Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chevrolet Vega: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:25, 15 December 2011 editWritegeist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,187 edits →Liposuction: thank you BB← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:26, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,098 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(46 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Automobiles|importance=high}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 2 |counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Chevrolet Vega/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Chevrolet Vega/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }}
{{not a forum}}
{{WikiProject Automobiles|class=C|importance=high|attention= |portal= |auto= }}
{{Trains portal/DYK date|February 22, 2010}}

== RFC - which section next? ==

So which section shall we approach next? "Reception" and "Awards"? If so then go to ], otherwise make your suggestion. The awards & reception sections obviously aren't going to be as straightforward and quick as the lead was so perhaps it would pay to spend some time on it. --] (]) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

:Okay, obviously this isn't catching on quite like "let's revamp the lead!" did. How about this? '''How should the article be organized?''' Currently it leads with in-depth technical information and details on the manufacturing process, followed by a bit of history on the genesis of the project, a brief detour into criticism ("Vega versus competitors" and "Awards"), then the technical problems, the larger criticism section, and finally a section on modified Vega versions.
:This may be my bias as a reporter showing through, but I'd tend to lead with a narrative history of the car, pulling together the disparate sections on and references to its creation, initial sales, developing problems, decline and finally cancellation, before going into exhaustive detail on its engine block, assembly process and contemporary reviews. As it stands some of that isn't in the article at all, most notably actual coverage of its cancellation by Chevy - the only reference to the line being terminated is in the lead. ] (]) 13:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

::That's a pretty good idea. Would you also like to comment on the ] page, or are you suggesting we abandon that in favour of a wider change? --] (]) 15:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
::: It seems to have already been abandoned; that's why I decided to go ahead and post this. But in general, yeah, I'd think it's more important to hammer out what sections we should have and where they should go, before getting into the nitty-gritty of writing each one.] (]) 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

== Reception section ==

This vast section outweighs all others. I think that's inappropriate (WP:WEIGHT). If other editors are in agreement, let's prune it. ] (]) 06:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
:Please do with my blessing. We decided a while back to do this in the big RFC but then lost momentum after we "won". --] (]) 07:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
::OK, see what you think. I've gone over the Praise and Criticism subsections; trimmed them back. Feel free to revert if you don't like what I've done! ] (]) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
::::At one point I had added several citations from books as well. I'll dig them up again and add a few. The section can still probably be trimmed.] (]) 10:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
:::I just got to this page but i checkt out your edits, its looking a lot better. Good work.] (]) 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Good work. I took it a bit further by simplifying the headings and re-ordering slightly. --] (]) 07:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Great. I like. I'm a little concerned at the loss of most of the contemporaneous specialist-press criticisms and wonder if one or two of those paragraphs can be reinstated without overly weighting the section? ] (]) 19:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

== any consumer tests on engine durability after the "fixes" ==

I had a 74 Vega - I remember the problem with having to get a kit to adjust for the body flexing so the car could be aligned properly after so many miles -

My car started gulping oil like crazy after about 50K miles -

I would love to know how these engines that had the "fixes" on them held up over time - I read of the engine testing for 60K - but I expect a car to last way longer than 60K if I take care of it.

My car also had the rusting around the back hatch -

The car did have many positive points, I did like driving it, except for the very hot black interior - which I hate on a car.

Gas mileage did not really seem better though than what my I got using my moms 66 Chrysler Newport, with the 383 2 barrel - at least, on the highway. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== ] merger ==

