2 and was structured by twenty four square modules, which if needed could be extended to 30,000 m2. The yellow colour was chosen for this building, to fit the Renault's graphical identity. This Renault warehouse won four awards, like the "European Award for Industrial Architecture", Hanover – First Prize and the 'Financial Times' "Architecture at Work" Award. The Renault Distribution Centre was chosen for its innovative and futuristic shapes, [2] for some scenes of the 1985 James Bond film, " A View to a Kill", staring Roger Moore and Patrick MacNee. The innovative Renault building in Swindon had a key role for the Norman Foster international promotion [3] [4] in addition to the promotion of the British design.
The Renault Centre is Foster's first unequivocal work of structural expressionism
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Foster is now the corporate architect 'de nos jours'.
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
=>
=> False, this building has to be mentioned in the main article, as well in the "History" § than especially in the "Renault in UK" § the actual name or not the BBC, the tourism office, Norman Foster and anybody still calls it the Renault building, it is yellow, because it is the graphical identity of Renault, and above all these relevant arguments, this building was inspired and created for Renault, that ordered it, chose the architect, ask him to do something futuristic, paid for it, and thus contributed to the promotion of the British design, the British architecture, Norman Foster himself (sourced) and the UK promotion, and all the awards have been given to the Renault Distribution Centre, not to another name. It is obvious that this information has to be mentioned in the main Renault article, and it is quite strange to oppose to that. It is a revision of history, what is typical of some people. All the good things are systematically erased from the Renault article, and it is an obvious bias. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. As usual, the same group of users erase some true and neutral information and statistics, and begins an edit war, with no argument, only arbitrary judgements to CENSURE the content in the Renault article.
This content is not promotional : "Renault has a strong interest in British design know how. In 2014, Renault asked the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove to "dress" its Twingo III with leds, as the Twin'Z concept car [1]. In 2015, Renault participated to the Clerkenwell Design Week 2015 [2]. Renault is also acknowledged for its contribution to design by the British professionals, like for example the Renault Twingo III has been awarded the title of "Design of the Year" in the 2015 Fleet World Honours [3]."
I will write more later. Thank you ! 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 13:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
=>
Now give some objective arguments to explain why my content is censured, and even some 2 sales statistics, but not just claiming wrongly and arbitrarily that it would be promotion. It is not. When the statistics are bad, you and your friends don't oppose to add them, you even both add them yourself. The only thing that annoys you, is that the objective figures are better. You oppose to positive news, never to negative ones. Urbanoc etc add some very denigrating content like "proved uncompetitive" or "proved unsuccessful", yet nobody could check that this claim was really in some "sources", but for that you don't oppose, as it is denigrating against this company. The people here just erase the positive news, to prevent the content to be balanced, and add some negative ones, and even add some negative claims that are FALSE. In addition, when people read this article, it claims that Renault more helped the Nazis than the German companies do in their articles, what is obviously totally false and a strange revisionism of the History. Who has interest to claim that German companies are cleaned and a company from France is dirty ? As you are particularly interested to the "origins" of people, then answer to that ;-)
I removed "viral success" about the viral video, yet it is, as usually Renault videos have 10 times or 100 times less views. Thus no reason to remove this content. In addition, some professionals also wrote : davidreviews.com "maybe this extraordinary film for Renault is going to help them corner that particular market It's a fully committed piece of work and, if you're not a fan of this musical genre and you stay with it to the end, you may feel as though you deserve a free Renault Twingo. It is clever too... it must work on a loop as it ends more or less where it starts - although you may not notice that a musical number has just finished when you watch it the first time" It is independent and positive. My other source points out also a positive analysis about how the story and video are made. So, 2 independent reviews by some people that analyse the marketing approach are positive, why removing these proofs ? 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 16:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
