Talk:Mitsubishi Starion

Reverts, 15 August 2009
Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The Conquest paragraph is basically repeating what's already been said in the second sentence of the article. I removed redundancy, not information.
 * 2) Tone down the POV language ("noteworthy", "unfounded and implausible", etc). We have a strict neutral point of view policy, which is "a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia".
 * 3) Despite your edit summary, you introduced not a single citation for your "verifiable" info. Again, we have a policy for this, Verifiability. For the same reasons, do not remove maintenance templates until the maintenance is complete. This article has three citations for a 15k article, and not a single section except for the lede has any references at all. That is not nearly enough. I'd say we're at least 12 short, but what I don't want is an article with ugly fact tags all over it to distract the reader. It could also do with a cleanup tag, but I'm trying to limit the maintenance templates for the moment.
 * 4) Be civil and truthful with your edit summaries, per No personal attacks. That kind of thing can get you in a lot of trouble very quickly, especially considering your previous history with copyright, another issue which WP takes a no-tolerance approach. If you do not understand WP rules then please ask, do not simply ignore them.

--GalantFan (talk 07:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You persist in promoting an untruthful "urban legend" in a factual, encyclopedic article, and cite as your reference a Snopes article which plainly states that it is truly frivolous and fantastical bunk, based in ethnic slander, with NO basis in fact.
 * 2) "Noteworthy" refers to the FACT that winning the referenced prize four years consecutively is truthfully an above average accomplishment.
 * 3) Nearly every automotive article on Wiki clearly delineates model generations.  Your strange and stubborn insistence on muddling them together results primarily in obfuscation.
 * 4) In your implication that I have violated a copyright, you are of course referring to the free photos which I was directly told (in writing) may be freely used by none other than the head of Mitsubishi UK public relations office. I even provided my source for confirmation.
 * 5) Simply because a fact does not currently have an external citation does not make it untrue or unverifiable.  There are a great deal of facts in the world that have not been chronicled on the internet.  A great deal more facts can only be referenced on the internet by commercial and business websites which are not permitted to be linked to in Wiki pages.  This does not make those facts any less relevant.  DIRECTLY beneath the edit box is the quote "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."  It DOES NOT say that it MUST be CITED.  Nor is there any reference to any mandatory "citations per kilobyte" ratio.
 * 6) Your own personal ignorance of the subject matter is not a good reason to "challenge" the "factual accuracy" of statements.
 * 7) You yourself deleted the reference that supported the facts surrounding Dave Wolin's car, then proceed to delete the information as being "unsupported".  This is not the only instance of this action.  In truthfully reviewing your contributions, it is truthfully evident that you spend a great deal of time on Wikipedia, and while much of it is productive formatting, a truthfully great deal of your time is spent undoing the informative contributions of knowledgeable authors.  You truthfully have an established pattern of leaving articles shorter and less informative than you found them, eradicating and discounting the work of others as you do so, and cheating interested readers out of knowledge.
 * 8) And lastly, what is, in YOUR opinion, "fluff" may be exactly the interesting data that interested readers with connections to the subject matter were hoping to find when they came here.

(reply to #1) I'm not "promoting" anything; quite the opposite—I'm ensuring that the well-known urban legend (even Knowling's cited article not only mentions it, but gives it a text box for emphasis) is demonstrated to be apocryphal, by providing a link to the Snopes article on the subject. You do realise, I hope, that after the first time you tried to remove mention of it, a passing editor added it back in within 48 hours, in a form that didn't question its veracity? That's what I'm trying to avoid.

Long before you got here it was being repeatedly added to the page. It was even in the very first edit when the article was created. I put that sentence together to stop such editing. Rather than pretending the myth doesn't exist, we acknowledge it and then demonstrate it's not true using references to third party sources. And it's not just me who thinks that's the best approach.

Also, please read Citing sources before reformatting references; citations should not be plonked in the middle of a sentence just because you want to emphasize the word "unsupported".

(reply to #2) Winning something four years in a row may or may not be noteworthy (it's certainly not a "fact")—WP editors follow the neutral point of view and demonstrate whether it's noteworthy by citing reliable, third-party sources which call it such. Dave Wolin's web page recounting Dave Wolin's achievements is neither reliable (not peer-reviewed or fact-checked), nor independent for such purposes. It's self-aggrandizement, especially when the man himself works in advertising, marketing, and PR.