I propose that ] is merged into this article. A low volume model, whose main difference is the engine, doesn't warrant a separate article and could easily be covered (in fact mostly is already covered) within this article. --] (]) 18:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:Im not sure how long will this article grow if merged? this is already quite long --<span style="font:bold 11px Kristen ITC;padding:0 3px 0 4px">>]</span> <sup>]&middot;]</sup> 19:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
::Good point, but there is already quite a bit of duplication so it probably wouldn't grow too much, especially if we took the opportunity to reduce some of the guff that is already there (in both articles). --] (]) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Good idea. I agree there's beaucoup guff that could be jettisoned. ] (]) 20:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
::::No...There was a separate Cosworth Vega section with infobox in the Vega article (January 2011) and that article was judged too large. As per discussion I trimmed the article including making the Cosworth section a separate article. So now you want to increase the size of the Vega article again? There is an exclusive history of this vehicle that warrant a separate article. Moving it back again would mean increasing the size of the Vega article (again) or worse still by reducing it, there by leaving out the relatively unknown history and gestation of this limited production vehicle. (] (]))
:::::(ec) Sorry to say I don't remember any discussion that delegated you in particular ("I was told to...", as you said in your post before you changed it just now) to trim the article (diffs would help here). Also I don't remember any discussion about making the Cosworth bit a separate article - diffs would help here too, please. Please don't take offense. All I'm saying is I don't remember; I don't deny the discussions you cite took place, but I can't find them in the talk page history. Please direct me to them. ] (]) 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::You weren't involved in the discussion when the Vega article was much larger, I created the Cosworth Vega article in January 2011.
:::::There was a separate Cosworth Vega section with infobox in the Vega article (January 2011) and that article was judged too large. As per discussion I trimmed the article including making the Cosworth section a separate article. So now you want to increase the size of the Vega article again? There is an exclusive history of the Cosworth Vega that warrant a separate article. Moving it back again would mean increasing the size of the Vega article (again) or worse still by reducing the Cosworth text, there by leaving out the relatively unknown history and gestation of this limited production vehicle. (] (]))
::::::I already checked the Jan 2011 history. I didn't see discussion about making the Cosworth section a separate article. Please help by providing diffs. Thank you. Also please datestamp your posts. ] (]) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::There was a lengthy discussion on trimming the size of the Vega article. There were suggestions on which sections should be eliminated as well. The Cosworth Vega section/infobox was one of the larger sections in the article. Instead of deleting text and images, a new article was made, actually several new articles were made. The Cosworth Vega warrants a separate article anyway. (It wasn't an engine option, it was a separate model. (] (]) 22:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC))
::::::::Thank you. Again I ask you please to provide a diff showing where the removal of the Cosworth section was discussed. As I already told you, I can't find it. ] (]) 22:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::It goes back a year. I remember the discussion was not in the Vega talk page but WikiProject Automobiles (] (]) 22:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC))
::::::::::So you're saying now that the removal of the Cosworth was not discussed on the article talk page? Please provide diffs for the discussion at WikiProject Automobiles. Thank you. ] (]) 22:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
I remember pretty much everybody blasting Bob for making the Vega article too long and too detailed. After much arguing from both sides it was trimmed back substantially. Regardless, let's discuss the two articles on their merits. The Cosworth Vega was sufficiently different from the main Vega - true, the main difference was the engine but that totally changed both the power and the handling of the car. And for an American car it was truly different from the usual pattern of putting in the biggest lump of cast iron available. The Cosworth article has enough information to stand on its own - their is some duplication of the main article but it provides needed context and is not excessive. Whereas the main Vega article is already rather large - even after the Cosworth information is trimmed of duplication it will add more length than we really want. I recommend that we leave them as separate articles. <span style="border:1px solid blue;color:blue">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 22:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

