Talk:Citroën/Archive 1

Archive 1

Duck

where is the Citroen 2CV known as "Duck"? -- Hotlorp

Not sure about other places, but it is nicknamed "Ente" in Germany, which means "duck" in German. It does not have such a nickname in France - User:Olivier

See article nicknamed "Deuche" in France never heard Duck maybe it's some bad phonetics for "Deuche" Ericd 13:32 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)

FYI: "Deuche" comes from "deux chevaux" (abbreviated prononciation). 2CV literally means "deux chevaux" = two horses (horsepower). olivier 17:06 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

It's known as "eend" in the Netherlands, or even "lelijk eendje". You could translate this to "ugly duck(lin)", hence "duck". I do think however "duck" is less commonly used than "ugly ducklin" for the 2CV. Edit: I see this has already been added to the 2CV page. Wzzrd 15:44 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think that the alphabetization of the models was a bad move. Chronological order of introduction seems to be a better ordering. -- Hotlorp 23:13, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that the article is outrageously sentimental about the pre-Peugeot era and that it fails to describe the current situation of Citroën, which is doing quite well right now with a range of attractive and recent models, among which the C4, which got excellent reviews. Why no mention of the GS Birotor? I notice that there seems to be some controversy over the removal of Birotor info from the GS page... If nothing else, surely this car deserves its own page.

Fiat acquisition

There is no mention of the Fiat acquisition (see Fiat). I can't write anything because my English is very bad...

128.139.64.7 21:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Added relevant info. Arnon

Pronunciation

Can someone add a pronunciation guide for Citroën? Thanks. --speedoflight | talk to me 05:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See Troh Enn (accent on the last syllable). Groogle 06:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Lemon

Why not include the amusing fact that a "lemon" is slang in English speaking North America for an unreliable car.

I speak both French and English and the name "Citroen" always gave me a chuckle for it's resemblance to the french word "Citron" (lemon) To hear that it means lemon in Dutch is quite funny.

Don't think unrelated "funny names" should be in Wikipedia. I checked the entry for "George W. Bush" for example and it does not include any mention that his name is slang for female body part.66.77.124.61 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, to liken a Citroën to a lemon is particularly unflattering and not at all amusing. Citroën cars are actually very reliable, as proven in their many Crusades and recent victories in the WRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.28 (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hydro functioning

Included in the current text is the following: Interestingly, when the high position was selected, the car would sink back to the low position while stopped (as at a traffic light) until motion resumed, when it would rise again. This sinking often caused other motorists to signal to the driver that the car had a flat tire (the presumed cause of the sinking motion). Sounds pretty wierd - never seen this. Even if engine is off, the car stays up for many hours. 66.77.124.61 22:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What does happen is that you stop and get out the car rises when your weight is removed, then sinks as it corrects the height. I don't usually get out at traffic lights, though. -- Ian Dalziel 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the chapter chapter in question as it is simply not true. You can have an (older) hydroneumatic Citroen vary its driving height in trafic lights by aplying some brake trickery, but in that case the car also rises first before settling down to right driving height. It hasn't got anything to do with the high or low position selected. - - - - - It is indeed true: my uncle owned a Citroen, and it did exactly this during stops! ~~Bruce

9 Million hydro cars and your uncle has one that behaves totally differently than all the others - I don't think so. I get it - your uncle was playing a trick on you Bruce. He would raise the car to high as he came to a stop - then move the selector to low to get a reaction. Also - your uncle was not driving around in 'high' position. The car has effectively no suspension in high - stiffer than a Jeep. The car constantly adjusts ride height - it could straighten itself out while idling - but it would not sink to the ground. For the car to sink to the ground with the engine running and a different position selected, it would have to be dangerously low on hydraulic fluid. It is very incorrect to state something like 'Citroen's behave this way.'76.168.245.129 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC) - - - - - Well, he may indeed have been playing a trick, but he's long gone, so we'll never know! --Bruce

