Talk:Mitsubishi Magna

Accuracy Problems

There are a number of accuracy problems with this article and the sections in dispute read as if they were written by a Ford/Holden fan.

Reliability Issues
Reliability was an issue with automatic transaxles in the TM and TN Carby models. There were no issues with any TN EFI or transaxles form the TP onwards.

As for engine troubles, these were few and far between and certainly no more than the EA-EL Falcon. Falcons cracked heads, as did the Magna (in some cases).

Market Share
Unfortunately your The Magna sold well for three years after introduction, but soon found its market share eroded by sophisticated offerings from competitors like Ford Australia and GMH-Holden Australia.' is pure POV. The EA Falcon and VN Commodore (introduced three years after Magna TM) were far from sophisticated for their time. If you research all three cars, the Magna was far more sophisticated than the other two (as also reported by the motoring press).

As for it's market share being eroded, again incorrect, according to motoring journals in the day the Magna took sales from Falcon, Commodore, Telstar, 626, Camira and others as it created "a segment of it's own". The Magna sold fairly well up until the TL facelift in 2003 - Cartman02au 23:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a fan of mitsubishi's in general i think the comments that the Diamante/Magna's tend to be unreliable and have poor resale is fair comment. In New Zealand you can buy a 2001-2002 model car with good milage for around $5000 as compared to a similar commodore/falcon model for $20,000 or so. All of the australian built models rust like its going out of fashion, and the japanese and australian models tend to blow a lot of blue smoke. 202.175.135.139 02:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree based upon my experience with them (and that of many respected motoring journalists). The earlier Magnas had issues, but the later ones and those with V6s in particular were very reliable. Rust didn't seem to be an issue after the first generation (although in NZ it could be a different case as they spend time at sea on a ship). Many speculate that the poor resale is caused by it's reputation (thanks to earlier models) and the fact Mitsubishi cut prices so often it wasn't funny - Cartman02au 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

380 Information

"Production of the Mitsubishi 380, a car based loosely on the US production model Galant with extensive re-engineering for Australian conditions"

The 380 was not loosely based on the Galant. It was entirely based on the Galant and this has been confirmed by MMAL in Wheels Magazine. I have edited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaboy12 (talk • contribs) 06:32, August 31, 2006

Three automakers?

"Prior to the Magna, Mitsubishi, as one of Australia's three automakers, did not field a large family car..." In 1984/85 (prior to the Magna), there were five auto makers in Australia (GM-H, Ford, Mitsubishi, Toyota and Nissan) - so I'm not sure what is meant here. Should the article be corrected to "five automakers" or, perhaps better still, to "...as one of Australia's three automakers that did not field..."? MurfleMan (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Sigma was almost the same size as the Magna. And Volvo also made cars in Australia until 1987.123.3.22.185 (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Seems like there was a bit of an edit war over the lead image. Personally, I don't have a problem which model is shown but I think the white TP TE is a much nicer picture, while the blue TE TP fades into the cluttered background. Comments? Stepho talk 23:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:VRXfront.jpg

TJ model

A TJ model was also among the images flipped through. If nobody objects by tomorrow then I will put the TE model in the lead. Stepho talk 00:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There were no objections, so I restored the TE image. Stepho talk 22:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, after 3 days of no reply comments at all, as soon as I change the image someone else decides to change it again. Come on guys, discuss first before edit warring!

Anyway, the new image is the blue TM at right. The contributing anonymous editor thinks the TE image is "an unglamorous and irrelevant photo" and wants the first generation. I'm not sure what unglamorous and irrelevant is supposed to mean. The TE photo is in focus, no distracting background and clearly shows the shape of the car. Whereas the TM image has a cluttered and distracting background. There is no official WP preference for any given generation, so whether it is the TE, TP, TM or TJ model is irrelevant - all four are representative and easily recognised. I'll wait another 24 hours - if no objections then I'll change it back to the TE with the non-distracting background. Stepho talk 22:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There were no objections, so I restored the TE image (again). Please, if you object then enter the discussion instead of edit warring. Stepho talk 23:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:1991 Mitsubishi Magna (TP) SE sedan (2011-01-30).jpg