::Here is a section relating to the size of the article and deletions-
Vegavairbob, what are your thoughts on moving most of the powertrain information to a separate article, such as GM 2300 engine? This would go a long way in reducing the length. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has been reduced a total of 50k bytes - from 128k bytes to 78k bytes. I reduced the article 8k bytes (equal to the size of the Dura-Built 140 and Aluminum engine block sections) from 86k bytes to 78k bytes trimming sections without deleting entire additional sections. Trimmed were the Design, Engine, Cosworth Twin-Cam, DeLorean and Criticism sections and the large production/changes chart was replaced with a much smaller chart. The largest section, Reception was already deleted as was the large Vega variants section, and I just deleted the Stillborn Engine section (4k bytes) including the Wankel since it was never produced, later planned for the Monza, and is (still) featured in the shorter Monza article. Engine section should remain as unlike other GM engines (excluding Corvair) the 140 engine was designed for, and associated with one car - the subject of the article, is the car's notable feature, and the Engine section (including the aluminum block development and Dura-built 140 Durabilty run) is part of the history of only this car, and balances the article's neutality with the Criticism engine subsection. If an engine is only associated with a particular car it should be encompassed in the car article, not just a mention with a link to an engine article. In such cases the seperate engine article should be considered subordinate, a reference. Vegavairbob (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed the article further by removing Cosworth Vega section and infobox (added one image of Cosworth and the engine paragraph to Engines) Chevrolet Cosworth Vega a new seperate article.Vegavairbob (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
While I'd agree a lot of detail on it shouldn't stay in, does anyone else think at least a mention of engine proposals should stay in? IMO, something about GM's mooted direction (& a comparison to where GM actually went) merits inclusion: so, mention (if not extensive detail) of the Wankel & Z32 (? aluminum V8) deserves inclusion. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A large Wamkel section with images is in the Chevrolet Monza article as it was (in the final hour) planned for that car. It was included here as well but article was reduced from 128k bytes to 73k bytes by trimming most sections and deleting three. A paragraph on the aluminum V8 prototype is in the last section of the article. I agree on a smaller section (paragraph) on the Wankel added back. Vegavairbob (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wankel sub-section added back (a smaller version-4k bytes)Vegavairbob (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thx. Not only preserving the info, I learned something: it was a 206ci. (!) :D Would that have been a hot rod Vega! (And GM didn't build it... :( :( ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, and Vegavairbob I'm quite sorry if I offended you. You have clearly added a lot of valuable content to a lot of pages. While I stand by my statement that you are rather single-minded (nothing wrong with that!), I also said "it seems we are all Vegavairbob's greatest defenders, as everyone finds something interesting everywhere." I like your work, but what I like the most is your willingness to cooperate and even prune to the point that the rest of us are beginning to ask you to put stuff back in. I think splitting off the Cosworth Vega was the best way to make this page of a reasonable size (interesting in light of current merger-madness), but I don't see a lot more trimming being at all necessary. Now go help me write an article on the Talbot-Lago T150, one is sorely needed! ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:Thank you Stepho and Barnstarbob. So there was no discussion on the article talk page. Neither, AFAICT, was the move discussed at WikiProject Automobiles. The move was done by Vegavairbob/Barnstarbob without discussion - a ''fait accompli''. He then informed the project and somebody agreed with the move. Am I correct? ] (]) 23:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

::Well, considering the policy ] and that no-one complained for a year, I'd say whether or not he did it on his own or under orders is irrelevant to the current discussion. Shall we get bogged down in this side discussion or shall we discuss the issue at hand? <span style="border:1px solid blue;color:blue">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 23:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
::::'''Support''' merge. Agreed, Barnstarbob has every right to be BOLD. However, I understood him to be saying that the split was discussed, and that it was done per this discussion. As I had no memory of the discussion, and couldn't find it by searching the history, I asked to be directed to it for clarification. As it turns out, the reason I couldn't find the discussion is that it's non-existant. Enough said. ] (]) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

::'''Support''' merger as per original poster. <small>] (] • ])</small> 23:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

::: There was a lengthy discussion on trimming the Vega article in Wikiprojects Automobiles January 2011 - a section of it shown above, The Cosworth Vega article was made in response to the Vega article being too large and by putting the Cosworth article or part of it back in the main Vega article defeats the purpose of the previous discussion, thereby increasing the size of the Vega article..again. When I made the separate Cosworth article, only a small paragraph and photo was retained for the Engines section of the Vega article, listing the Cosworth engine along with the 140 engine and the 140 Dura-Built engine as well as one '76 Cosworth Vega photo in Model year changes. The Cosworth Vega is a totally separate model with its own history- the separate article is appropriate. I haven't seen a valid reason for deleting the article. (] (]) 23:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

