Talk:SEAT 131

Yes it might be kind of stub now, but this is not a sufficient reason so as not to create the article. It is a model on its own, take a look at the SEAT 131 Familiar estate version which has been unique to the SEAT range, not to Fiat's own range.

After all there is a lot of useful information around the net and images in Wikipedia Commons and everyone is welcome to contribute. (LeonCR (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC))

Merge Proposal
While I appreciate the gathering of information, I don't think that this should be a standalone article. This could all easily be merged into the Fiat 131 page.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't agree with the proposed merger. The two articles should have been split from the very beginning. Two different marques and offerings, two clearly discriminated sales markets, production sites and periods, different trims, but most important different technical specifications including engine range itself. These are only some of the reasons. Add the SEAT 131 Familiar which has been the donor car design to the estate Fiat 131. If there should be any concern, then it should have been the SEAT 131 information that should have been erased from the relevant Fiat 131 article.
 * There is plenty of information out there specific to this model which differentiates it from the Fiat one, and there should be a separate article for everyone encouraged and interested to get involved, as the hosting into the Fiat 131 article would give space only for confusion to the reader between two different cases of cars. Really no offense, no intention at all to do so, but I feel that the reason for the proposed merger lies only on the lack of knowledge over the model and the false impression on the sort of partnership (not ownership) between SEAT and Fiat at that time.
 * I also have to stress out that I am rather surprised this kind of merge proposal has been made for the SEAT 131 that fast, since in the English Wikipedia it is more than 5 years that another article exists for the Tofaş Şahin i.e. the Turkish 131. And also I would like to remind that the German WP which hosts separately its own article on the SEAT 131 ([Summing up, I find it is not making sense trying to merge the proposed articles, there is no reason, two distinct models and brands. ([[User:LeonCR|LeonCR] (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Oppose.  Mr Choppers is usually on the side of good sense, but here I disagree with him.
 * LeonCR makes the case that there is plenty to be written about the Seat that is irrelevant to the Fiat.  And vice-versa. Even where entries start out logical and coherent, where there are ten different enthusiasts keen to contribute and each with a different perspective from a different country, the entry can easily become .... to put it politely ... quite hard to follow.   So my starting point is "when in doubt, split the entry".   I think that is also the wikipedia guide-line, though those things tend easily to become mutually contradictory so I wouldn't hang my hat on one.   BUT if you try and combine the VW Golf Mk I, the Golf Mk II ... to the Golf Mk VI you will get to an entry that takes ten minutes to download and half an hour (for anyone with the patience) to digest.   Much more manageable to have a simple coherent entry on each different car.
 * There's an unconcious assumption we all inherit from the way the car was marketed in the country where we live.  I live in England.   Back in 1970 we thought a seat was something for sitting on.  In Sweden maybe people were more aware of what goes on beyond the national frontiers.   Maybe they knew that the Fiat 131 station wagon was made not in Italy but in Spain, so you grew up thinking a Seat was a Spanish built Fiat.   It's a legitimate viewpoint, but if you grew up in Spain, you probably inherited the Franco period view that Seat was the leading national champion by far in the world of cars.   Which if you liked cars was pretty important.   A picture I took of a Seat 600 in Granada in 1985 has turned up in a wiki-entry as a national icon.   (Flattering but also, I confess, it surprised me!)  If you grew up in Spain, you were probably almost as unaware of what happened outside your country as the Brits or the Americans (in all cases, of course, with honourable exceptions).   A Seat really was a very Spanish thing.   Where was Mirafiori?