TP model, full frontal

Yet another lead image has been put in the article, even though it's been contentious over the last few weeks and after repeated calls for discussion. This time it is a white TP. The image is of reasonable quality but it is almost completely from the front. A 3/4 view is best, as shown by the white TE image. As always, I'll give it 24 hours and restore the TE image if no-one objects on this talk page. Am I missing something? Is the white TE image hideous in some way that I can't see? Stepho talk 07:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, I don't support the TP "full frontal" image either. It seems our Canberran friend has a new alias. Logging in at work or a WiFi hotspot does not make you a new person MundusEditus. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this page to my watchlist, in case this nonsense continues. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awww... finally found the infamous TALK page about this. Stepho and Mr Choppers apologies for not responding here first, but I did not know how to get to it and reply to your invitation in the View History comments. As much as OSX wishes to accuse people of being others, the whole issue is caused by his desire to maintain his white TE Magna pic as the lead photo. Photography at the cost of historical relevance. Ironically, the initial photos to replace his TE Magna were his own anyway (and he removed them from Wikimedia Commons to avoid them being used, compromising the article further - see whole View History of his joint war edit). Anyway, if relying on WP:CARPIX (as now Bahooka seems to be doing for OSX?) the white TE model pic being opposed: is digitally altered at the front; its exact model variant cannot be established (Executive? Advance? Altera?); it bears licence plates. OSX opposed to the above TJ model which meets WP:CARPIX in full without valid reason and this is why I hazard speculating it is only because he wants his own photo up first? (again, the alternatives included his other work too). The TE Magna pic is also opposed because the TE is of least relevance to the history of the Mitsubishi Magna. Flicking through Australian automotive (Wheels, Motor, ex Car News) media, the pictures consistently used is that of the 1st series Magna - e.g. e.g. http://www.drive.com.au/motor-feature/a-salute-to-australias-10-most-important-cars-20120119-1q7ik.html. As another example, the Australian National Motor Museum, Birdwood exhibits the TM Magna (see https://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/9543542653/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/9543551821/in/photostream/) and not some unknown TE Magna; they otherwise also exhibit KE Verada (see https://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/9543578783/in/photostream/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/9546350234/in/photostream/). Why? Because the TM series was the catalyst to this iconic Australia car, and the KE was the first Australian car exported to the US. The TE has no representative value or importance historically and photographically because of the above defects. In opposing the TJ model, OSX claimed it is a rare model, which isn't true - the VR-X model is the longest serving in the history of Magna; and then he claimed the 1st series is irrelevant because most have been crushed (see View History comments again)... not really valid criteria is it? Which is why having his digitally modified pic of the TE is affronting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.115 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that OSX is happy to have anyone's photo in the lead, so assuming ill will there is probably incorrect. As for the generations, I dunno, we can't quite decide which one is more important. As for the TJ with the silly wheels, it is an extremely small picture and not quite useful. The silver blue TP would get my vote. OSX, what are the digital alterations to the TE? Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The silver blue TP has incorrect hubcaps, has overexposure problems, and as Stepho says, it fades into the cluttered background. The white TE has had basic editing done to adjust colour levels, etc, plus I edited out a dent (apparently editing out the dent made the photo unrealistic.. sigh). OSX (talk • contributions) 22:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone join in? The perfect picture does not exist. Today I quite like these two, though, especially the first of them. They’re both reasonably good and clear. Yes, I know they're both by the same guy: I think he lives in Australia.

The two pictures between which people are arguing appear, to me, to be distorted because the photographer stood too close or two far away. If you twist the zoom to its full extent in either direction that’s what happens. As for the height from which you photograph the car, if you get too close to the ground you get the slug’s eye view. Or at least the view from the dachshunds. That’s fine for slugs and dachshunds, and by doing this even the most unpretentious car can get to look mighty fine in an overbearing sort of way. But for a simple descriptive portrait of how the car actually looks when you meet one in the street, I think it’s better if you place the camera somewhere at or slightly above the level from which you would view the car across the road from your own car as you waited for the lights to change.

Well, of course the perfect picture does not exist. And there’s no reason to follow a wiki-guideline slavishly where the result is going to be a seriously sub-optimal illustration. Wikipedia is for and by human beings, not robotic ants. For that matter there’s no reason why you should agree with anything I write here. But I couldn’t resist writing it anyway. With selecting a picture to head up a car article, there’s no such thing as a right or a wrong answer. But there is plenty of room for contrasting opinions, and where they mostly converge you can get a good outcome. These are my opinions. Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good - except for the (presumably) missing hubcaps on the TR; and of course the TL is an abhorrently ugly creation. But yes, good photos. Let's rotate them... Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TL image would work for me, but I prefer the original white TE picture. The odd thing, is how out sock puppet friend says "OSX image displays licence plate", yet this is not illegal, and their replacement images also contain license plates. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good call about there not being a perfect photo. Hello from a past contributor to this article. I'm biased towards preferring the TL model photo too and will edit article accordingly given there's majority - as ugly as it is, it was the final chapter of Magna and a neater photo than the criticized TE.Wifotoki (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going? Good to see you back MundusEditus! But it's MundusEditus in drag once again of course...