::::(1) The Cosworth Vega is another Vega model, not a totally separate one. (2) I believe there is scope in both articles for improvement by considerable pruning, among other things. (3) It's arguable that the DeLorean section belongs in the DeLorean BLP. (4) If the Cosworth Vega were as significant as, say, the Ford Sierra RS Cosworth it might merit a solus article. It isn't. It doesn't. ] (]) 01:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::The Cosworth base price was double a Vega Hatchback. That alone proves its not just another Vega model. It has a hand-built, signed, all-aluminum twin-cam engine. 5000 engines and only 3508 numbered cars where built. It's NOT just another Vega model. At the risk of sounding redundant, The separate article is appropriate. Aluminum block section and gallery deleted from Cosworth article. (Aluminum block section already in Vega article)
::::::Is it a Chevrolet Uranus? A Chevrolet Pluto? A Chevrolet Betelgeuse? A Chevrolet Pollux? No, it's a Chevrolet Vega. Ergo, a Vega model. ] (]) 02:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Listen, you're missing the point. It's a different version of the car. Is a Shelby Mustang different than a Mustang? Is a Shelby Daytona a different Daytona? Is a Roush Mustang a different Mustang? Yes they are different...and a Cosworth Vega is a different Vega. A ZR1 Corvette is twice the price of a Corvette. A Cosworth Vega was twice the price of a Vega. Now, does the ZR1 Corvette have a separate article on Misplaced Pages? Yes. Why? Because it's a different ''version'' of the Corvette (not just an option) that's substantially different and twice the price, just as is the Vega and the Cosworth Vega. Just in case there's a new requirement I didn't know about for Misplaced Pages inclusion... its relevance or historical significance, read the review section. With all due respect, if I need an opinion, I'll go with the likes ''Car and Driver'' and ''Road Test'' magazines. ''C&D'' quote- "We're talking historical significance here." ''RT'' quote- "The Cosworth is American, and a collector's item, and it came close, damn close to winning the whole thing." Sounds pretty significant to me... ] (]) 03:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC))
::::::::<s>No wonder you piss people off.</s> Typically, you have changed your above post about eighteen times. Kindly desist from this devious behaviour. If you wish to change what you have written, strike it out and add your amendment(s). You've been here long enough to have a basic grasp of Misplaced Pages etiquette. ] (]) 06:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC) ] (]) 15:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC) ] (]) 07:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::Please note that this is a family rated website and swearing is not allowed. I have replaced the offending word with 'p***' but have otherwise left your comments alone. <span style="border:1px solid blue;color:blue">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 12:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I have replaced your swear word for a second time. Feel free to report me. I will continue to replace it until explicitly told not to by an administrator. Swearing is not appropriate on this page. please note that I have taken care to not change the meaning of your post. <span style="border:1px solid blue;color:blue">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 22:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Replaced your swear word for a third time. I'll take it as good faith that you thought strike-through would be acceptable but as long as the word is still visible it must be changed. Note: I am still taking care to not alter the meaning of your comment. <span style="border:1px solid blue;color:blue">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 09:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I am surprised at you taking this stance. If you read the guidance at ] (which is the policy that covers incivility on talk pages) you will see that contributors are directed to either remove or strike out their uncivil comments (section ]). Nowhere does it say that others should do this. As for the phrase "piss people off" it isn't the worst profanity there is. If you then you will find that there are 7,909 hits which have not been redacted by other editors. --] (]) 09:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I changed it the smallest amount and bent over backwards to leave obvious pointers to the original text. But I will desist since it is distracting from the main discussion. <span style="border:1px solid blue;color:blue">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 11:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
WP policies for articles are:
#Is it notable? in this case the Cosworth Vega is sufficiently different from the rest of the Vega range and is supported by references saying that it is something special. Arguing whether it is a model in its own right or just part of the Vega range is besides the point.
#Is there enough material to stand alone? This is what I normally call the weight test. Obviously there is enough. Potentially it could be merged into another article if it was small but the Vega article is already big enough (and I don't believe it would be made better by trimming). The overlap between the two articles isn't all that much either.
#Common sense. Well, common sense apparently isn't all that common :) Generally, I prefer merging whenever possible and reasonable. However, in this case the Cosworth article is quite happy as it is and merging will overload the Vega article. <span style="border:1px solid blue;color:blue">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 04:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Support''', as usual. --] 07:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Strong oppose''', for reasons given above. <span style="border:1px solid blue;color:blue">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 12:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Strong Support''', because the subject matter doesn't warrant two articles. There is a difference between expounding on trivia and vetting information to include what is justly relevant &mdash; outside the miopic realm of the fan. The article is already inflated beyond the car's significance or encylopedic merit... and that includes a mild engine variant, however grandly marketed or grandly perceived by the devotee. ] (]) 16:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