=> Stop your arbitrary accusations with no proof. You even don't take into account my arguments above, sources and proofs : totally arbitrary deny with no analysis. Citing statistics is not promotion, on the contrary, the fact that a group of users add the decreasing statistics of 2012, but has never added the increasing statistics of 2013, 2014, 2015 (THREE YEARS), is itself a proof of a bias, as well as the opposition, "edit war" and blocking when I add these NEUTRAL STATISTICS published by the SMMT. I add only facts. Mentioning the Ross Lovegrove has nothing promotional, it is just a fact. But a fact that some people do not want to appear, as it seems positive to them. Some professional of marketing point out the good approach of the viral "chorus line" like maybe this extraordinary film... It's a fully committed piece of work and the TWO sources that I added, and that have been ARBITRARY ERASED. I will certainly not stop contributing here. It is a part of our study. "Everyone here is against adding it" : a group of people, a dozen, out of 7 billion potential readers ? Statistically unnoticeable. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> YES, "junk" is a very denigrating personal attack, as well as when you write "It requires a fairly poor grasp of English to think that it is". You even don't talk about my arguments above, sources and proofs : totally arbitrary deny with no analysis. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> YES, I added some photos in some articles. The question is : why do you want to transform the normal action of adding some photos in some articles into a "promotion crime" ? You make some false and totally arbitrary and hostile judgements. Many defamations. I do not make "edit war" on the French Wikipedia, or anywhere. Like here, a user, who likes adding some photos of the Golf everywhere (...), erases my references there too. Like when I change the word crossover to SUV, because this vehicle is precisely a SUV, what is proven by a source from a serious magazine,then this user erased my reference, and wrote crossover again. This is how the people, who add some photos of the Golf everywhere, behave on WP. When I added some information about the Renault's engineer Bézier, he also removed them, arguing that it was "promotional" (the same rhetoric and the same false excuses than here, what is certainly not a coincidence). Bézier's work is historical, not promotional. And so on... On the PSA article, there were some accusations telling that they sell to much Diesel engines, yet the official statistics of 2008, are close to 90% Diesel for the German brands and 75% for PSA in 2008 for example. This user did not erase these false information during 10 years. Because they were false and denigrating about these companies. I am guilty of nothing, even if you want to change the truth into a fuzzy false dream. Each word that I add is relevant. But the people make edit wars to me, because I dare to write some true information that are not negative, have certainly no fair intentions. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that you make personal attack, but you never discuss about my reliable sources mentioning Ross Lovegrove and the relevancy of the "chorus line" viral video that is congratulated as well as professionals than the people. QED. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 11:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that except having a typical bashing rethoric "go away, nobody wants you here" ("No one has any interest in your promotional waffle, so go and find something else to do away from Wikipedia") and using some denigrating words like "waffle" as a personal attack, you have no argument. And obviously, a little number of users is not everybody. You even lie :
Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 18:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> FALSE. I notice that you make personal attack, but you never discuss about my reliable sources mentioning Ross Lovegrove and the relevancy of the "chorus line" viral video that is congratulated as well as professionals than the people. QED. I added some photos, some statistics and some true information, and fortunately most of the time they have been validated, but yes as Mr Choppers said previously "there are a lot of VW fanboys" and some other marques fanboys to or professionals who use WP as a way to make a bias in some articles. These 3 companies articles are/were extremely biased, so I had to intervene. I removed some false contents, showing some proofs and statistics, and some people admitted that I was right. So stop saying that it is the world against me, it is only a group of fanboys that want to harm some companies on WP. The bad statistics of 2012 are shown, and Urbanoc erased the better sales figures of 2014 too. QED ! 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 11:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that you only make some personal attacks and you even do not discuss about the real questions about the content : Why did Urbanoc erase the sales figures of PC and cars and vans in 2014 when there are better, but not these of 2012, when there were worse ? Why not mentioning the work of the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove ? Like you opposed to mention the Renault Centre and N. Foster. Why not mentioning the Clerkenwell design week ? Why not mentioning the viral campaign that has a big success as well as towards people than among the professionals ? Etc. I do not expect any fair or relevant answer from you obviously. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 19:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that you only make some personal attacks and bullying, but you do not discuss about the real questions : Why did Urbanoc erase the sales figures of PC and cars and vans in 2014 when there are better, but not these of 2012, when there were worse ? Why not mentioning the work of the Welsh designer Ross Lovegrove ? Like you opposed to mention the Renault Centre and N. Foster. Why not mentioning the Clerkenwell design week ? Why not mentioning the viral campaign that has a big success as well as towards people than among the professionals ? Etc. I do not expect any fair answer from you obviously. I make no POV content, only FACTS, so your accusations are defamation. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 11:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that you only make some personal attacks and bullying, but you do not discuss about the content. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 11:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
ADDING THIS CONTENTS WITH INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY REFERENCES, IT IS FACTUAL. WHICH ITEM IS NOT ?