- - - - - The part about the car sinking in stoplights is absolutely incorrect as a description of standard behavior. For the car to sink, there should be no pressure building (failed hydraulic pump) + excessive internal leaking in the height correctors - hardly a standard condition, and by no means an attribute that should be presented as standard. I'm assuming that the author was refereing to the fact the when brakes are applied with a lot of force, the car will not change its height, even if the height selector position is changed. When stopping ahead of a stop light, the rear end of the car rises (in all cars, not just citroens). If, after comming to a complete stop, the driver continues to apply (strong) pressure on the brake pedal, the rear will not drop. As a result, the height corrector will relieve pressure off of the rear suspension spheres in an effort to lower the car back to normal. As soon as the driver will release the brake pedal, the rear will drop, and after a few seconds the height corrector will compensate for it. However, this, again, is not common, as one would need to apply substantial force to the brake pedal + he would need to be after a v-e-r-y brutal braking from high speed, in order for the tail to rise sufficiently to cause the height corrector to compensate. Quite rare, and not something that should be in the article. I am removing this entry. --Arnon

on hydropneumatic citroens there is a priority (or safety) valve. When the engine breaks, or for any other reason, the hydraulic system starts to lose pressure, the safety valve then shuts down sequentially less important systems, so that the majority of remaining pressure goes to the vital systems. On a citroen cx with power steering the order of switching off is: suspension, steering and then brakes. When you push the brakes, valve removes some pressure from the least important system (suspension) and shifts it to brakes. That causes the rear end to sink. Plus, sinking of rear end causes a better grip, which helps braking, and reduces braking length. The best part is, that no electronics is used for this safety valve (on cx, and all before) ---Stefan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.157.166 (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos

The text is chronological - oldest to newest - BUT photos are in reverse order new to old. Distracting. 76.168.240.110 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How about moving the photos from the right hand side, and placing them into 3 galleries of cars, each one placed beneath the text relating to each of the 3 periods of Citroën's history? (in a similar way as seen half way down the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minivan) Quai-de-Javel (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

limoenman

Removed the "limoenman" quote. I recognise that I am on slightly shaky ground in danger of an accusation of OR here, since I can't prove the negative, but "limoen" is "lime" in Dutch, and I can't see how that could have had an influence on the name "Citroën". There are various sources which would support "limoenman", but they all derive from the John Reynolds books - I think John has simply got this wrong, and I'd like to see an independent source before reinstating it. -- Ian Dalziel 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Marker lights

Am I correct that it's certain Citroen models that featured rear yellow marker lights/turn signals located at the upper corners of the rear windows at the back of cone-shaped chrome fairings running along the tops of the windows? I've seen a few of these but have never been sure what the car was; somebody told me it might be a Citroen. Thanks! ~~Bruce

Yes - it was the DS - which always had the turn indicators mounted in the upper corners of the rear window.76.168.245.129 04:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article needs help

I started editing this article, however if I were to remove all of the unsourced claims, opinions, weasel statements, and original analysis there would be nothing left. Adding multiple issues tag. Vrac (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed the article remains stable 3 months after this comment. Since the article is quite accurate, that makes a great deal of sense. I suggest we focus on the actual issue - need for additional references - rather than aimlessly editing an accurate article that has a clear narrative flow. John Reynolds is the foremost historian of the marque - anyone have his works available to tie in to? 76.168.248.245 (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Double Helical Gears

Why is there no mention of the manufacture of the double helical gear? This was an intermediate step, I believe, between weapons production during World War I and car manufacture. The gear type itself is the inspiration for the Citroën logo. BingoDingo (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Found a reference. Citroën did not invent the process, but bought the patent for a type of double helical gear manufacture in 1900. Eighth paragraph from the top. Of course this was prior to World War I and the manufacture of weapons.BingoDingo (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite the right order. Gear manufacture was in fact André Citroën's first manufacturing venture. He bought the patent, but developed the way of mass producing it.

He also worked for the car company Mors, and helped them to double their production capacity.

During WWI he built his own munitions factory on behalf of the government, on the Quai de Javel, which became his car factory after the end of WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.28 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Badge

Who designed the double chevron badge, when and why? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This might be of some help. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's quite interesting, and topical - it could be usefully added where the new badge is already mentioned. But I was actually asking about the original! Any ideas? Has it always been the emblem of the company? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I heard it originated from a stylized version of the two dots over the letter e in Citroen. DireCriticMark (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

According to French wikipedia:

L’origine [du logo] remonte d’un voyage en Pologne. Âgé de vingt-deux ans, André Citroën découvre un procédé de taille des engrenages en forme de chevron utilisé en minoterie. Il achète le brevet pour le transposer à l'acier.

