Talk:Nissan Navara/Archive 1

Buyer Beware
The 2005 Frontier and Pathfinder have a major flaw in that the transmission line that runs through the radiator to keep cool starts to leak antifreeze into the transmission. This destroys both the transmission and the radiator. Even if you have a power train warranty Nissan will not cover the cost of this because it is caused by the radiator, not the power train. This can cost anywhere from $5000 to $9000 to repair. There have been hundreds of complaints to Nissan, the BBB, and local Attorney General's offices regarding this. Most owners feel this should be a recall. Nissan denies this as it is not deemed a life threatening defect.

Thanks for mentioning this and if a realistic source can be found it can be added to the article.  J e n o v a  20 09:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea
I think adding info about the Crew Cab-Long box- Long wheel base would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.211.68 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I think we should merge this, the Datsun 720 and the Nissan Harbody article in one. They are the evolution of the same truck anyway. See http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E7%94%A3%E3%83%BB%E3%83%80%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%82%B5%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88%E3%83%A9%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viva Chile (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied to your suggestion over at the Hardbody article. --Brownings (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Move
The article should be moved to 'Nissan Navara' to reflect a less American-centric point of view, as this is what the vehicle is know as throughout most of the world except the US 203.171.196.160 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

D40 advertisement
The D40 part is like an advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.94.174 (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. The non-trivial content that was at Nissan Navara before is now at Nissan Frontier. I just swapped the histories, which is what I usually do if there's anything non-trivial at a move target. Anyone who wants to mine the old history for usable content can still see all versions from both titles. The current version contains all edits from the last 2 years anyway. - GTBacchus(talk) 02:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nissan Frontier → Nissan Navara – As already argued by an unregistered user, this article should be renamed to reflect the wider usage rather than the American one. relisting Andrewa (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)  J e n o v a  20 10:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hang on... there's some good material in the page history of the target which probably should be merged not deleted, and will be lost if we simply do this move. Would a merge to Nissan Navara be a better idea? Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, i see no problem with that at all.  J e n o v a  20 08:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nissan Navara from 1986!
I reckon, the Navara nameplate started from 1986 (D21 model), for Australia and New Zealand markets. But this article started from 1997 (D22), (because the page renamed from Nissan Frontier). Does anyone have better idea for revise these problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neknek2011 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 February 2016
On the opening paragraph, the more specific and international meaning for this vehicle is a Pickup truck and not a Utility vehicle. They only use that definition in Australia and New Zealand to describe pickup trucks

'''Class455fan1 (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As this has been the subject of an edit war, I'll need to see some consensus among other editors before this is changed. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Three different IP's kept on changing this and users reverted it. I believe this is the same person using three different IP's. I'm sure others will agree, especially those who reverted the IP's edits, but I can't notify them to participate in case I get warned for canvassing.'''Class455fan1 (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit war is also taking place at Utility vehicle to try to compare that only to passenger vehicles, thereby ignoring military and other uses of the term. The basic problem here seems to be WP:POV, insisting on a pre-conceived notion rather than crafting properly sourced material. I'll point to this discussion from the other article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Australia and New Zealand use Ute, being a regional abbreviation for utility vehicle. Pickup is a regional slang for the United States. Oxford dictionary defines 'utility vehicle' as a 'truck with low sides designed for carrying small loads' and is a common expression for load carrying vehicles of a variety of forms. 1.127.48.225 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, in European Countries it's known as a pickup truck. '''Class455fan1 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * By European countries I assume you mean the UK, as the rest use there own languages. Either way they also use the terms van, truck and even bus to refer to this category of vehicle. They also use the formal term 'utility vehicle' which is common to the vast majority of english speaking nations which include considerably more varied locations than the US and the UK. 1.127.48.225 (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * None of this should matter if the redirects are in place so that regional expressions bring the reader to a page about the concept. The redirects were in place and functioning well before this edit warring started. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 35. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