:The multiple magazines quoted seem to really like its handling - a major benefit of a light alloy engine. One of them even said it was much better than versions with a V6 or V8 due to the handling. Some magazines compared it favourably with specific well-liked European sports cars. I agree that the language used in the article is a bit gushy. But the information itself is still good and the language style can be toned down without destroying the information. If this was moved to the main Vega article then something would have to be deleted to make room in the already long article. As said above, specific ''top end'' models of other cars have had their own articles (as long as there was enough unique information about that car). I really don't see why this article is considered so harmful. <span style="border:1px solid blue;color:blue">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 22:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Your consice summation here makes my point exactly; there's no reason a single sentence with these points and a few references could not suffice to cover the topic more than adequately.] (]) 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::??? That would have to be one long sentence to cover the details in this article - especially the development of the engine, which I gather is unique to this vehicle. I found this article to be a fascinating read - even if it is a bit gushy. I really love to hear about the development of mechanical things, to hear about how it came about. That's what gives me inspiration. Even the bit about the engine's ultimate failure to survive cylinder wear provides a lesson to be learnt. Condensing this entire article down to a single sentence would void it of any inspiration. <span style="border:1px solid blue;color:blue">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 15:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to refrain from editing either article until this discussion is resolved. ] (]) 07:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Reluctant support''' - I feel that poor, long-suffering Barnstarbob, already much abused, shouldn't have had to go through the effort of splitting up the Vega article to begin with. Sure, he wasn't always the most cooperative of editors, but he has incrementally become more accommodating, more so than I would ever expect of anyone after such a barrage of criticism. Perhaps Bob and a randomly selected group of uninvolved admins could agree on a layout for the Vega and its various versions, and the rest of us (including me) would then agree to edit constructively within these parameters? Nonetheless, the question of whether an article must be split when it reaches a certain size is certainly interesting. ]&nbsp;(]) 08:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Oppose Merger''' - Per Stepho's arguments. ] (]) 15:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob, would you be willing to hold off editing either article and allow them to remain stable until this discussion is resolved? ] (]) 15:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' This is exactly the kind of article we shouldn't be merging. It has a huge amount of non duplicate content and can't possibly fit in the parent article. This information is not something only a fan would be interested in, it is noteworthy and well referenced content that if lost would be a real blow to our encyclopedia. I can't for the life of me understand why people think that informative encyclopedic text should be deleted based on some idea about how certain models are too similar to warrant separate articles. This isn't trivia and ]. --] 15:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I think it has enough nondublicate content and it would make the main article too long --<span style="font:bold 11px Kristen ITC;padding:0 3px 0 4px">>]</span> <sup>]&middot;]</sup> 17:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


== Merger proposal ==
The dear old "WP isn't paper" warhorse too often gets dragged out to defend serious guffbloat. The Vega articles are both overblown, not least because much of the content is cringe-makingly overwritten, tending towards gush and breathlessness, and reading too often like fanboy pieces. (Maybe because they're lifted wholesale from sources, or maybe that's the way the source material was pumped up as WP text. Who knows? There's hardly an external link in sight; we can't check the sources.) Liposuction is worth serious consideration, IMO; and perhaps a merged article ''wouldn't'' be overly long. That aside, does the C Vega seriously merit solus status? For a car with sporting pretensions it's my understanding that it was surprisingly underpowered and slow in the stoplight drags (the litmus test at the time), although apparently it handled well, plus (or rather another minus) it was also vastly overpriced, and a dismal failure in the marketplace - hardly comparable to a ZO6 (somebody raised that corker earlier). I see the CV as another Vega model, albeit a gussied one; generously treated to puffery by obliging hacks on American car mags, and studiously ignored by Joe Public. Supposing the articles ''could'' be merged without growing overly long: why not? ] (]) 20:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
{{Archive top|result=There is no consensus on the proposal to merge ] with ] and ]. — ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 18:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)|status=none}}
:Excellent post! This pair of articles have become little more than one author's personal fan page. Together they could make one decent article with some work - after all there are a lot of references which discuss the Vega and its shameful legacy in automotive history. --] (]) 20:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I think this is pretty self-explanatory. The Astre was simply a rebadged Vega, while the Monza was basically a mildly-restyled Vega with a new name--and initially just a trim level of the Vega. Best to avoid duplicity. ] (]) 04:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
::Writegeist, if you don't like how the articles are written you can fix them, although I can sympathize with the difficulty you might have working with Bob, but that isn't a reason to merge. The fact is there has been significant coverage of the Cosworth Vega in sources that we generally consider to be reliable, enough to write a non trivial encyclopedia article. Your appraisal of the Cosworth Vega's failure, if covered in reliable sources, should only serve to expand the current article and should not be used as a reason for a content losing merge. As for your question, yes, if the articles could fit on one page without losing a quality content, that would be fine by me. --] 21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Thank you as always for the well-considered response Daniel. ] (]) 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC) * '''Oppose''' While I agree with what Jgera says about the Astre and Monza, there's a lot of model-specific detail in all three articles and merging would produce an article that's too long and clunky (contra the merge guidlines). ] (]) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
* '''Split''' I support the merge of the Astre into the Vega article; but I oppose the Monza merge. ] (]) 17:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
* '''Split''' I also support the merge of the Astre into the Vega article; but I oppose the Monza merge. <small>] (] • ])</small> 08:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I feel there is little to no need to merge these articles. They've been fine on their own without any problems, and if we're going to merge articles based off of other vehicles, we might as well just merge every single Pontiac model since 1980, almost all of which have a twin. I don't think any merging is necessary. ] (]) 21:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
* '''Support''' the merger of the Astre into the Vega article. These are essentially identical vehicles except for the rebadging and their marketing campaigns. Once the redundant material is removed, the single article will not be too long or clunky. On the other hand, the Monza is second-generation of the Vega platform with similar badge-engineered equivalents (1st-gen Pontiac Sunbird, 1st-gen Buick Skyhawk, and 2nd-gen Oldsmobile Starfire) that should be merged into one article. Thanks! ] (]) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' The Astre started as a Canadian-market variant and was only marketed in the US later. Also, as GG360 stated, Pontiac was basically a badge-engineered brand from 1982 onward, with its only truly unique offering in this country being a badge-engineered Holden marketed here as the GTO. ] (]) 01:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' The Chevrolet Monza was always marketed as a distinct nameplate and always treated as a separate model by Chevrolet. The fact that mechanical components were shared extensively between Vega and Monza does not make the car a subseries of Vega by default. ] (])] (]) 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per ], ], and so many others. ---------] (]) 12:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::Comment: I would like to clarify and modify my response from earlier this year. The proposed merger would cover the entire platform and models. However, it seems there could be several approaches and thus the differences in splitting or merging. I think the following suggestion is most "supportable":
::* There are currently separate articles for the Chevrolet Vega and the ]. If the guidelines that have been established for articles related to rebadged versions of cars, the two WP articles about the Vega and Astre twins should be merged into one article. There does not seem to be any historic, geographic, or marketing segment significance to keep two articles about these identical cars. The resulting merged Vega/Astre article would not be long or unwieldily.
::This automobile platform subsequently evolved into the ] and was also used for three more versions (1st-generation ], 1st-generation ], and 2nd-generation ]). These have separate articles. Thanks! ] (]) 01:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


