Talk:Citroën C3 Picasso/Archive 1

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Advertising and sales
I did want to add a table for sales but can only find this information currently: Clearly there's not enough there. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a start. And it will encourage somebody to look for the other years and countries. I'd include it - except I'd do Advertising and Sales as two sections.  Stepho  talk 13:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just spent 2 hours looking and got nothing...The UK isn't a major market for this car clearly but there's no sales figures i can find for yearly data after 2010.
 * Thanks for the interest  J e n o v a  20 13:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked Citroen directly for sales figures, let's see how this one goes...  J e n o v a  20 10:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Be aware that other editors have to be able to verify it.  Stepho  talk 12:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well i'm hoping they're lazy and just send me a link to a website...but i'm not really holding out from a reply from them to be honest.  J e n o v a  20 15:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Optional extras
Just wondering: is "Optional extras" a UK-ism? Obviously, that term is a redundancy. In the US we use either "options" or "extras". ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually have an American sitting next to me who confirms what you say. But, the features I'm pointing out are optional and they are extras for the car. I don't think it would make much sense to change it to just 'options' or 'extras'.
 * Is this car available in America do you know? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 19:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but have never seen one. Can't find any for sale in the US. ~E[edit]~E184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there options that are not extra? Or extras that are not optional? ~E184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "Optional features"? ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC) It's no big deal -- more of a curiosity. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * An option that isn't an extra would be an upgrade (eg manual vs automatic, basic stereo system vs top-of-the-line stereo system, or SOHC vs DOHC). But I'd prefer the simple word 'options'.  Stepho  talk 10:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Go with "options" since "upgrades" is biased and inappropriate.
 * Options are more than one choice, upgrades are improvements and that's POV considering some are decor related and serve no other function. Also i don't get the logic with the Americanisms being mentioned since this car can't be bought in America and that seems redundant. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 22:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ghostbusters reloaded
Upon first reading, I was a little confused (was wondering if this was referring to 'product placement' in a movie, or perhaps a print campaign). Although the Cadillac/Ghostbusters photo is cool, its relevance seems a bit stretched (they didn't use a Porsche 911 or a Nash Metropolitan either). Did that vehicle appear in the advert (US:"commercial")? [You should probably leave it in -- I get the dry humor or "humour"] → Which reminds me, isn't there a tag for something like: "this article uses Britspeak -- Yanks, don't mess with it!" ← [Just kidding] ~Eric F[edit2x] ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'Brit speak' tag is . I've just added it to the top of this talk page (it shouldn't go on the article page itself).  Stepho  talk 10:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What was wrong with the picture? i thought it fitted in that advertising section perfectly. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete it but I'll comment anyway. I don't mind the Cadillac picture but it would probably confuse the average reader to see "this is not the C3" picture. Better if the Caddy picture was paired with a picture of the C3 - both in the same role. The idea is to emphasis what the C3 is rather then what vehicle was in the movie. I assume that the nicely formatted references were put back to their bare form when you revert the image deletion.  Stepho  talk 04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a proper revision so no. I only added the picture in, i didn't undo any other edits.
 * I would imagine the reader could see the first picture and then notice that there's a difference, that it is in the section about the ghostbusters and then talks about the ghostbusters. Waggers never mentioned it so i didn't see anything wrong. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To Do List
With This reference: I have emissions and mileage for the following models: I have 3 left to find but if someone beats me to it then please post here. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * VT✅
 * VTR+✅
 * Blackcherry✅
 * Connexion
 * Airdream+
 * Exclusive✅
 * 90th Anniversary

http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-cars/psa/c3/c3-picasso/c3-picasso19.html Could provide some much welcome additions to the article in the way of design and the mindset Citroen had when the designed it. Could also do with a designer's name for the article if one can be found. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Prices
I think car prices should be removed, they are not signifant information for this kind of car, its also agains WP:PRICES and car prices varies very much from country to country and this is international wikipedia, so those prices are really not needed here.-- >Typ932 T&middot;C 10:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I direct your attention to this "Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention."
 * I have used only the biggest markets launch prices for the vehicle and comparisons between different variants prices so i believe this to be justified in line with the policy.