I notice that except bullying and making some personal attacks, nobody has some neutral arguments to prevents this content to be edited :
=> FALSE
|
|
Notice one thing : WP IS a blog ! WP has no Professor Doctor as reviewer. It is a pity. Because then, a few organised and biased ignorants can make their own arbitrary rules on WP, for example by blocking some contents, by making a "vote" to create a special unfair rule for Renault etc. and bully some users from a WP account.
FALSE : these informations are encyclopaedic. Ross Lovegrove deserves to be cited, as well as the Clerkenwell Design Week, the statistics, the design award by an independent magazine, and the tribute of Renault to the British love for musicals. Even p*rn "actresses" are cited on WP. More encyclopeadic than citing the works of Ross Lovegrove ? NO. So, please, stop your arbitrary blocking to harm especially the Renault company.
And thank you for all your very denigrating words and personal attacks like "you're waffling on" and strange concepts revealing your personality like "kissing Renault's backside". It is a rhetoric of teenagers or low level persons, isn't it ?
ANYTHING ELSE ? Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
=> I notice that you make personal attacks using some denigrating and arbitrary judgement like "silliness" or "you don't understand English". FALSE. Any British, Australian, American, and people who write and speak English understand me, and I understand them ! :D Stop speaking about Hylton as I gave another source : "Next green car". So YOU JUST DENY that I BRING SOME NEW SECONDARY SOURCES, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE AN EDIT WAR. SO no primary source. And anyway, AGAIN, Hylton is not the primary source of the award, the primary source is the magazine that gives the award. Anyway, I brought a new secondary source, and you want to continue a fight whereas, NEXT GREEN CAR is a secondary reliable source. Unruly professionals add their articles in "blog" just because it corresponds to the usual Content management system architecture, to add some content that does precisely not correspond to their own contracts : secondary source. For the people who have an overall knowledges of these things, it is trivial. The blog in the URL is due to the CMS architecture, nothing else ! Sorry that you ignore that, and dare to use ignorance in a wrong way. So you have then absolutely no rational and neutral argument against all these reliable secondary sources, about true information concerning the involvement of this company into the United Kingdom events, culture and best people. These information have then to be published. Obviously, if you want to change some words to present these information with the same meaning, you can make some propositions. They are welcome ! Thank you. 83.157.24.224 ( talk) 12:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
References
Renault outperforms
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
We see our glamorous lead, a sort-of cross between Snow White and a 'Mad Men' character, sweeping into the dealership, instantly stealing the heart of nearby car salesmen. Supporting Renault's adorably-named Twingo, the ad is appropriately playful from the get-go. As the bopping chorus of 'Show me a car, show me a car!' continues, we take a further jump into the fantastical. A backdrop of rolling hills and pristine blue skies appears, accompanied by happy picnickers and prop birds befitting a play at a village fete. In these moments, "#TwingoFlamingo" takes on a lo-fi charm, reminiscent of Max Fischer's madcap theatrical endeavours from Wes Anderson's 'Rushmore'. This post is not part of the commercial plan and is written by the editorial team at Unruly, whose opinions are always independent, sometimes scurrilous, and never knowingly under-researched.
Maybe this extraordinary film for Renault' is going to help them corner that particular market. It's a fully committed piece of work and, if you're not a fan of this musical genre and you stay with it to the end, you may feel as though you deserve a free Renault Twingo. It is clever too... it must work on a loop as it ends more or less where it starts - although you may not notice that a musical number has just finished when you watch it the first time
While archiving some of the older talk page entries I noticed that the article is assessed as a "C" class article, this was done way back in 2008 ( see talk page entry). A lot has been done since then, it should at least be reevaluated to see what needs to be done to get the article back to "B". Anyone have experience with such things? Is this something that is requested through the car portal? Vrac ( talk) 02:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Renault. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
im from sri lanka,
I am going to buy a car , so I want to know about kiwd RXTCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.115.19.70 (
talk)
02:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Renault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rcibanque.com/english/documents/en/publications/reports/Consolidated_Financial_Statements_RCI_Banque_2011-12-31.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Renault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Renault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.autobest.org/?cat=5When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Peace be upon you, Greetings, my name is Yousif Adnan from kurdistan Iraq. I am very intersted for Renault company and i have a Renault car type Fluence. I bought more than one car for this type and Renault fluence its very good car, But i would like to inform you that you have a defect For all Fluence cars. You have a defect in the brakes that all produce a sound when braking. So Please send this message to Renault company. Yousif Adnan My email: yousif.adnan@yahoo.com Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.255.163.137 ( talk) 12:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
removed section
In 2014, two Renault models were among the most numerous on British roads: the Clio (ranked 6th by total number) and the Mégane (ranked 10th). [1]
The first Renaults to sustain sales in the UK were the Renault 5 and Renault 18, both of which attained six-digit sales figures during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
In 1980, Renault commissioned British architect Norman Foster, to build the Renault Centre, an award-winning [2] office and distribution centre in Swindon. It was easily identified by the extensive use of the corporate Renault yellow.