 * So if you have to choose between Spanish and Swedish and UK and US starting assumptions, which do you prefer?  For a Seat, I prefer Spanish ones.   I've gone on too long on this theme.   Another:
 * The Germans have reason to be relatively neutral as between Seats and Fiats (if you forget the history of Fiat and NSU which I think they mostly have).  The German wikipedia splits the Seat 131 from the Fiat 131.   Like us, it has very different things to say about the two cars.   Do the Germans have a monopoly of wisdom?  Of course not.   But on the evidence of German wikipedia, they do seem to be better at thinking logically than ... some of the others.   And as a car-aware culture, I think they are ahead of most European states, if only because of the number of Germans who still work at making cars.
 * My own position may be seen as some kind of special pleading because back in 2007 I kicked off a separate entry for the SEAT 132 in support of an old picture I'd found in the loft.  To be honest, it never occurred to me to treat the thing as a couple of paragraphs incorporated 80% down the page (ie the bits that most of us never get to most of the time) of the Fiat Mirafiori.   But I see that seven different language versions of wikipedia do have separate stand-alone entries for the Seat 132 (and I'm flattered that several seem to draw on the entry I compiled, most but not all of which, in turn, I took from the German entry).   There is no stand-alone entry for the 132 in Swedish wiki that I can see, but there is one in Danish wiki and there is one in Polish wiki.   Should we follow slavishly what other language versions do?   Of course not.   Even where they are our honoured southern neighbours.   But nor is it wise to ignore entirely the judgements implicit in what the neighbours do.
 * No further thoughts. Enjoy the weekend.  Charles01 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the same car. Until 1983 a SEAT was a Spanish built Fiat, albeit with some occasional local differences such as engine variations. The fact that the same names (131, Panda, 600) were usually used says it all. Simply slapping SEAT badging on a car and building it in Spain does not make a separate vehicle. The single valid case I can see for splitting these is that combined, the articles may exceed 32K (where the WP suggests dividing an article - I say "may" because after pruning of duplicate material it may not). This is a Fiat, albeit built in Spain - we don't currently have separate articles for the Nissan Santana (VW Santana), Innocenti IM3 (Austin/Morris 1100/1300), Timor (Kia Sephia), or Sao Penza (Mazda Familia), even though they were built in countries other than their origin and received different badging. I am not personally opposed to this article; just trying to apply the WP Automobile Project rules equally across the board to allow for increased stability for articles everywhere. Anyhow, we'll see what other editors think - I have cast my vote and am genuinely content to follow whatever the majority decision may be. And Charles, do capitalize SEAT properly or Leon will be mad at you... As for the SEAT 132, I see even less reason for a standalone entry - no visual difference, and combined they would be barely above 16K.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that until there is enough own content to own article these shold be in same page, Im not sure how much SEAT is different than Fiat 131, but if there is no big variations, I dont see it necessary to have own article, the article should generally made for the original car like the SEAT 133. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 07:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I wrote above about unspoken assumptions which are different depending on whether we are influenced by the way the things were marketed to us in Sweden or would have been marketed to us if we were in Spain.  I think it's important to try and understand that, because otherwise we all risk being steam rollered into seeing the world through the eyes of the most numerous and powerful.   Today the Americans: tomorrow the Chinese?   I prefer European, with all our confused and confusing diversity, but that might be only because I live here.