Also note that when I first edited that section, it didn't say "noteworthy", it said "incredible", which is completely inappropriate language for an encyclopedia.

(reply to #3) Where almost all the information in both infoboxes is identical (length, width, height, mechanicals, etc), there is no point in having two infoboxes, especially if the effect on the layout is to leave huge areas of white space all over the place. Even in WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions and WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts there is no demand to have multiple infoboxes. On the other hand, both the overall Manual of Style and the Layout (which trump any WP:CARS conventions) recommend against large areas of white space. Although to be honest, I would hope that good writing and layout wouldn't have to be legislated in a guideline.

(reply to #4) I suspect that you still do not fully understand UK copyright law. I will simply point out that if the photos could have been freely used on Wikipedia, they would not have been deleted.

(reply to #5) Again, please read Reliable sources. The majority of the article is unsourced, or rely on sources which are primary (Dave Wolin), or in one case the personal web page of Mark Stacey as hosted by his ISP. This may be enough for you, but it is not sufficient for Wikipedia. It's not enough to type a phrase into Google and assume that every search result is up to par. The refimprove template is asking for better sources to improve the article. How do readers know the "Background" section is accurate, or that the various lists of models per region are comprehensive? They don't, because third party sources to support them don't exist. I'm requesting that better references be provided to improve the article, something I've done with many other Mitsubishi pages. I've written a couple of Good Articles in my time, and although I accept that the majority of Mitsubishi-related pages won't ever reach that standard, I'd at least like to push them in that direction. The more content the article has, the more important it is that basics like citing sources and a decent layout are adhered to. I'm not sure why you'd find such an approach objectionable.

(reply to #6) What ignorance, what challenges? I could mention that I put a fact tag beside the longstanding and uncited claim that the car had a drag factor of 0.32. You then provided a citation demonstrating that the info was indeed wrong, and corrected it. Hence, an "ignorant" edit of mine led to article improvement, and the correction of an error. Shame on me...

(first reply to #7) You used the word "truthfully" four times in two sentences. Was that deliberate?

(second reply to #7) Fluff, I presume, refers to this edit, and the associated summary. I have no qualms about removing the statement "It was one of the world's fastest car in the world" [sic].

(reply concerning my undo of the move of North American model info) This follows a WP:CARS recommendation. Basically, redirects exists so that if you type Plymouth Conquest, Chrysler Conquest, or Dodge Conquest into Wikipedia, it will take you to Mitsubishi Starion instead—there's no need to have multiple articles for a single car. However, so as not to confuse readers who do not know they are all the same vehicle, it is recommended that all the redirect terms be in bold text in the lede, so that it jumps out at the reader immediately (see WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. That's why the North American names are mentioned so early in the article, and why I'm restoring them. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking for a hard media publicised version of the 'Engrish' description of 'Starion/Stallion', there is a clip of Jeremy Clarkson claiming this in the 90's. --Nibi (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Have introduced a new section about the car's good level of popularity in TV/films. Not sure if the title is correct. Is this too trivial? Remove if you think so. --Nibi (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitsubishi Starion. 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/20101012003331/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.stacey1/history.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.stacey1/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707053854/http://www.groupbrally.com/mitsubishi.shtml to http://www.groupbrally.com/mitsubishi.shtml

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) 22:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Photos of 89 front bumper
Hello, I took time to search and edit photos of 89 model as they are only like my 87 and flatty ...and write some updated spec ,to just see them deleted in 2 minutes 🤣 Mikekar777 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, couple of issues. Every new info has to go to a specific section. Technical stuff to technical section, not in leade. Avoid inputing opinions especially if they are of an unverifiable nature like "many tuners do this or that". Reference Your edits. Where are any sources of this information You added? Format Your specs edits so they are similar to existing specs. YBSOne (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that you cannot upload others' photos unless you can prove that they are freely licensed. See here.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah, I understand, learning to edit and do it good are two different things...for the photo's I asked some but I need to wait for other to send theirs free of use Mikekar777 (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded photos taken by other through the VRT system; it's an insanely complicated hassle. It is much easier if you can convince them to set up an account at Commons and help them upload them under their own name. Please reach out if there is anything I can help with. I learned by finding articles that looked good (to me and others, the Featured Articles are a good place to start) and copied layout and methods from there. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)