Renault enjoyed greater popularity with the arrival of the Clio supermini in March 1991. It was regularly among the best sellers during the 1990s. The successor (launched in 1998, alongside the final instalment of the successful " Papa & Nicole" advertising campaign), [3] continued its success. The sedan/saloon version, Thalia, was not launched in the United Kingdom.
Renault introduced the Mégane in April 1996 to steady sales, although it failed to reach the top ten during the first two years. In 1998, however, sales grew, making it Britain's sixth-best selling car and the second most popular in its sector. [4]
In 2006 Renault was Britain's third most popular brand, surpassed only by Ford and Vauxhall. [5]
In November 2007, Renault UK lost a US$2 million lawsuit against an independent distributor, who had placed orders for 217 cars under a discount scheme. This was intended for members of the British Airline Pilots Association. Three were legitimate, because they had "made a profit of some sort on every vehicle". Two Renault employees were criticised, for having "turned a blind eye" to the very large number of orders. [6]
In 2008 Renault sales started declining, and the marque fell to the eighth most popular, with 89,570 sales (down 29% compared to 2007) [7] and considerably less than 2002's 194,685 sales. [8] Renault suffered more than most main brands during 2009, as the recession deepened and ended the year with 63,174 sales, and a reduced 3.17% market share.
During 2010, however, as the economy returned to growth, Renault sold more than 95,000 cars and increased its market share to 4.71%, [9] before falling again in 2011 to 68,449, yielding a 3.53 per cent market share. [10] In December 2011, Renault announced that the Laguna, Espace, Kangoo, Modus, and Wind lines would be discontinued as a cost-cutting measure, while 55 of its 190 British dealerships would close. [11] [12] By 2014 Renault sales outperformed the market overall growth with a 41.9% increase, [13] in spite of a range limited to the Clio, Captur, Mégane, Zoe, Scénic, Kangoo, Twizy and the third-generation Twingo, launched at the end of 2014. [14] --> Typ932 T· C 08:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Renault Mégane ranks 4th, Renault Clio ranks 9th in UK
Towards the bottom of the articles lead section there is an oddly-placed sentence about a single investment in EV's back in 2011. Given the long history and vast scope of this multinational organization, I fail to see how: "Together Renault and Nissan invested €4 billion (US$5.16 billion) in eight electric vehicles over three to four years beginning in 2011." qualifies as information that would be in the lead. 206.113.15.122 ( talk) 13:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed significant differences in the WW2 history of Renault. In the french version of the article Renault produced tanks for the nazis wich led to sanctions whereas in the english one he produced only trucks. I do not feel confident enough to restore the proper historical version, but I will indicate this source https://www.humanite.fr/politique/collaboration-renault-arrete-ton-char-485955 and https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/11/21/01016-20121121ARTFIG00576-bataille-d-historiens-sur-la-collaboration-de-renault.php The Renault family is trying to rehabilitate their ancestor by rewriting history with the help of an historian married into the family. The allies bombed four times the Renault plant, it was not because of trucks. They were even building an undergroud factory up to a month before the Liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:9D3:B400:1C6E:AE46:E85E:3B69 ( talk) 10:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
When the Renault 4, 8, 10 and 16 were introduced, the model numbers were derived from the CV rating of the engine used. This continued for a while, but the system broke down when new models had engines of similar CV rating as another model; so instead, gaps in the sequence were filled in. Can we find a source describing this? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 10:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)