Mécaniquement, un engrenage à denture hélicoïdale provoque un effort axial, et c’est par l'ajout d'un second engrenage à denture hélicoïdale opposée que cet effort est annulé. La raison des deux chevrons sur le logo, vient du fait qu’ils sont au nombre de deux engrenés lors du contact des deux engrenages (selon l’angle de vue, on peut y voir des doubles chevrons).

My technical French isn't really up to this stuff, but I THINK it's something to do with cutting the grooves in cogs in a gearing system in the form of a chevron, as a component in a flour mill. Citroen saw the process in Poland and was impressed, and patented the system for adaptation to steel making. (It is not spelled out, but presumably if he was looking at an old flour mill, the mechanism that inspired him was made of timber.) The French then gets even more technical (and so beyond me), but it finishes off that the reason there are TWO chevrons in the logo is that two chevrons can be seen to be engaged (and if you look from the right angle can be seen) at any one time. Unfortunately French wiki doesn't give a source (French wiki doesn't give too many sources just yet) , but googling might find one. For what it's worth, I dimly remember having been told this before and I believe it to be probably true! But if someone wants to follow up on it, you probably need to ask someone at Wiki project France with an engineering background to provide a more convincing translation than I can muster.

Success Charles01 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Success indeed! Well done - obviously a good place to look. It seems to have something (a lot?) to do with the double helical gearing system (see other Talk thread above). I'll try and leave a post at Wiki project France. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Image layout

Does anyone else think that the current size and layout of images makes this article look extremely amateurish? I am not an expert in layout, so I have decided not to waste my time trying to improve, only to be reverted by an i.p. who obviously has an interest. I realise that a long vertical column of images provides an idea of historical progression, but the images at the top of the article look like a complete scrapbook mess. I think the section I have added on the logo deserves at least one image? Thanks.Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Anon ip editor - thank you for such a rapid and professional makeover. Apart from that whitespace at the top of the page, which I am guessing is unavoidable, the whole article now looks very good indeed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Citroën Revolte

New electric hybrid just announced. No sources except the web.

There is a DS5 hybrid available. Go sit in a DS5. Not a pleasant place to be. Very confining and hard to see out. I have a 2008 C5 which I love, but the DS5 is horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.238.14 (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Citroën C-Elysée WTCC section

This section seems entirely duplicative of the Citroën World Touring Car Team page. There is a Citroën Racing section immediately above. Propose removing. Also, for a company with a race history dating back to at least 1956, the Citroen Racing section seems breathlessly focused on very recent events - not encyclopedic. PLawrence99cx (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have folded this section into 'Racing,' as a subsection on 'Touring.' PLawrence99cx (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Article modifications: proposals

As I know some of this proposals will generate a strong opposition, I'm open to discuss them separately:

• Debolding Traction Avant. Traction Avant is a car model. Although influential, it isn't the name of the company.

• Remove cursives from subsection's titles, following Wikipedia conventions.

• Trim the list of awards following other articles and reducing promotional materials. Urbanoc (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

/////// Hello to good faith people.

• Why reducing the information about the Traction Avant in Citroën, whereas Urbanoc does not ask to "debold" the numerous lines and photos about the Beetle in Volkswagen ? Why such a difference of treatment between two brands ?
• Awards are not promotion, but some reliable facts to assess the value of the products scoring all the criteria by some numerous journalists.

• the 'Car of the year' award in Italy is voted by the Italian Union of Automotive Journalists (UIGA), so many professionals from many different magazines
• the 'Car of the year' award in Spain is voted by 35 different magazines [1] so most of the Spanish automotive journalists
• Citroën is not Spanish or Italian, so no promotion
• the 'Car of the year' award in Ireland is voted by the Irish Motoring Writers Association (IMWA), so many professionals from many different magazines
• the 'Car of the year' award in Eurasia 'Autobest' is voted by 15 countries (but not France) and is equivalent to the 'Car of the year' award in Europe

Why removing some real national and international awards in Citroën or Renault (and soon Peugeot probably, but not VW or Ford that Urbanoc likes), whereas citing an award from Green Car Journal in the Volkswagen article is "allowed" ? Look here : only one magazine award

Notice that Urbanoc, Vrac, Mr.Choppers have already attacked the Renault article, organised a "vote", but they had no argument and finally taking the excuse of being "bold", one of them removed some precious informations without waiting for the vote result, only the positive ones, obviously.