*'''Split''' as per VX1NG and OSX. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Barnstarbob, would you be willing to hold off editing either article for a couple of days to give me a chance to see if I can successfully trim off their fat? ] (]) 00:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Though see no reason why the ] can't be merged into this. ]&nbsp;(]) 21:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


*'''Split''' as per ], ] and ] and I agree with ] about ] being merged into here and I support the merge of ] because it was a twin to the Vega but oppose the merge of the ] because it was a different car despite being mechanically related to the Vega. As ] said the Monza had its own siblings which were the first gen ], the first gen ] and second gen ], all of which have separate articles. There's no reason in my mind to merge Chevrolet Monza into Chevrolet Vega.--] (]) 22:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
== Liposuction ==


::Comment: I see no reason why we can't merge ] and ] into the main Vega article and merge first gen ], first gen ] and second gen ] into the ] article. With the removal of any redundant information, the resulting articles shouldn't be too long to read comfortably.--] (]) 11:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I've trimmed a lot from the Vega article (as you can see from the relative sizes), including detail on the rebadged variants (which have their own articles) and the Cosworth (has its own article at present). Sorry I didn't trawl through BSbob's recent succession of edits, I just couldn't be arsed - they're usually miniscule incremental changes and self-corrections; I hope these are ditto, i.e. minor changes that he can easily add back in. Sorry if I undid anything important. The praise and criticism sections could both be halved, but I haven't done that yet. More fat can probably be trimmed. If anyone objects to what I've done, they're welcome to revert. Basically I just wanted to demonstrate just how unnecessarily bloated the article had become. ] (]) 05:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom||status=}}
:Good start, well done. --] (]) 08:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks Biker. I think we can pull more out... ] (])
:::Well, BSbob has started edit-warring the changes, re-adding detail material I'd deleted from the "rebadged variants" section (I'd added directs at the head of the section, per normal practice, to the model-specific pages where the material belongs); also adding photographs of rebadged variants; also a production table for them -- all inappropriate in this article on the Vega but perfectly suited to the model-specific articles. He has also re-added an overly weighty verbatim DeLorean quote which I had reduced to DeL's summary; etc. This despite my edit summary requesting BSbob to discuss here instead of reverting. I have stopped editing, otherwise BSbob will find himself at 3rr on more than one front and I don't want to see him banned again. But I'm somewhat at a loss as to how to move forward now in the face of what looks like wilful unreason. Help! ] (]) 20:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Given his current trajectory, I am afraid that another ban might be the only way to bring him back down to earth.] (]) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Agreed. He's back to his old ways - owning the article. --] (]) 21:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Many thanks for stepping in. ] (]) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