2015?
It states the 2nd generation going through 2015, but it's still available now (MY 2018). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbw9999 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal
I think it would be a good idea to split the article between generations (as I've seen on some other vehicular articles) Eg: as the vehicle and its incarnations have too many different names around the world, and using only one brand name ("Navara") makes this article confusing and hard to read.
 * Nissan D22
 * Nissan D40
 * Nissan D23

As an example, in Chile the Nissan "Navara" is only the D40, while in Australia the "Navara" brand is used in the D22, D40, and the new D23 that has the "NP300" brand attached to it, while in Argentina the 2010s Mexican-made D22s are branded as "NP300", but in Chile the "NP300" is used in the new D23 (without the "Navara" brand, unlike the Australian market) and the D22 (both Japanese and Mexican) is branded as "Terrano". In South Africa the "NP300" is the D40... In the US, the "Frontier" is the D22 and D40, while in South America (except Chile) the "Frontier" is the Japanese D22.. and the list goes on. Kmaster (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In my opinion, that's a bad idea. Firstly, we'd have three stub articles a few paragraphs long, with an appaling low quality. WP:SPLITSIZE says that articles should be considered for splitting when they have "30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose" which isn't the case here. Better to expand each generation section until that splitting becomes a neccessity, not before. Secondly, D22, D40 and D23 are names rarely used by reliable sources or the general Wikipedia readership, so they fail WP:COMMONNAME. Those names are in fact internal codenames used during development by the Nissan company, not names for buyers. It has become customary (I think in a quite misleading way for most of them) to include those codenames, especially for Japanese and German manufacturers (which are the ones with the larger editor base here, although most car companies have codenames), but it would be unlikely an average reader will search for the "Nissan D23". Most readers will instead search for Navara, Frontier and NP300, so, in fact, you will still have to create a lot of summary style disambiguation pages, keeping a very convoluted structure. Also, the articles that used the internal codename instead of the generation model for splitting, except in a rare few exceptions like Mercedes cars (and those because codes became common names), keep the more recognosible common name name as part of the title (for example BMW 3 Series (E90), Toyota Corolla (E170)), so you would have to give priority to Navara, Frontier or NP300 when naming. Thirdly, while articles must keep a global perspective, our priority is the English-language readers, so name confussions in Chile, Argentina, Japan or Mexico aren't so relevant here. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the first point (size of each section and quality of the article), but not on the second one. The name D22 is used by Nissan even in it's advertising. I have seen the D22 in Australia being sold as "Nissan D22 Navara" on their website. Same is the case in South America, the name D22 is even used on my motor vehicle registration certificate (I own a D22), and it is the only official name used in the manual. Kmaster (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. I didn't knew "D22" was actually used in advertising, that's interesting. But I uphold my point, the Navara name it's still the official vehicle name. Where those codenames are used seems something aimed to distinguish them from other vehicles called Navara. But that's a desicion of the local sales subsidiary in each country and, as far as I know, the Nissan headquarters prefer the commercial names used for sales. I do knew Nissan manuals usually include the codename, not the commercial name, but if you think about it that makes sense when searching for spare parts. In any case, a standard commercial name (as "Navara" or "NP300") is always included for sales, so again, there's no vehicle sold as "Nissan D23" (or "Nissan D22"). If this were an automotive-focused Wiki, I'd agree with you, but I think we must keep on use the most common names posible. --Urbanoc (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Cancel the Split
please dont split this in multiple articles, will not have any sources, will have multiple issues, don not split Nissan Navara in multiple articles, because they will put content than violates copyright, also will put unsourced material and will be hard to change it o remove it!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalininos (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the "issues" you talk about have anything to do with the page being split, all of those can happen now. All you would need to change to monitor it would be adding the new pages to your watchlist. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nissan Navara
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nissan Navara's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ΤΕΟΚΑΡ ΑΒΕΕ": From Nissan:  From Nissan Pulsar:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They are effectively the same, fixed it - thanks.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A Fine Example of Accuracy
The automotive world has recognized the D40 for its actual age, in correctly referring to it as dating back to 2004 because of the good work all of us have done on this page. Thank you everyone for helping maintain this, as every news article and discussion area, has often looked to this page as a reference. Ironically, the Frontier version was barely even launched in 2004 being a December release in the United States and Canada as a 2005 model, yet most Americans have chosen to forgo reliance on the model year itself and utilize the full timeline. This is my goal for all of Automotive Wikipedia, for utmost informative content. Recognition of both initial model year (first designation) and full timeline (Job 1 to EOP) for a product. Currently launch of the 2021 Frontier is in shambles by the way. It was going to be December 2020, then it became February 2021, now up in the air. I was a former Nissan shareholder, per family owned shares, so I have my contacts still and will keep people here up to date with any changes. Thank you. Carmaker1 (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Short version: focus on content, not the contributor.Long version:There's nothing wrong with the goal of correcting 1 or 2 year errors in the timeline, but the result of many discussions on this model year off-by-one error is that you are the only one who really cares enough to put time into it. The evidence from numerous reliable sources, who frequently don't bother distinguish precisely between production year and releasee year in their local market, is that few if any reliable sources feel this distinction matters enough t⁹o worry about. The thing to keep in mind is that even when regular Wikiproject Automobiles contributors are careful to check these dates, if later some IP comes along and changes the date by one year, it's unlikely anyone but you will notice, or consider it worthwhile to double check, so we have generally left such changes without bothering to correct them.I'd suggest rolling with it, and if it makes you happy to focus on getting exact production dates right, great. Enjoy. But please do not expect anyone else, either casual drive-by editors, or regulars, to want to become involved.If you do not want to accept that, then the logical step would be to go to WikiProject Automobiles and post an RfC asking whether or not we want to make this a priority. It could be the consensus from past discussions has changed, but that remains to be seen, so a lot of drama can be avoided if you remember that this is not currently considered a high priority.There's nothing wrong with having priorities that are not the same as the crowd. It's a good thing. But it's harmful when one refuses to recognize and gracefully accept that others do not share one's priorities.All that stuff about your family connections and stock ownership and insider knowledge is irrelevant, as you know, and it's not helpful to post it here. If you are using your credentials to discourage others, it violates the WP:OWN policy, and using your personal credentials in lieu of a citation to a reliable source violates WP:RS and WP:V. As you know. Repeatedly adding irrelevant content to talk pages violates the WP:TALK guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not really interested in your perspective on something you are not involved in the first place, using my contribution history to find. Try making some contributions of your own to this page and helpfully fixing any issues on it, otherwise this constitutes WP:Wikihounding and seeking a fight, which I will not entertain. Signed Dr. James N.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "something you are not involved in the first place". I'm involved in editing motor vehicle related articles. I have been for years. Once again, you are finding ways of violating the WP:OWN policy, constantly telling other editors they should get off your turf and not touch "your" articles.My posts here are addressed as much to everyone else working on these articles as to you. They need to be aware of the various policies that show that most of your arguments are fallacies, and they can safely ignore them. Rather than engage with you on off-topic disputes, I'm hoping other editors will see through your smokescreen and only engage in substantive discussion of the content itself, and not take your bait to debate personal credentials, expertise, or motives.Please assume good faith and stop telling others they aren't allowed to edit. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not here to edit, except antagonize and counteract me. No one summoned you to this talk page, you did not just finish editing text in the main article nor have added to/edited it (outside of deleting other's contributions once). You are here to make a point against me, minimize my contributions, intimidate via threats, goad me into stepping down, and nothing much else. You have been advised, considering that users such as Toasted Meter, Stepho-wrs, Guiletheme, Vossanova, Mr. choppers, and that of 1292simon out of many others have not displayed the WP:HARASS behaviour that you continually have. Don't forget that I'm engaged ;).Signed Dr. James N.--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Nissan Frontier (North America) into Nissan Navara
This page can be added as a section in Nissan Navara. Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The latest model is not the same as the Navara/NP300 anymore. For a similar example, please see the Toyota Harrier article. 182.30.222.134 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Same as said. No need to merge it anyway. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the page creator. The 2022 Frontier is not a Navara in any way, it might be related but it's a standalone model. Andra Febrian (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)