These people organised a dispute against me because I dared to prove that there is no reason to removes some awards in Renault, but strangely enough it has disappeared now from the Administrator page [2]... Fortunately, I saved it.

Notice that Vrac erased here [3] "Until the late 1980s, the company had a reputation for approaching automobile design in a unique and innovative way.", what is true, you can see it yourself and thousands of articles mention it. But instead of searching one of the numerous references, what would do a good wikipedian, or to "tag" to ask a source, Vrac erased this obvious true statement, what does not respect the Wikipedia rules. Do you call that a malevolent action and to vandalize ?

This request to remove some real awards targets Citroën after Renault, but not Volkswagen, Ford etc, and it has no sense. Anyway they got very few awards, so one could ask to "remove" the awards that they have not, what would bring no change. Crafty trick.

I will bring more proofs about unequal treatments and actions against the rules later. Have a nice day, good faith people. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

///////

You are misrepresenting my words, but maybe you didn't understand me. With "debolding" I mean removing the bolding from the first mention ( retirer le gras à la première mention) of Traction Avant, I don't intend to remove any info about the car. It is a pretty relevant one, I agree with that, but is not an alternative name of Citroën, in general the article's lead must only have bolded the name of the article's subject and/or alternative names of it. That's a wiki convention.

As for the awards lists, I already explained it to you. However, this a separated discussion so I'll say it again : your awards' lists are very promotional in nature and give a lot of relevance to minor national awards without giving third-party sources to prove their notability. Besides, awards are mostly for cars, not for marques. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Urbanoc (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I already started to go ahead with the changes. I removed the bolding from Traction Avant and also from DS, removed cursives and made modifications to the awards section. Urbanoc (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Citroen article is allegedly vandalized

Always the same people Urbanoc, Warren Whyte, Vrac and some of their friends, vandalize the articles of some brands like Renault, Citroen, Peugeot, but not Volkswagen, Ford, GM, so they are arbitrary and use Wikipedia as a mean to denigrate some companies or to lower their real value and history, by adding only some negative information or negative "interpretations", but never the 10 times more numerous historical facts that are positive and by removing the most significant neutral and positive information.

• Urbanoc take the excuse to "unbold" the 'Traction Avant' words, but what he does really is erasing one thousands of words.
• Urbanoc announces some little modifications like reducing the lead, it seems nice, except that what he does really is removing this whole paragraph without any fair reasons, as these informations are neutral facts. Urbanoc even removed a precious reference to the Union of the Italian journalists that proves the awards : see here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citro%C3%ABn&diff=prev&oldid=641710842 It is normal to cite the awards, because it is meaningful and the aim of the abstract is to sum up in one sentence the details given in some further paragraphs. No relevant reasons to remove these information.
• Notice that these people act as a team : Urbanoc, Vrac, Warren Whyte systematically, with the help of some other malevolent people. They make successive attacks, removing 2 paragraphs, then 3, then 3 again etc., and at the and several thousands of characters, 'only the true and positive information are removed from the articles of the brands that they want to lower and denigrate.

This is not acceptable. These people behave arbitrarily. These people accept some awards in the VW article for example, but erase the same awards in the Citroen article saying 'single magazine awards are not important enough'. It is an unequal treatment and a total bad faith obviously. These people don't respect the neutrality, behave as if they were chiefs on Wikipedia and remove some neutral and relevant information. These people behaves as a lobby that harasses some brands and support some others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's quite appalling the statements being made here by an anonymous editor. S/he seems to be completely ignoring suggestions, comments and hints and tips on WP etiquette. I really do suggest that User talk:83.157.24.224 keeps calm, and to try and enter into a proper discussion without throwing around claims of vandalism and what not. Perhaps you should take notice that several editors are trying to engage with you. Warren (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

IP, I don't get it. I didn't delete "a thousand words" as you suggest. If you want to criticise me, you have the right to do so, but please, complain for something I actually did...