== Pronunciation == == Pic ==


Looks like a 1973 in picture..just sayin ] (]) 14:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I have been pronouncing this "Vayga" for 40 years. I suppose in retrospect that that would be a quasi-Spanish way to say it.<br />
No one in my family owned one, so that pronunciation comes from television advertisements (?) presumably.<br />
So, is "Vayga" correct?<br /><br />
I personally pronounce the star ] "Vayga", like the car, but according to my dictionary, the star is "Veega".<br />
] (]) 16:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC) (Canada)

Latest revision as of 13:26, 10 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chevrolet Vega article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chevrolet Vega. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chevrolet Vega at the Reference desk.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAutomobiles High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal

NO ACTION There is no consensus on the proposal to merge Chevrolet Vega with Pontiac Astre and Chevrolet Monza. — WILDSTAR 18:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think this is pretty self-explanatory. The Astre was simply a rebadged Vega, while the Monza was basically a mildly-restyled Vega with a new name--and initially just a trim level of the Vega. Best to avoid duplicity. Jgera5 (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose While I agree with what Jgera says about the Astre and Monza, there's a lot of model-specific detail in all three articles and merging would produce an article that's too long and clunky (contra the merge guidlines). Writegeist (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Split I support the merge of the Astre into the Vega article; but I oppose the Monza merge. VX1NG (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Split I also support the merge of the Astre into the Vega article; but I oppose the Monza merge. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel there is little to no need to merge these articles. They've been fine on their own without any problems, and if we're going to merge articles based off of other vehicles, we might as well just merge every single Pontiac model since 1980, almost all of which have a twin. I don't think any merging is necessary. GG360 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the merger of the Astre into the Vega article. These are essentially identical vehicles except for the rebadging and their marketing campaigns. Once the redundant material is removed, the single article will not be too long or clunky. On the other hand, the Monza is second-generation of the Vega platform with similar badge-engineered equivalents (1st-gen Pontiac Sunbird, 1st-gen Buick Skyhawk, and 2nd-gen Oldsmobile Starfire) that should be merged into one article. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Astre started as a Canadian-market variant and was only marketed in the US later. Also, as GG360 stated, Pontiac was basically a badge-engineered brand from 1982 onward, with its only truly unique offering in this country being a badge-engineered Holden marketed here as the GTO. Trolleychai (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Chevrolet Monza was always marketed as a distinct nameplate and always treated as a separate model by Chevrolet. The fact that mechanical components were shared extensively between Vega and Monza does not make the car a subseries of Vega by default. User:Scott cragstan (talk)Scott cragstan (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:GG360, User:Trolleychai, and so many others. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I would like to clarify and modify my response from earlier this year. The proposed merger would cover the entire platform and models. However, it seems there could be several approaches and thus the differences in splitting or merging. I think the following suggestion is most "supportable":
  • There are currently separate articles for the Chevrolet Vega and the Pontiac Astre. If the guidelines that have been established for articles related to rebadged versions of cars, the two WP articles about the Vega and Astre twins should be merged into one article. There does not seem to be any historic, geographic, or marketing segment significance to keep two articles about these identical cars. The resulting merged Vega/Astre article would not be long or unwieldily.
This automobile platform subsequently evolved into the Chevrolet Monza and was also used for three more versions (1st-generation Pontiac Sunbird, 1st-generation Buick Skyhawk, and 2nd-generation Oldsmobile Starfire). These have separate articles. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I see no reason why we can't merge Pontiac Astre and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega into the main Vega article and merge first gen Pontiac Sunbird, first gen Buick Skyhawk and second gen Oldsmobile Starfire into the Chevrolet Monza article. With the removal of any redundant information, the resulting articles shouldn't be too long to read comfortably.--Kevjgav (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pic

Looks like a 1973 in picture..just sayin 2600:387:F:4630:0:0:0:3 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories: