Talk:Automobile Dacia

Untitled
please send to me dacia solenza's Specifications at ismail _sh@hotmail.com, becuase I want to have one

Fair use rationale for Image:Dacia.svg
Image:Dacia.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dacia Nova.jpg
Image:Dacia Nova.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Company name
Is the name of the company 'Dacia' or 'Automobile Dacia' ? The introduction and the article name makes it sounds like the 'Automobile Dacia' but the company website does not agree with this. If the name is simply 'Dacia' then the article should be renamed to Dacia (automobile) to make it consistent with other car company articles in Category:Car manufacturers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The company is called S.C. AUTOMOBILE DACIA S.A., see hereand here. Btw automobile in romanian means automobiles (the plural form not the singular), automobil is the sg form.

Primary topic
There's a discussion at Talk:Dacia (disambiguation) over which article should be the Primary Topic for the name "Dacia". Comments welcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

uncomplete sale figures
Sale figures are not accurate enough in the sense that it doesn't take into account Dacia cars produced by dacia and rebadged as Renault for commercial purposes.

For exemple in 2007, total sales were not 230 000 but 367 745 (230000 dacia and the rest under renault brand) Last year, 950 000 wer sold

See this article for more details=

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia_Logan#Chiffres_de_ventes

Until we get the correct figures i'm editing main article and will add a notification that those figures are only the partial sales under dacia logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.196.6 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I really don't see the problem. The French Wiki figures are also "incomplete" according to your vision because they don't include India's Veritos and Nissans. The South American and Indian models designed by Dacia are manufactured in Renault factories to be sold under the Renault marque, with specific features. Counting them as Dacias is like count a Mercedes-Benz Citan as a Renault Kangoo. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not the same. Citan is a Mercedes project based on Kangoo, and is manufactured by Mercedes, it's not manufactured by Renault/rebadged renault. Dacias rebadged as Nissan, Renault and other brands for commercial or logistic reasons are true Dacia assembled in Dacia factories with the same renault parts as "original" Dacias under dacia logo. Basically same cars with different logo. This very wiki article [|Dacia logan] talks about those assembly factories for "Dacia logan" and also counts "Renault Logan" as well as others in spite of title being "Dacia Logan". As a matter of fact there is no "Renault logan" article so those have to be counted under the only Logan article otherwise it's like they have never been existing. Same thing for Duster/lodgy/Lokker and the whole Dacia family.
 * While those figures are correct, they are simply uncomplete so I will just add lacking information when I have the time.86.66.196.6 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, I didn't see your comment before. I will try to be brief, but there are a lot of things to make clear. I think the vast majority of the points you raised are invalid. First, the Citan is basically a badge engineered Renault Kangoo, made in French factories owned by Renault and with minor cosmetic changes, the fact it carries a Daimler AG's marque logo and is sold in Mercedes' dealerships doesn't change its origin. Second, "Dacia" as a manufacturer as well as a marque doesn't really exist beyond Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. Furthermore, outside Romania Dacia is no more than a mere division of Renault, Automobile Dacia S.A. doesn't own any factory internationally, all are wholly or partially owned by Renault SAS (the car manufacturer Renault) or the holding Renault S.A. The same for the dealerships network. The only factory we can properly call a "Dacia" factory is the Romanian one. Third, the fact a Renault Logan article didn't exist doesn't imply anything, that's only a question of consensus within Wikipedia. Sometimes the badge engineered cars obtain its own article, as was the case with the Citan. Sometimes, they are merged into a single article, see the Master example. There were similar cases to those of Dacia's cars in other multinational carmakers. The Opel Astra was sold with minor changes as the Vauxhall Astra, Holden Astra and Chevrolet Astra. However, General Motors counted sales of each subsidiary separetely, didn't add all to the Opel sales.

In brief, we can't count Renault and Nissan sales as Dacia sales simply because it is original research. The sales table is already problematic as it is because some sources are no so that reliable (for example, blogs). However, I think it can be kept if it included objective information. If we made up sales statics based on personal opinions, I would recommend its elimination. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But Renault and Mercedes are two different, independant brands.
 * It is obvious that talking about sale figures, Mercedes and Renault won't be merged as a single entity car. Completely different case for Renault owned Dacia Brand.
 * Original research?
 * Arnaud Deboeuf, proper Renault Director talks about Dacia selling over 1 million vehicules this year http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/automobile/20130930trib000787939/dacia-filiale-a-bas-prix-de-renault-plebiscitee-pour-ses-bas-couts-d-utilisation.html
 * Other media counting Dacia sales as a whole: http://www.caradisiac.com/La-Renault-a-5000-euros-sera-aussi-vendue-en-Europe-89230.htm
 * No original research here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.241.24 (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi 193.56.241.24, here is my answer:


 * a) Dacia is also an "independent" marque, it has is own models and marketing strategy. In Europe, at least.