The changes I made in the sub-sections' titles were for complying with Wiki guidelines and making titles briefer and more consistent. I don't see the problem with that.

I didn't delete any "positive" information. In fact, I didn't delete anything from the main body of the article. I only rewrote a little the lead section and the awards section. Anyway, I think you should read WP:NPOV.

As for the lead section, I didn't remove a whole paragraph, I condensed it into a single sentence. The awards section is little more than a collection of lists. It hasn't any vital information about the company. Do you really consider it needs its own paragraph on the lead?

Your claims against Warren are nonsense. He made a lot of editing in the VW article to address the issues you raised, answering your "other stuff" arguments. He explained the reason to remove the Motor Trend award from the list, but you reverted him in a aggresive way. You want to promote French car manufacturers, making them to have overly large awards sections. That's not the aim of Wikipedia. We are not here to promote companies of any country. Urbanoc (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

United States COTY

Removing the 1972 Motor Trend COTY award makes no sense for historic reasons - it was the original COTY, and the only COTY in the US for many years, so the fact that the editors of a single magazine awarded it is not relevant. Winning a historically rare COTY prize in the US or Europe is significant precisely because they were rare. Recent years are the actual problem - COTY is a title which has proliferated wildly in recent years, so you could load up every manufacturer description with tons of awards - everyone gets a prize. My proposed solution is to include a description of the prize itself - when created f.ex. I think the point of listing an awards section is to highlight unusual achievement. Citroen winning the COTY in the US in 1972 was a remarkable achievement, especially since only US made cars had won the award previously. PLawrence99cx (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer is: yes and no. Awards can be included, but not based in how old they are, that's not per se an evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. The key factor is how much impact they have in third-party sources not affiliated with the subjects being discussed (as other magazines with widespread credibility or books). Also, a simple mention isn't enough, the sources must indicate the way such awards are significative enough to be mentioned in the corporate article. The Motor Trend award is a magazine award despite its age, how old it is isn't necessarily important. Following Wikipedia guidelines, you should point out the reasons whereby Citroën's Motor Trend award is notable, backing it with reliable published sources. That way, we can leave personal opinions and subjectivity aside. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with the basic logic - if there is no hint about why the award is significant, then every car article will turn into a massive grocery list of awards received in the last 10-15 years. Age of award does mean something - despite the skew in the voting jury for the Academy Awards, they have been around since 1929, and partially for that very reason, it is widely agreed that they are impactful.

Back to cars: winning this particular award in 1972 was remarkable because MT COTY was an award always given to one of four companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler AMC) for decades. Suddenly this particular company produced a vehicle that destroyed that logic. Bridged two alien worlds.

On the issue of 'single magazine' - that is 2015 centric. There was no other COTY award in the US at the time - European Car of the Year from 1964 refined the original MT COTY idea by getting judges from several magazines, which does make more sense in hindsight. In 1960/70ish America, that probably was not an option. Apparently North American Car of the Year started in 1989.

I checked out WP:NOTABILITY - it doesn't seem to apply to this case, since it describes what a notable article subject should and should not be. Motor Trend Car of the Year is an article that has been around since 2004 - passed that test long ago. I found something else that does look appropriate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. If multiple published non-Wiki sources consider it significant, then it would violate WP:NPOV to exclude.PLawrence99cx (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, true, you are right on the basic, WP:NOTABILITY applies to content only indirectly, but it's implied anything appearing in an article must be notable enough to be verifiable by reliable, published sources. Otherwise, I think your analysis is quite logical and correct. It should not be difficult to find reliable third-party sources to verify the importance of Citroën's Motor Trend. That would end all discussions. Regards --Urbanoc (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant nonsense included in the article.

"There, it is possible to find some Citroën toys or some objects connected to the Citroën universe."

Is this sort of irrelevant (and obvious) trivia included in the wikipedia article of any other car manufacturer? I think it is a given that every car manufacturer of any notable size or historic relevance has had toys or models based on its vehicles. This "Citroën universe" nonsense reads as if Citroën is a comic book franchise and not a real-world automobile manufacturer. 2601:4:1003:A895:A944:2AFE:3F51:6B6F (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh. It was probably a good-faith contribution, but it wasn't very useful, so I deleted it. — ¾-10 23:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)