 * There's another unspoken assumption which I remembered while wondering abut a second coffee.  I like wikipedia because it lets me learn stuff about subjects that interest me.   I would like to learn more about the Seat 131.  Preferably in English because that's my best language by far.   If I thought I knew enough already, I would stop looking at wikipedia.   I am far less likely to encourage someone who knows more than I do to add his knowledge about the Seat 131 if I simply tell him that he must squeeze his information into the bottom of an entry about a different car.   Ok, you think it's the same car.   He thinks it a different car.   I choose not to vote because as far as I can see you can argue it either way in order to come back to the answer you first thought of.   That's how our politicians and journalists work, but maybe we should try and think more independently.   Impossible to do, of course, but that's not a reason not to try it!  Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have full respect for differences in various markets. As a matter of fact, I believe that this material is more likely to be found on the Fiat 131 page - I am not in any way proposing any drastic pruning (a couple of duplicate phrases is all, if even that much). I just think that all of it belongs elsewhere, and I think it more visible in what I consider its "proper" place. I have nothing against SEAT whatsoever, I find these tiny local differences the most interesting of all.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * With all kind of respect Mr Choppers I am afraid here it is the confusion you are making. Saying that until 1983 SEAT was a Spanish built Fiat or that this the same car. is only a verbalism due to lack of knowledge and perhaps bias (I clearly saw an irony in your words saying that I would be mad for not capitalizing SEAT). Charles01 has explained to you very well that everybody can have his own point of view, but keeping it as a global truth can lead to confusion. This is where Wikipedia comes out with its scope focusing in dissipating any misunderstanding and confusion, not making things even worse presenting subjective views as real facts.
 * Perhaps you are not aware that SEAT has never been a subsidiary of Fiat, or it has always been a distinct entity (under state control till 1983) with a different range from Fiat under its own badge but most important that SEAT always adapted Fiat models according to the needs of the Spanish people. In fact SEAT had formed a partnership with Fiat, the same way it could have done with any other manufacturer, or the way it did from 1983 to 1986 with the VW group. The sole reason was the lack of previous expertise in building cars in Spain and they had somehow to start up with. Also SEAT to be able to use Fiat licences, paid Fiat in cash, shares and royalties (the same way SEAT paid Porsche for the 'System Porsche' engines in the recent years) in order to create its own models that would help to the development of Spain. This is why not every single Fiat model would not make it through to SEAT's range. And whenever it would, the sole interest would be its reception and response from the Spanish people, with further adaptations been made in Spain in mechanicals and trim levels.
 * But not only that, SEAT gradually developed its own techniques and often even altered the bodywork itself: take for example the SEAT 800 the sole 4-door version of the 600 model, a project conducted in Spain with no relevant donor model from Fiat nor a direct relevant model in Fiat's range. Another example is the estate version of the ...SEAT 131 which was built by SEAT and exported from Spain under Fiat badges as the SEAT's licence contract in using Fiat technologies would not give full access to SEAT in the export markets. Another example is the SEAT 133 model as a project completed in Spain and produced from SEAT under the Fiat badge for the export markets. Even more examples can also be found.
 * This was the meaning of the partnership between SEAT and Fiat.
 * Another thing you seem not to be aware of, is that SEAT did create its own models during its partnership with Fiat, take for example the SEAT 1200 Sport, a SEAT exclusive model which never existed in Fiat's range.
 * The meaning of all this is that from the beginning both SEAT and Fiat benefitted from their partnership: SEAT looked forward gradually in creating in-house its own technologies autonomously from its foreign partner and Fiat explored new markets out of Italy gaining profits. They were close but never identical, nor as brands neither as models or ranges.
 * About what you were saying on applying WP Automobile Project rules equally across the board to allow for increased stability for articles everywhere, I didn't see that happening with the Turkish 131. Of course there are plenty of other articles in WP dedicated to cars with differnet badging built not only in countries other than their origin but also launched simultaneously in the same country: Fiat Idea (Lancia Musa) - Fiat Punto (Zastava 10) - Toyota Aygo (Citroen C1, Peugeot 107) - Citroën Berlingo (Peugeot Partner), Dodge Caravan (Chrysler Town & Country) and olts lots of other articles.
 * Really no case at all.(LeonCR (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
 * But the main target is not to make more similar cases, it should be noted that some of these cars you mentioned are not fully same cars exterior wise, they are considered as own model -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 09:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No the point is to have a general rule that applies to all cases and this shall only be the way for WP to maintain its objectivity. Otherwise, WIKIPEDIA RISKS NOT TO BE CREDIBLE. Neither imposing one's or another's beliefs or even the common belief itself over the strictly defined and accurate truth does not help to WP's credibility. Wikipedia's largest problem is the lack of credibility as we all know, therefore I believe every act that risks to put into compromise WP's objectivity and credibility should be avoided without any hesitation.
 * I have read that the SEAT and the Fiat are the same car, as if the nickname for the Fiats are SEATs and vice versa. I have not seen any argument to support this other than the visual factor and the name, as if a car is only body panels and not underpinnings. It makes no sense saying that SEAT 131 and Fiat 131 are the same car just because they share the same name and body panels in spite of knowing they were launched separately produced from different car makers, in different markets under different brand names, different trims and most important different underpinnings. It sounds more like a verbalism from people who ignore the basic status and the principles in the automotive industry.
 * Also it is not rational to have different criteria when we examine one case than another. Why should there be an article for the Zastava 10 separately from the Fiat Punto but this not the case for the SEAT 131 and the Fiat 131? And mind that I picked a limited number of articles that refer to similar cases, only because it was mentioned above that there is supposedly a general habit in WP so that articles over related cases of cars do not stand alone. Of course I opposed, that this trend is actually not universally applied, and ascertained well.. that actually there is not such a thing. Almost every infobox in cars' articles comprise a large number of WP links on related models of cars.
 * To sum it up, the purpose of Wikipedia is to gather knowledge and to be accurate enough. If we merge two articles that should have been split from the beginning because they refer to different cases, we risk to create confusion, to be inaccurate and to compromise the credibility of the WP project.(LeonCR (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
 * You did not read what I wrote, same cars (I think we have this clarified somewehere n WP:CARS which are considered as "same") should be generally in same article. SEAT 131 and Fiat 131 shares similar body panels even the name (131) is same. Zastava 10 is also same car as Punto if I see correct. But Lancia Musa is in my opinion different enough to be separetd from Fiat Idea.-- >Typ932 T&middot;C 11:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I shall explain to you why - under YOUR criteria - there is no reason to merge the articles, since under YOUR thinking the Fiat 131 and the SEAT 131 are NOT the same car. And after this, I shall expect you to be opposed too to the merger.
 * But before that, I also want to say it again that the previously mentioned Zastava 10-Fiat Punto example

was simply just one case proving that in WP the articles covering related cars (or even as you say the same cars) are separate. I can give you more, but this time it will be the Volkswagen Polo Mk1-(Audi 50) example i.e. two cars which are quite relevant (or same according to your thinking), however WP hosts them separately. If you want, I can bring many more examples. Therefore there is no need to apply a non-existent (over related cars) merge rule selectively. The car on the left is the Volkswagen Polo Mk1, while on the right image it is the Audi 50. These two cars have their own separate articles for a longtime in WP, although they are the same as you say cars. The reason they are hosted in different articles is they have been launched from different brands, just like it is with the SEAT-Fiat case. Hoewver, here there has been a merge proposal without even giving time to enrich the article with information specific to the SEAT model.
 * Now take a look to the image SEAT 131 red.jpg. A different front look from the Fiat 131, more close to a combination of the 2-door Fiat with the 4-door SEAT bodywork with a few more cosmetic changes. Under YOUR thinking the SEAT 131 is NOT the same car with the Fiat 131, the same way the Lancia Musa is not the same car with the Fiat Idea. Add that in the case of the SEAT 131, the underpinnings were different. Now you have to admit there is no reason to the merger. I expect you to reply to this.(LeonCR (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
 * As I wrote we dont need necessarily more articles like this, if we have old separated articles It doesnt mean we have to write more those, we are trying to improve these current articles all the time see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_27#Mass_article_merger I dont see so big difference in seat/fiat 131 if the grille is different it isnt enough, it needs more differencies . You are free to add merging tags to those articles you consider as same car, if Polo and Audi are same cars under the criteria of WP:CARS (or if we can get consensus of merging them (and those articles arent too long to be merged)) they should be merged, and finally the merging needs consensus before we can merge them, we need more opinions on this-- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: per Mr.choppers. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the Zastava 10 deserves its own article, but that's another argument than the one we're dealing with here. What I am/was trying to do here is to bring the Fiat/SEAT 131 into the same guidelines as for other articles in the automobile project, thereby furthering the case for integrating the Zastava as well. And the fact that SEAT tailored their versions of the 131 (we're not talking about the 133 or the 850, which are much more separate) for the Spanish market does not suffice to make a separate model. A juggling of different griles really doesn't amount to much. The defining issue for me is that these cars are usually near impossible to differentiate visually, and went through a very similar development history. As for the Audi 50 I'd vote to merge the Polo Mk I contents to that page. But one case at a time.

Which is where I would like to end the argument, with three against two - let's just assemble enough unique material for these two articles on the poor 131 and then there will be justification for dividing them on the basis of size alone. As for the SEAT 132 I would like to reiterate that it should be merged with the Fiat 132.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - there is duplication of the Seat 131 on both pages, and the story would suit being on one page. Warren (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose because:
 * 1. The problem in my opinion is that there is no such rule in Wikipedia according to which even those rebadged models should fit into one single article. Different make, different case, different car model.
 * This is what Wikipedia is for. Gather all knowledge, and doing it so in a way that noone will be making confusion. This should mean accuracy.


 * 2. Merging two car models from individual manufacturers, launched and produced separetely in different markets with their own importance, cars with their own technical specifications and trim levels but most important different cars: the merge proposal IMO neglects the fact that the SEAT 131 originally had a more extended range since the estate version has been a SEAT prepared derivative yes from the FIAT saloon model, but this has not happened inverse. The SEAT 131 estate has been the donor design, so why not merge the other way round? Because this would no make sense merging the original design into its derivative, just the same way it doesn't fit in here with those two articles.
 * What should make sense, would be to erase the 'SEAT 131-SEAT 131 estate' part from the Fiat 131 artcle, ie. a split instead of a merge.


 * 3. After all. if it had existed one rule to merge rebadged car articles, then what would have been the reason to apply this in here?
 * The SEAT 131 had received restylng, so the SEAT 131 is not just a rebadged model, but also a restyled one.


 * And as far as I got it here, we all agree that restyled cars deserve to own their separate articles.


 * 4. Finally in the presumed scenario that the SEAT 131 had never received restylings, such a rule of merging rebadged models should have been applied everywhere. But neither such a rule exists as proved above, nor does it apply to all cases, eg. noone during all these months since the proposal has been made, even bothered to propose a similar merge between the Volkswagen Polo Mk1-Audi 50 articles. Or to give another example, between the Fiat 124 and VAZ-2101 articles. Many other articles in WP are to be under concern too.

The Fiat 124 The VAZ-2101


 * So for all these reasons, I only stand to tell that - as far as I am concerned - still I am not convinced that there is a reason for merging the articles.(LeonCR (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I'm impressed at the length of response, but fails to acknowledge the duplication of information in the two articles and doesn't address my particular point that this leads to confusion. I would like a merged article, and the consensus veers towards supporting such a view, but if left as present, neither the Seat 131 or the Fiat 131#Seat 131 section do justice to the interesting story of this Spanish built version in relation to the international spread of a pretty average Italian saloon car (and I grew up on the back of a "series 1" and "series 2" 131 so I suppose I should declare an interest). And as to restyling, I am not convinced that the Seat 131 was restyled in any way differently from the Fiat 131 apart from some very minor trim and badge variations they look the same to me (the mention of the square light four door version was also used by Fiat on its base two door model so don't understand the points made above - see here for some contemporary photos). Warren (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am impressed too I did not actually receive a direct answer to all my points, however the main issue remains that an encyclopedia (like what WP tends to be) should be accurate enough. When merging two articles, they simply have to handle the same exact subject. This should be the principle. It is a matter of defining things rather than duplicate information: when people refer to the "Fiat 131" they do not always refer to the SEAT 131 or its originally more extended range.
 * Also why merge instead of a split? This would make more sense, completely removing one's info from another's article.
 * Furthermore, as mentioned above, there is no applied WP rule to merge articles with rebadged or even restyled cars. Already given examples of other cases eg. Fiat 124 and VAZ-2101, Volkswagen Polo Mk1 and Audi 50 articles etc.
 * And what about the estate version from SEAT, should this also be considered a SEAT's rebadge from FIAT? Then it seems I must have missed the FIAT 131 estate donor version. Why not also applying an inverse merge of the FIAT estate's info from the FIAT 131 to the SEAT 131 estate article? Last but not least, there has never been produced a 4-door FIAT 131 fascia resembling with the one from the SEAT 131 restyled saloon, am I wrong? Looking forward to your replying to ALL my points above too.(LeonCR (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC))


 * For years cars have sold under various badges and come from various factories, and it is one of the interesting things about the motor trade how badge engineering and manufacturing can appear counter intuitive. I wasn't aware the 131 estate was only made in Spain. Doesn't mean the two 131 pages couldn't be merged. The fact a two door grille design was used on a four door Spanish model doesn't preclude that either. The fact that some other cars have dual pages doesn't mean a merge is impossible either. Global cars are hard to pin down and sometimes a merged article helps that global understanding. The same debate has been quite interesting and is nearing conclusion with the Vauxhall Vivaro/Opel Vivaro/Renault Trafic/Nissan Primastar vans, made in a variety of factories and sold under a range of company names, but to make sense of this global business, a merged article will help the understanding.


 * So to respond to ALL your points as per your request: 1) why not merge the articles together to avoid duplication and errors? Should too much information come to the fore, split them apart again. 2) different trim levels and engines do not make a different car. The estate point is interesting, but doesn't mean it can't sit within a Fiat 131 page. 3) Your definition of restyled is perhaps different to mine. Use of the parts bin to make slightly different local models is not restyling in my book. And restyled cars do not always merit a new article, some living quite happily after a facelift on the same page. 4) Some articles are split despite being merely badge engineered version - some perhaps deserve their own page due to their Notability, some due to editing mistakes previously and a simple merge would fix things up nicely. So perhaps neither of us has particularly strong arguments but I still contend that two half baked articles on the Seat 131 do it no favours, and properly edited and merged section within the Fiat 131 page would do the Spanish model some justice. Warren (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)