 * b) The first article, the best of the sources presented, didn't say Dacia sold a million vehicles, it say the entry game of the Renault group, which includes Dacia according to Mr. Deboeuf, sold that number:
 * La gamme « Entry » qui comprend donc les Dacia et les même modèles vendus sous le label Renault dans le monde, devrait dépasser au total « le million de ventes cette année », nous affirmait au dernier salon de Francfort à la mi-septembre, Arnaud Deboeuf, patron de cette gamme "Entry", contre 953.000 en 2012. [translated:  The "Entry" range, which includes Dacia and the same models sold under the Renault marque worldwide, is expected to exceed a total of "million sales this year, against 953,000 in 2012" affirmed Arnaud Deboeuf, Entry Range Chief, at the last Frankfurt Motor Show celebrated in mid-September.]. The translation isn't exact, but I think the original concept is preserved. To prove my point, here is a source which clarifies Mr. Deboeuf position. He is Entry Range Chief of Renault, not Dacia: here.


 * The second source is more like a blog. It's a little unclear but it doesn't contradict or support my position.


 * These two articles don't prove cars sold under the Dacia badge in Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East are considered Dacias overseas. I insist, that conclusion is original research.  Moreover, if you see Renault sales reports, they count separately the Dacia and Renault models of the M0 platform: for example, see here


 * Happy you are open to discussion. I wait your response. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

a) Dacia is not independent. It's 99.43% owned by Renault. All its models since 2005 logan to todays are from Renault acquisition era. "unique models" Yes Dacia logan is completely unique compared with Renault logan or Nissan Aprio? No. It is completely logic that the Renault group and Renault-Nissan alliance rebrands them for commercial reason (Nissan has better reputation in Mexico for example) As for talking about "Gamme entry", well, at least you finally admitted that this entity exists as a whole. Call it "gamme entry" or whatever. The whole statistics of Dacia and rebrands counted together are no more "orgininal research" thanks to Renault director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.241.24 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Dacia is an independent marque in Europe, although it is owned by Renault. There it has its own models, its own marketing strategy and, partially, its own sales network. The fact it is owned by Renault isn't relevant. It is more like Chevrolet and Opel in Europe, both are owned by General Motors (none of them independent from the corporative side) but are sold and operate separately, so they are independent marques.


 * I never said the Entry range of the Renault group is inexistent. I said we can't count all its sales to the Dacia article ("Dacia" is not a synonymous of "Renault group's entry range", but is included by the latter), because it is original research. It's simple as that. If an article called "Entry range of the Renault group" would exist, it would be possible to count all M0 sales in a single article, but unfortunately it isn't the case. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Dacia is not independent. It's completely under Renault control since 2000s. If Renault decides to rename Dacia logan as Tata Logan or Avtovaz Logan, they will, still the same car sold by the same group and counted as the same category.

I'm seeing that i'm completely wasting my time discussing with you. You are basically denying any argument or any sources thrown at you, this whole debate (50 lines!) just to add complementary figures (in addition to existing ones) is ridiculous, as your stubborn attitude with calling it "original research" when it's clearly not. Gamme entry is 100% related to Dacia "''La gamme « Entry » qui comprend donc les Dacia et les même modèles vendus sous le label Renault dans le monde" Translation: Entry gamme that includes DACIA AND THE SAME MODELS sold under the Renault brand"

I don't know for what obscure reasons you don't want to admit it, but still ATM Dacia models its rebrands represent the whole gamme entry. Even if it was partially, it would still deserve to be mentionned on the Dacia main article. The source that you called a "blog" is simply the number 1 car media in French speaking world. If you are still wanting to stubbornly call it "original research", then the whole dacia logan, duster, sandero articles (as well as others) are all original research too =

""Assembly Mioveni, Romania São José dos Pinhais, Brazil (Renault Brazil) Envigado, Colombia (Sofasa) Nashik, India (Mahindra) Tehran, Iran (Pars Khodro, IKCO) Casablanca, Morocco (Somaca) Moscow, Russia (Avtoframos) Tolyatti, Russia (Lada)[nb 1] Pretoria, South Africa (Nissan""

From logan article =

""The Dacia Logan is a small family car produced jointly by the French manufacturer Renault and its Romanian subsidiary Dacia since 2004. It is manufactured at Dacia's automobile plant in Mioveni, Romania, and in Morocco, Brazil, Turkey, Russia, Colombia, Iran, India and South Africa. It is also marketed as the Renault Logan, Lada Largus, Renault Symbol, Nissan Aprio, Mahindra Verito or Renault Tondar 90, depending on the existing presence or positioning of the Renault brand"".