 * A Good article candidacy bought no mention of this and neither did the Featured article candidacy so i believe that also to be a good view to how they have been used in this instance. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "there is a justified reason for their mention." I think this means there is good reason for pubslishing prices, for example the price is exceptionally high or low, or is significally lower than competitors or so on. If you look most of the car articles dont have prices, because they vary so much and there is really no point to publish those, trim levels, year models, taxations, salary levels and so on makes comparisons pointless. If you know the price for UK or France dont give nothing for those living any other 205 country -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The biggest market is Europe and the UK, so i've published the lowest trim and highest price for that. I have complied with the policy you mention and countless people reviewing the article have saw fit to not take issue with it. I can't agree with your request to remove them as you appear to have a problem with them being there in principal. There are no taxes or salary levels included and using "most other car articles" as a measuring stick holds no weight when your example policy has not been violated. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 18:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Price information is likely to date quickly, not least because our political class are bent on debauching our currencies because they have noticed that spending money we don't have on wars (known, in politicalspeak, as schoolsandhospitals) we don't need gets them elected.   I guess any joke is on the people doing the electing.   But on the price thing, how about something like ..."when launched the manufacturer's published price on the French market was €20,000, which compared with €21,000 for the Renault XXX (I don't know), its most successful domestic market competitor at the time."?   That gives the price some context for a reader coming to the entry in ten years time.   I agree the wiki entry can and shold evolve, but this price stuff can easily cease to make much sense even more quickly than you, or A N Other, can keep up with the price movements.   If you want to major on the role the car plays/played on the UK market, I guess you can use a similar phrase, comparing the price to - Vauxhall Meriva? - but I sense you've researched this stuff more closely than I, so if you can find a competitor vehicle that looks like the price setter in this particular market niche, that's the one to use for a price comparison.   Regards  Charles01 (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking again at what I just wrote, maybe when writing Meriva I should have written Zafira.  And I suspect that for this particular segment/class, VW and Ford, on the UK market, will indeed be looking closely at the Zafira when pricing their own challengers.   Ditto Citroen.
 * While researching, can you read the C3 Picasso article and see that i have listed launch prices and not current prices. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 18:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes.  For what it's worth I agree with your implicit judgement that the manufacturer's recommended retail price at launch is a more useful figure than the equivalent price at some randomly selected subsequent date.   But even the price at launch will mean less and less as the currency depreciates!   And alas.   (Incidentaly, I was wrong about the Zafira.   Meriva is a closer fit now they've shrunk the Picassp and Vauxhalls/Opels keep growing bigger.   But you'd probably figured all that out already.)   Regards    Charles01 (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A valid comparison in price between competition would be useful as you say. Thanks for clarifying what you meant there Charles. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 19:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I dont even know why you have Spanish prices on the article as biggest markets in Europe during the first quarter of this year is Germany, Britain, France and Italy. I said "most other car articles" because we in WP:CARS try to make every car article with same style and have some consistency with articles. You can also look how the other GA status car arcticles looks, or any other almost GA article. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 03:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am part of that project, have been for about a year and used a Bentley article as the comparison. Spain prices for this year are not in the article, but the ones for the first year of sale in Spain (that i could find) are. Seriously have you read the article? You appear to be picking over things that are either incorrect or untrue.
 * Also with reference to tagging the rival cars with a "citation needed" the references are already in the "reviews" section further down. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They should be in the right section, the review section does not mention of these cars either, there was reason why we removed the similar/rivals field from the infobox... Also it doesnt matter are they 2011 or 2012 prices, I speak prices generally, but why there is Spanish prices? Generally speaking I have not read this fully through, but I can see straight away whats wrong it. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 15:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's "wrong with it" is you are asserting incorrect things because as you admit, you have not read it. I referenced the competitors you tagged as needing a citation but had not done it originally as the lede paragraph does not usually contain citations.
 * Spain has prices that show comparisons between their 3 different trim levels for the first year of sale i could find, they are applicable to Spain only because the trim variants are different in Spain.
 * Now, if you intend to ask questions which could be answered by you actually reading the article then don't bother as i will no longer respond since it would be a waste of time for both of us. On the other hand if you have something constructive or another question i haven't already answered then go ahead. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 15:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How would the article come better if I read it through? I just pointed its errors to you, that you can make it better. But I think Ill leave this article now, because you dont seem to be able constructive discussion or dont want to change anything and follow Wikipedia policies. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what i wanted but with no constructive discussion here it's not very disappointing news. Especially when you can see countless other discussions on this page of changes and suggested improvements to the article. Removing prices just for the sake of it is not what the policy you provided encourages, would not be productive and would remove a lot of the information that is holding the "Launch" section together. This is why i don't agree with removing them just for the sake of it.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If Spain is the biggest market for this car, then I understand why you included it. Nonetheless, I still don't think the introductory pricing should be in the article as its price is not all that important. Prices are generally only included if they are extreme in some way. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually i have to agree with you completely. Spain isn't really gonna have different prices from the rest of Europe and since i couldn't actually find original sale prices for them i will remove them there. Other than that Prices between the start price and most Exclusive model are certainly encyclopedic. It's just a shame i couldn't get a price for the Limited Edition 90th Anniversary model as i really did want to know why they only sold 1 and if that was a factor.
 * I'll remove Spanish prices since they don't contribute anything.
 * Any other suggestions? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 20:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)