From Duster article "It is also marketed as the Renault Duster in certain markets, such as India, Russia or South America." And so on.

Your attitude is unconstructive, particularly considering the communautary aspect of wikipedia. I sincerely hope that whenever you want to add some details to any wikipedia article, there is not somebody behind you denying it and calling "original research" your contribution everytime, but rather people trying to help, that's how it should be on wikipedia.86.66.196.6 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I repeat Dacia is an independent marque, at least for the key point being discussed here (if we can count the Renault marque and the Dacia marque sales together). I like to restrict the term "independent" to the issue in discussion, because it is pretty ambiguous. I mean, to put a few examples: Nissan is independent from Renault or not? Chrysler from Fiat? The Daimler group marques and the Renault group marques are really completely "independent" from each other? I think this discussion carries the confussion between "marque" and "group". Dacia is a part of the Renault group, that's a fact, but that's it. No one count Ferrari marque sales as Fiat marque sales, but as the Fiat group sales. The article "Automobile Dacia" is about the Dacia marque/subsidiary (similar to that of Renault Samsung), not about the Renault group's entry range or something similar. Moreover, if someone tomorrow as a bad idea and adds a sales table to the Renault article, how avoid the double counts?


 * The articles are, in general, right, I don't see what's the problem. Most of them are very clear in the lead section (which, at least in theory, summarises the article) and mention the cars are manufactured by Renault and Dacia, not by Renault or Dacia. The only change we can discuss is to modify the manufacturer in the infobox from "Dacia" to "Renault/Dacia" as the German Wikipedia does, but I think it is unneccessary.


 * Sorry for not be clear about the source of the second article, I didn't give it too much attention beyond the content. I saw it more to precise its style. It is a blog. I don't know if it is the number one source in the French speaking world as you said, but if it has editorial scrutiny (which I also don't know) I suppose it can be considered a reliable source with certain reserves. Anyway, it was unclear and not support none of the arguments.


 * To finish, a personnal note. Better stop the personal attacks, OK? If you don't like my posture, that's right. But my arguments are as clear as yours, not "unconstructive". Wikipedia its a collaborative project, true, but the way to achieve results is through discussion and an eventual consensus, not questioning the others' reasons. The consensus is pretty difficult here, I reckon, because you and me have a very firm vision of the issue. The best way to resolve these issues is with more participants (three or four at least) to move the balance towards a certain direction, but it isn't case. I have no guilt that we are the only ones interested in this matter. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The key point of the Dacia logan article quote was this one:
 * "It is also marketed as the Renault Logan, Lada Largus, Renault Symbol, Nissan Aprio, Mahindra Verito or Renault Tondar 90, depending on the existing presence or positioning of the Renault brand"
 * It's the DACIA logan article. I say it again. It's Dacia logan article. And it talks about Nissan Aprio, Mahindra etc etc as the same car, rebranded by Renault for commercial purpose.
 * Same thing for Dacia logan article quoting all international factories building Logans, Dacia's as well as "clones" (rebranded dacias).
 * If you agree that those articles are right, then I don't see the problem with talking about those rebranded dacias on Dacia article.
 * Actually Dacia Logan article already did and counted Dacias rebranded as Renault as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia_Logan#Models
 * I think the consensus is now reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.241.24 (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's true the Logan article intro is not correctly written (that's why I said "most of them" and not "all of them"), but it must be considered it was created from an European point of view (as many English-speaking editors interested in that car are Europeans), not a global one. The other cars have introductions more according to a global perspective of the matter (which is what Wikipedia pursues). But the facts the article is called Dacia Logan or has a poor-written lead section don't mean it only covers the Dacia-marketed version of the Logan. There are similar examples around Wikipedia: Renault Master (Vauxhall/Opel Movano), Nissan Micra (Renault Pulse), Renault Samsung SM7 (Renault Talisman), Opel Adam (Vauxhall Adam), etc.

Anyway, as the article "Dacia Logan" covers all the versions of that particular model (Dacia or Renault Logan, Renault Tondar 90, Nissan Aprio, and so on) you can put on that particular article all the sales of the car in its different incarnations (good luck with that, as statics of the Iranian sales and that of Nissan are pretty difficult to find in reliable sources). But the discussion is not about the Logan. The discussion is about Automobile Dacia (after all, this is its talk page), and the problem here is include all the M0 sales on this article. Again, it is not about the Renault group's entry range, it's about a particular subsidiary/marque of that group. Dacia is not present in South and Central America. Dacia is not present in South Africa. Dacia is not present in India. It is present the Renault group through the Renault subsidiary/marque (Renault SAS). The article Automobile Dacia doesn't say nothing of a presence in those countries.

The consensus is far from reached, I'm afraid. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Yep, it's true the Logan article intro is not correctly written " I never said that, this is purely your subjective opinion. As far as I am concerned, Renault leaders considering them the same car "sold under the Renault brand", is sufficient enough to validate this intro.


 * "Anyway, as the article Dacia Logan covers all the versions of that particular model" Not just Dacia Logan but also Dacia Duster, Sandero and pretty much any but this one talks about international clones/rebranded dacias. If every Dacia vehicle article talks about it, then Dacia main article should


 * "The article Automobile Dacia doesn't say nothing of a presence in those countries. " That's what Wikipedia is for, to be completed when it lacks information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.241.24 (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I never say that consider the Logan's lead section wrong it's your your opinion, it's my opinion, I accept that. You consider the other articles lead sections wrong, I suppose. All opinions (yours and mine) that aren't based on hard facts are "subjective" if that matters.


 * What Renault's leader say the M0 cars sold outside the Dacia market are Dacias? The articles you showed me didn't say that, they (at least the most clear of them) commented about the Renault group's entry range (which Dacia is only a part, although significative). If Dacia doesn't exist outside Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East, how can it sell cars in South Africa, India or South America, for example? There is no lacking information on that respect in the current Automobile Dacia article, that's not the case. There is no reliable source which says Dacia is in those geographic areas, none. The cars Dacia happens to sell in Europe, Northern Africa an the Middle East not represent "Dacia" as a marque worldwide. All the sources say Renault SAS (the Renault car manufacturer) a part of the holding Renault S.A. (the Renault group) is in those regions, manufacturing and selling the cars. The only way to say Dacia is present there is with made up information or original research. Unless you show me an official statement which plainly says "Dacia is present in South Africa, South and Central America and India" or something similar that will be my posture, based on facts.


 * All the cars' articles describe the different version of them, true. But I never denied that. I highlighted the Logan because you put it as an example of why we should include all the M0 sales in this article. The same answer appliesj to all of them. You can include all the versions' sales in each car's article, there is no problem with that (and the same caveat about the stats). The problem is include them here, an article which only covers Automobile Dacia which is, according to all sources, only present in Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. That's the situation at the moment. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The reference on the Renault website (exemplified here) is clear enough in the regard of this discussion: sales should be counted separately for the Dacia and the Renault brands. If one wants to add the entire sales of a model worldwide (including sales under other brands than Dacia) he can do that on that model's article, if there are proper articles for that (which, as it was stated before, can be difficult to find for some brands). It is pretty obvious for me that this article should only contain statistics of the sales under the Dacia brand. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just fold Dacia's sales into Renault and show nothing here? I do agree that a prose mention of total M0 sales (in all brands, and as available) would be of interest to the general reader.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. The problem I foresee is we won't be able to include the Dacia sales when it was related to Renault but not a part of the Renault group. That's an interesting info, although the sources can be improved. I think a paragraph about the importance of the Romanian-developed cars in the Renault group's current sales volume can be included into the Renault article. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Automobile Dacia. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716073344/http://www.thenewsmarket.com/Releases/StoryDetailPage.aspx?GUID=aec50d61-b28c-4875-b834-7008afc9fa9a&bhjs=0 to http://www.thenewsmarket.com/Releases/StoryDetailPage.aspx?GUID=aec50d61-b28c-4875-b834-7008afc9fa9a&bhjs=0
 * Added tag to http://www.rfi.ro/articol/stiri/economie/dacia-lodgy-lansata-geneva

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Automobile Dacia. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021065103/http://www.dacia.ro/despre-noi/noutati/2012/septembrie-2012/Comunicat-Dacia-Salon-Auto-Paris.pdf to http://www.dacia.ro/despre-noi/noutati/2012/septembrie-2012/Comunicat-Dacia-Salon-Auto-Paris.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Automobile Dacia. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121133412/http://www.daciagroup.com/en/corporate/profile.html to http://www.daciagroup.com/en/corporate/profile.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119044713/http://www.daciagroup.com/en/press/press-releases/2014/dacia-vehicle-plant-produced-5-million-cars to http://www.daciagroup.com/en/press/press-releases/2014/dacia-vehicle-plant-produced-5-million-cars

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)