On a more serious note, MundusEditus and Wifotoki are both single-purpose accounts created one day apart in January 2011 to edit only Mitsubishi Magna and both miraculously ended their 3.5-year hiatus this month. You must think we are fools buddy. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unproductive on this page. Take it up with an administrator instead. Stepho talk 06:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but since someone just raised it, I think the license plate thing is more about basic courtesy. A few people become disproportionately shrill about it, I think because of the general mood of paranoia about being spied on by the state. I think the paranoia may very well be justified in terms of being spied upon, though I do not think that having a license plate displayed in Wikipedia does anything positive for the bad guys (aka spooks) that they can't already do much more efficiently using the various electronic toys that their bottomless IT budget serves up to them. Also, the thing about being spied upon by the government is very variable. In the US and the UK concerns about the subject are very acute - even if the proportion of people who actually think through the issues and care may still be very small. In other countries folks tend to trust their governments. In Australia where the Mitsi Magna had its homebase, to be sure not everyone loved Kevin Rudd or that nice Welsh lady, and I understand that Tony Abbott is not universally respected. But I can see that anonymisation of license plates is not really very far up the agenda in Oz. By all means, if you anticipate that seeing his/her license plate on a car in Wikipedia will upset someone, change the number. But please don't remove the number all together. Cars without a front number plate have a strangely unnatural and undressed look - I guess unless you're one of those that lives in one of the states where they don't bother with license plates on the front in the first place.

PS: I don't think we have anything like a formal vote on the subject, but I think the TL picture you just put in the lead works quite well. Thank you. And if being pig-ugly were a disqualification .... let's not go there. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are problems with every image except the TE and TL images (mostly in terms of the distracting/confusing backgrounds). I have no problem with any particular generation (first, last, most numerous, most years, etc) and don't think any are uglier than any other - which is subjective anyway. Since everyone seems to like the TL image, I'm happy to go with that too. Stepho talk 06:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPRICES

Hey there, just read WP:NOPRICES and like anything else, I note it is not mandatory so I thought I would leave this on your page to explain the undo shortly.

An article should not include product pricing = "should not" does not mean "must not"?
unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention = MY FAIL! I will add the source, which I did not realize was needed (HELP!!! What would be the best way to refer to a magazine's price list from the relevant era?)
Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time = OSX made this point and thanks to his feedback, this is why for consistency I included only prices: at LAUNCH only; for the HOME (Australian) market only; and for FIRST SERIES of each model only.
Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products = arguably this doesn't apply because this car is discontinued and no longer for sale?

But the main reasons for the UNDO are that:

with your Undo, the text now does not make sense (e.g. where the price was for the "manual", you just left it as showing that the specific version was only available as a manual, when an automatic was also available... removing just the price won't fix the sentence)
There were previous prices, and with my additions, there is now consistent and factual price information for ALL models of this car and not just some.

If you don't agree, raise this in the article Talk page may be? Or amend the WHOLE article so that it makes sense! But careful for examples like the above... your amended sentences aren't accurate or correct now just by removing the price unfortunately.

p.s. OSX suggested putting a price range instead but I painstakingly managed to source the motoring magazines from the relevant era, hoping it isn't wasted effort...

Cheers :) Editoriummm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think prices on this vehicle are notable and, as you now recognize, are unsourced. Sorry if it affected the wording, and I won't be hitting undo on this, but I think there should be a consensus on why the prices are necessary (even with citations from a reliable source). Does anyone agree that WP:NOPRICES, a Wikipedia POLICY, does not apply here? Bahooka (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this discussion from my user talk page to the article talk page for other editors to weigh in. Bahooka (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding prices of any type becomes the thin edge of the wedge - if prices for a 20 year car is okay then why not prices for a current car, which then have references to some dealer's website, which means spam links. So we try to limit prices to exceptional cases like cars that are very highly/lowly priced compared to other cars or cars that offer exceptionally good/bad value. The Magna was generally good value but not exceptionally high or low. At most, we should only list each end of the price range and preferably no prices at all. Stepho talk 22:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that prices are usually a no-no. The only car article I ever put prices on was the Sunbeam Tiger, which was an exceptionally rare and obviously antique car, thus the price when new provided some reference to the reader. And the price was sourced by magazine articles, not by anyone selling cars for a living. Run of the mill cars, you just don't price them at all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that prices should only be included where notable (as per Stepho-wrs). Allowing some prices will only set a precedent for a flood of others. However, having an approximate and rounded price range (i.e. c. $25,000–45,000) would be okay by me as this would not bloat the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a link handy, but I was under the impression that there is a larger consensus against doing that, and we can't override it locally. Otherwise, we would have categories for it. In some ways, I could see some interesting uses for that, but it begs the question of how "encyclopedic" that is, and sourcing would be problematic with spam links. That would probably be something to take up at WP:WikiProject Automobiles (and then later at a community wide discussion) rather than here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like anything else, if it is not sourced properly (reliably) then the information should be deleted. I am not aware of anything at WP:CARS against price ranges, but past discussion have upheld the use of WP:NOPRICES when pricing has been brought up. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to cause any controversy with this. If any price is kept (price range or other format) and referencing is needed (which I omitted), what's the best way to reference a magazine? Sorry if it's a dumb question! Editoriummm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning a policy is not controversy and it is not frowned upon. If you can convince other editors of the benefits of pricing, then I see no reason why we would reject it based on the historical policy. I can think of many polices that have changed over the years. To cite a magazine, use this as a guide:

<ref>{{cite journal | last = Smith | first = John | date = July 1988 | title = Article title | journal = [[Wheels (magazine)|Wheels]] | location = [[Sydney central business district|Sydney]] | page = 12}}</ref>

Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 03:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy changes should be handled at the talk page of the policy rather than one article. The Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you think the WP:NOPRICES policy should be removed or changed, that is where it should be discussed. Bahooka (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OSX - time to add magazine references missing on my part. Cheers Editoriummm (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One person agreeing with you is not a consensus, Editoriummm. The discussion here appears to support NOT including prices. Your latest edit summary here stated that you were going to add price related references. You would be editing against consensus if you kept the prices in, with or without references. Bahooka (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted Bahooka just as is the fact to discuss this on WP:NOPRICES as said above. I am adding references to at least fix one obvious problem. Not sure where you are from but price was a critical factor in this car's history relative to its rivals. Allow me to add the relevant material before dismissing it. Editoriummm (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the references state that "price was a critical factor in this car's history relative to its rivals", then it should stay. If the references just state the price, then the prices are not notable and should be removed per policy. Bahooka (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you are editing against consensus Editoriummm. You need to revert yourself on the main page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Editoriummm has been blocked as a sock of MundusEditus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note these prices have been added back by a new sockpuppet of MundusEditus. I will remove these are per the consensus here. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored prices as relevant "policy" is not mandatory, and the prices quoted are all fully referenced at a specific point in time - i.e. all at the time of launch of each respective series. Vehicle is no longer available for sale new, for over 10 years now, so no risk of marketing/spam. Acknowledging that this is not determinative, a whole stack of articles (e.g. Honda NSX (second generation)) quote prices, without any reference at all. OSX, if you have hold any grudged, do so transparently and let this topic be the subject of a new discussion. Your counter-productive edits are disputed... and lets hope that you won't next also change the main infobox picture, to have it all your way. Cheers, CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is a consensus here not to add it, so why do you think your views trump this? OSX (talk • contributions) 04:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening this, just because your position on the fact I added references to the fact that this car was designed to compete with BMW or resembled it in parts (as per the open discussion below), is a low blow. I dispute your retaliatory deletion for the above reasons. Also, having just reviewed WP:NOPRICES, it states: "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products. Historically Wikipedia has defaulted to not include prices because Wikipedia is not a directory. There is other thought on the matter. It is not certain whether Wikipedia should present prices." (emphasis added). The article properly states "Sale prices were a key critical factor in Magna's market competitiveness" and "Despite its competitive pricing relative to the key rival products". The addition of actual retail prices (which are fully referenced) support these facts and also allow, over a span of 20 years, to conduct any trend analysis. The product is no longer on sale (for 10 years now) and, therefore, this is not promoting any current "sales catalogue" or prone to spam by new car dealers. The opposing issue that, prices vary over time and should be excluded for this reason, is addressed by virtue of the fact that those listed are the applicable Recommended retail price at the same point in time for each series, per model - i.e. at the time of their launch. Why delete this information today, which has stayed published for over 1.5 years undisputed, just because you are unhappy with something else that is currently open to a discussion that you have elected to ignore, through these further disruptive deletion? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listing prices here adds absolutely nothing to the article. Just makes the text unreadable by adding a bunch of numbers which will be of very little interest to anyone. Mentioning that it was competitively priced will make for a clearer article. I don't see why we keep having to have this useless conversation. Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Copied from: User talk:OSX: Hello again. Unfortunately the reason for reverting your TL->TW Solara caption was cut short in the history field. Basically, there has never been a limited edition in the TW series, and its model range consisted only of ES, LS, LS AWD, VR, VR-X and VR-X. On CarSales I have seen many a car claimed to be this limited edition and that limited edition (ironically, there's a blue VR-X Limited Edition, which has most of the right interior, but outside it's clearly a TJ Series 1 but CarSales has made no correction), when it's all false and misleading. The one you found is clearly an ES whose owner spent a few dollars to add SOLARA stickers on the side. To substantiate this, do a TW search on Red Book (the industry's bible) and you will see there are ZERO limited editions, unlike up to the TL: just refine this search my "badge" and "series" http://www.redbook.com.au/cars/research/used?q=%28%28Make%3D%5BMitsubishi%5D%29%26%28Model%3D%5BMagna%5D%29%29. Moreover, a while back I found this excellent Australian cars website, and if you look at each Magna series, you will again see there are no TW limited editions: http://australiancar.reviews/reviews.php#!content=review&make=Mitsubishi&model=Magna&gen=675. Another clue is that, in your pic, the car clearly does not have an ES badge as the bogus one on CarSales. Last but not least, when searching on Wiki Commons, I noticed that you (in good faith) wrongly uploaded a white Magna "Ralliart". I have since added notes and revised the descriptions because in that case too, it is a bogus car. Clues there are the wrong headlights, alloy wheels, badge and exhaust tips (compared with the real silver one on there). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I double checked with the NSW RMS and the result is "2005 BLACK MIT MAGNA SEDAN". This car also has the "Series II" badge that TWs have, so it is surely a TW. The TL Solara (2003–2004 only) has different wheels (the black car has LS wheels), see Redbook. I concede that my black car photo is probably not a Solara. Redbook does not list a TW Solara as you stated, but Redbook sometimes does not mention obscure models. The only other references to TW Solaras that I could find online were ES badged models with Solara badges added as well. For the black car in my photo, the ES badge has been removed. I suspect dealers added these the Solara decals and LS wheels to try and shift the slow-selling Magna model prior to the release of the 380 model. Do you think the filename should be updated to ES? OSX (talk • contributions) 22:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Diamante/Sigma insight (still seems odd to me, just because there's an earlier spin-off, but I'll let that be) and the bloating comment in the EA Falcon section... sorted, as I see you've noticed. On second hand car listings, I've seen many wonders over time! In the East coast a dealer even created his own sports badge to sell specific cars for a higher amount, after fitting a few extra bits (alloys etc). Neat online checking tool, I'll keep that in mind. The last Magna Solara did have different wheels, from the AWD. On file renaming, probably wise... as would be to remove the pic from the article? The biggest Magna correction though definitely belongs to that white Ralliart replica on Wiki Commons. Cheers. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the fake Solara file as an ES (and removed it from the Magna page). Regarding the fake Ralliart, I have nominated these for deletion as they are misleading and violate Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Images. Would you mind supporting the deletions at Commons? Here are the relation requests:

OSX (talk • contributions) 04:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing and thanks :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work to streamline the Magna article, dare to do the same with Falcon and Commodore? Just a quick question - I thought the naming convention was BRAND CAR (SERIES) VARIANT BODYTYPE. Why is it now BRAND CAR VARIANT (SERIES)? For what concerns the TJ, TJ2 and TJ Series 2, the Sports and VR-X featured are not TJ. MMAL in around 2001 was on a rolling upgrade program, with informal reference even to a TJ 1.5 (explaining no Series 2 badging). Either way, reference to just the original TJ is wrong. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message.

For images, there is no actual naming rule, but typically something along the lines of 1985 Mitsubishi Magna (TM) SE sedan is used. The reason why model codes are placed in parentheses is to differentiate these codes from trim levels. If an image is titled 1985 Mitsubishi Magna TM SE sedan, what does "TM SE" mean? Adding parentheses for "TM" suggests model code disambiguation for make and model, and SE becomes clearer as the trim level. In the article, I found it strange reading text that stated The Magna (TE) and Verada (KE) blah blah blah... The parentheses are unnecessary here as the model code names have already been established and there is no confusion with trim levels in this case.

When you truncated the image captions to Magna (TM) SE sedan, etc, I thought this looked odd, so rearranged it to Magna SE sedan (TM) for aesthetic reasons.

Regarding the TJ models, you were labelling these as "TJ Series 2" (2002) when they were what you call "TJ2" (2001) instead. If these cars were TJ Series 2, they would be badged accordingly, but they are not. It is my understanding that "TJ2" is the same as what Redbook calls the TJ MY02 update from August 2001. TJ2 is downright confusing when TJ Series 2 came just a year later. Where did you get this TJ2 term from?

As for the old trivia section (WP:Trivia), I removed items that were pushing the boundary of notability, e.g. the history of paint colours. Wikipedia is not the place for inclusion of endless details like this. I also doubt this information can be referenced. My other issue is with the cars at the Australian National Motor Museum, information that you keep reinstating. I fail to see how this is relevant. Lots of cars have examples as museums, but I cannot recall seeing museum mentions listed before except for one-off cars that only exist at museums. The place at Wikipedia where this belongs if it is to go anywhere would be the museum's article. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we must have crossed paths during my latest edits and thanks for pointing here. I concede the museum point, the only exception here being that these are pre-production cars (rare outside of a manufacturer's own museum). Great pick-up on the MY02, which is the TJ2. It all started with the VRX-tra, which some call TJ1.5 or TJ2. On the Trivia front for the colour, fair enough except for adding back the XX paint code info - unbeknownst to me until recently, there's several cars out there like that (including the AWD that MMAL gifted to Steven Bradbury when he was on their campaign ad). Lastly, thanks for all the WP lessons! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Annoyingly (but for a good cause), this Magna TJ updates is never ending. Glad you referred to Redbook above :) Your "cn" made me look further and I believe this website [1] is very accurate from all I have seen. So your "cn" can be answered by reference to the May 2001 update and then you can see there's a reference to the September 2001 update. Putting Redbook and this together, the latter is the MY02 (which Redbook dates August 2001), which adds substance to the informal existence of the TJ1.5 / TJ2 models on relevant forums. From memory, 2001 was a year of great turmoil for MMAL, when rumours of imminent closure heightened. How and why they decided to upgrade the Magna as they did, by stealth, is a secret held to those employed there. The VRX-tra was the most prominent initial update affecting the TJ, which carried on until the formal TJ Series II. Anyway, gonna revise the article some more based on this latest info. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this CtrlXctrlV :) It is very interesting info. I have renamed most of the TJ and KJ images to reflect this new information, as many of the year ranges were incorrect. I was unable to do the VR-X photos, as I was not able to properly work out what they are:

2001 Mitsubishi Magna (TJ) VR-X sedan
(year confirmed via the NSW RMS, but not sure if this is TJ1.5 or TJ MY02 or if it is the VR-X Limited Edition)

2001–2002 Mitsubishi Magna (TJ) VR-X sedan
(not sure if this is TJ1.5 or TJ MY02 or if it is the VR-X Limited Edition)

Maybe you can help because you can identify certain attributes, such as paint colours, etc. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 03:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think I can help, other than to say that these are neither TJ nor TJ Series 2 (which, as you correctly pointed out earlier, come with the respective badge at the back). They're either the May 2001 update or the September 2001 "MY02" update. If I were forced to choose, I'd say MY02... because the May 2001 is all about the VR-X Limited Edition. That car you can identify from either its blue or red leather seats. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The respective Aussie cars forums are really good places to fish for into, albeit, in some cases they are based on first-hand knowledge or from extracts of official info. Found these further items to address your questions - VR-X LE Leather Pack [2] Ralliart codename in graph [3]; Ed's input [4]. Compared to other articles, it's been a somewhat overzealous process to have to look for references to retain info higher standard than that left in other articles unreferenced. As I don't have spare time to fish for more on forums and individually upload (some stuff is not published in its entirety by users on purpose... I saw a post about others complaining but the original poster refusing to release the whole of the Ralliart press release!), I do not envisage more of this or further checks and changes needed for this article. Glad to have learnt from you that it's Sports wagon and not Sportwagon, though! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing these scans. I understand that adding sources is tedious, but information can be deleted at anytime if it is unsourced. In the long-term, if it is unsourced, it will not stay. Your effort has considerably improved the Magna page, so on that regard thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a joint effort, here and in the other articles where we crossed path :) And take credit for also "reforming" me... going back to the early days! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons

CtrlXctrlV, why do you insist on comparing the Magna to other vehicles throughout the article? I have removed various references to this, and you keep replacing these with new ones. The article is about the Magna and only the Magna. The BMW 5 Series (E39) is not relevant here. Holden also has a habit of boasting that its Commodore was benchmarked against whatever the current 5 Series is, and also claiming that its car surpasses it. This is pure marketing puffery and does not deserve a place in neutral point-of-view encyclopaedia. If there are numerous comparisons in third party sources, then maybe there is a case. But what a company spokesperson states needs to be considered carefully. I originally removed the E39 reference as it is absurd to claim a car released in 1995 was benchmarked against another car released in 1995 (development takes years not months). How is this possible? You responded that "manufacturers know of each other's products and plans in advance". I do not believe BMW allowed Mitsubishi to test its E39 early. This would be required to benchmark the Diamante to it. If this did happen, it would certainly need a citation as it is a very bold claim.

Tonight I notice that you added a new claim that refers again to the BMW—that "the noise of the [Mitsubishi 3.5-litre V6] was described as being 'reminiscent of a BMW six'". Again, how is this relevant? Wikipedia is not a comparison guide, it does not promote product comparisons like this, and it likewise should be promote the regurgitation of other weak comparisons. Is this something that is universally reported on? The truth is, manufacturers like to compare their cars to the market's most desirable models. I do not see anyone claiming that their four-cylinder engine is as harsh as an old Hyundai inline-four. Wikipedia ought to be reporting the the facts, leaving the opinions for others to chronicle. Oh, and yes, that does make for dry and boring reading, but that is kind of the point of an encyclopaedia. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may I suggest you leave this to determine where the consensus sits given our differences? I've reinstated the statements because they are fully referenced. The significance in this case, as you would know, is that the 3rd generation Magna/Verada was a luxury-oriented project, hence its export to the North America where it battled it out with Lexus, Acura, BMW and Merc - not the more agricultural Ford and Holden of the same era. It isn't puffery just because the first quote is from the Mitsubishi product manager - it gives context to the type of product this was. On your grievance that this Magna/Verada could not have been designed with the E39 in sight, I beg to differ. That BMW goes back to 1989 (even earlier than that if you consider the similarly designed 3-series) and, if things stood as you say, no manufacturer would ever know of their rivals and would never be able to produce a homogenous competitor. Check the front 3 quarter view of the Mitsubishi, especially with the covered parabola headlights, and tell me you do not see the definite BMW influence. But in the spirit of avoiding ambiguity, since the quote does not specifically refer to the E39, that's gone. The engine noise comment is not puffery either, especially since it is what independent Wheels (magazine) testers have found fit to publish. You say Holden does it too as marketing puffery... I cannot recall them ever stating the Commodore has been designed to compete with a BMW or other European manufacturer (ditto for Ford or Toyota, locally), which gives reason to highlighting this referenced fact for the Magna/Verada. This car benefitted from a foreign company playing on the world market, unlike the Ford and Holden that played only locally until recent times. Anyway, let's see what others say... especially in the absence of no WPs (I assume?) and the fact that these are fully referenced facts. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are policies and guidelines around for a reason, there is an expectation that you stick to them. Earlier we had issues over photos and WP:CARPIX, which resulted in you repeatedly ignoring the convention. The next big issue surrounded the addition of prices, which contravenes WP:NOPRICES—something that was not pushed very far at the time. Now you insist on ignoring WP:V (specifically WP:SELFPUB) by using Mitsubishi quotes to source competitor products and WP:NPOV by including unencyclopaedic opinion. Take a look at some of the featured articles, they do not go off tangent and include swathes of editorialised content and company quotes to backup claims about third parties. I do not need to obtain a consensus on these matters because these are policies, not debating points. Thus, I will continue to mercilessly remove all editorialising, non NPOV language, et cetera. Your language above indicates that you cannot maintain NPOV on this subject, therefore you should be very cautious when expressing anything other than facts.

Regarding the Mitsubishi quote, WP:SELFPUB states:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; and it does not involve claims about third parties.

Shunji Takeshita of Mitsubishi stated that the Diamante is a "luxury car [...] designed to compete with BMW", thus he has linked his vehicle to a third party. All references I could find online point to the Diamante occupying the near-luxury class (e.g. Lexus ES), which has been added to the article. What Mitsubishi claims it competes with is not relevant. Third party sources are required to cite competitors if notable.

In your comment above, you insist I check the photos of the car to verify the "definite BMW influence". A lot of cars take cues from other cars in styling, this is nothing new or unique. Merely having a twin-port grille and dual circular internal headlamps does not make the Verada a BMW clone. Likewise, similar styling does also not make the cars competitors. Again, all this is just opinion, and is generally irrelevant for an encyclopaedic entry. Mitsubishi's desire to namedrop BMW is purely self-serving and you will need more than a quote from the company to back it up.

As for engine noise, this is again opinion and not fact. Bear in mind that a company representative or journalist's opinion is NOT a fact. An encyclopaedic article is not a compilation of sourced opinions, it is supposed to be a collection of verifiable facts describing the subject. When reporting on controversial matters and opinion, vigorous sourcing is required. For example, the TW section talks about poor resale values and generally good reliability, and it has six sources from four different outlets backing up these claims because this is a very bold statement. Ideally, more would be included. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only self-serving things here seem to be your claims and interpretations. Had Mitsubishi stated "our car is better than a BMW" or "our car is as good as BMW", I would agree with you. But they merely say, it was built to compete with BMW, which is a salient fact concerning this vehicle since its natural Australian-made competitor (Commodore or Falcon) could not claim the same at the relevant time, being substandard for US exports (the world's biggest market at the time). It is therefore not surprising that in your latest edits, which lack some integrity, you only state the Mitsubishi only competed with the Lexus ES. Did you not see Cadillac Catera (German-made and rival to BMW) or BMW 3-series? It is quite ironic, and supportive of the inclusion of the comparative facts, that both the articles you found [5] and [6] themselves also refer to BMW. In the first instance, it confirms the car competed against the 3-series (the valid issue you had about my adding of the E39 has been resolved, by removing it since it was extrapolation on my part) and in the second article, it says it resembles a BMW (which I removed anyway). That we have now found 3 OUTLETS / INDEPENDENT PARTIES from 2 DIFFERENT CONTINENTS (I am sure that Motor could be another) defeats your self-serving claim. On the issue of you saying nothing can be found online, just because that is so for matters dating back 20 years, does not mean they are not facts of encyclopedic value. Please do not delete this fully referenced content or cause edit warring in the circumstances, which include this open discussion. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another 2 self-explanatory articles supportive of the comparative facts [7] [8]. The fact the US-segment is called "near-luxury" does not mean it wasn't a "luxury" vehicle, as explained in the 2nd article. Price points is what put it there and not in a higher segment (in other words, this was a 5-series sized car, but priced as a 3-series). Anyway, I do not at all suggest to have every BMW comparative claim added, but just to have left what's already there and fully referenced. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappointing that you have failed to respond to the concerns raised with any real substance. You have not responded to the blatant non-compliance with policy and convention, and have instead resorted to the use of weasel words and found additional questionable sources that you claim backup your assertions, even though they do not.

Mitsubishi may have said that its car competes with BMW, but unless you can show several third party sources endorsing this view, it is irrelevant. Mitsubishi makes lots of claims that are not fit for an encyclopaedia. It is also a very vague claim, as how can one car compete with the entire brand? What you claim to be "salient facts" are merely opinions. It is a fact that Mitsubishi said it "competes with BMW", but it is the opinion of the company to state it in the first place. Prima facie, evidence suggests that it competed in a different class to both the BMW 3 and 5 Series cars. The Diamante competed in size with the 5 Series, but certainly not in price. According to Cars.com, the 1997 model year Diamante was priced between US$25,900–29,990, and the 528i was $39,470 in very basic specification without options. This is a significant difference. The Diamante was deemed "near luxury" in the class of the ES 300, not "luxury" in the class of the 5 Series. Some sources claim the 328i, at $33,470 was in the near-luxury class also. But this car is a full segment smaller, and along with the 5 Series, is rear-wheel drive, not front drive. Using your definition of competition, almost anything can be said to compete with anything. Someone might look at both the BMW X5 and the BMW 5 Series, but these are not deemed competitors, even if they are cross-shopped. The Holden Calais is not a 5 Series competitor because it is so much cheaper. Likewise, the Audi A3 does not compete with Toyota's Corolla.

I would also ask you to be careful making claims about sources that are not true when trying to make your case. This article does not state the BMW 3 Series as a competitor, it only says it is "near luxury", which is further divided by size (but it does talk about the Lexus ES and Cadillac Catera). Likewise, this article also does not make the claim—it merely states some styling traits are similar to BMWs of an earlier time. I suggest you spend extra time examining the text of sources so you do not take them out of context. A reference needs to be specific to be used. WP:V requires a little more than references for box-ticking purposes. Citations must state what you are claiming them to, they must be reliable, they cannot be manufacturer sources for bold claims, and if there are bold claims being made there needs to be multiple sources to back these up. So in summary, we DO NOT have "3 outlets / independent parties" confirming this, we have the manufacturer only (who only lists the brand as a whole, not a specific model).

As for me not including the Cadillac Catera, it is generally discouraged to include large lists of competitors. The only reason I included the Lexus ES was because every source I viewed that discussed competitors mentioned it. Other sources variously claimed the Catera, Infiniti I30, Mazda Millenia and Acura TL. As you have discovered, competitors can be a contentious issue as they are usually subjective. Unless the link is indisputable and extensively sourced, like in the case of the Commodore/Falcon, C-Class/3 Series, Camry/Accord.

Regarding engine noise, I will reiterate that Wikipedia is not a collection of sourced opinions, so why have you reinstated this? OSX (talk • contributions) 00:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem in comparing a car to its competitors, especially where the comparisons are well sourced. You can have too much of a good thing but under most circumstances I would think that 3 mentions of "BMW" in a relatively lengthy entry concerning a Mitsubishi is not unreasonable. Then again, I think the name "Holden" turns up here something like 11 times. Is the point that Holden define the Australian car market? Whereas the comparable BMW merely constitutes an aspirational benchmark (and the marketing types who draft the press releases all drive - or wish they drove - a BMW)?

Marketing puffery in a wiki entry - if that is the objection - raises legitimate concerns, but a little bit of it where it is obviously a quotation is helpful to those of us trying to figure out how Mitsubishi expected to sell these cars against the competition, just as long as you make clear that it WAS a from press release and / or that a sympathetic motoring journalist wrote it.

It's impressive that people have found so much mostly interesting stuff to write about the Australian version of the car in this article, but then I guess the Magna was around a long time. I suppose one possibility could involve reducing the size of the composite entry NOT by losing text but by transferring some of the more detailed/specialist stuff to individual entries for each generation - just as someone already did for the "Galant" badged cars assembled somewhere other than the edge of Adelaide, SA. Maybe some of the BMW and Holden references could be handled that way if people think there are too many mentions of them here for a single - albeit quite long - wiki entry. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles01, I agree that comparing a car to its competitors is okay when well sourced. The problem here, is that the claim is 1) false, and 2) poorly sourced. In the US, the 1997 model year Diamante was priced between US$25,900–29,990, while the most basic BMW 5 Series in the US, the 528i was $39,470 without options. Third party sources available online never refer to any BMW as competition, but multiple sources exist referring to cars like the Lexus ES, Cadillac Catera and Infiniti I30 [9], [10], [11], [12]. I even found a source by Autoweek claiming that the Diamante is "no BMW 5 Series".

In Australia, the BMW 528i had a list price of $96,500 in 1997, whereas the Mitsubishi Verada (the luxury Magna) was $42,120–49,010 according to RedBook. The one source that CtrlXctrlV has provided is a manufacturer claim (not secondary sources as stipulated by WP:V) that merely states the Diamante is a "designed to compete with BMW", without mentioning a model. In contrast, the Holden Commodore, Ford Falcon, and Toyota Camry, are well documented by third party reliable sources as competitors. The name dropping of BMW by Mitsubishi is nothing more than that. If there was genuine competition between these cars, one would expect to find comparison reviews between them, or at the very least, the mere mention in several sources that they competed. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be false if it is published in Australia's leading motoring magazine, Wheels, and backed up by journalists in another continent? The issue you keep going on about - Diamante = BMW 5 series - is resolved by your own articles, which clarify the US competitor is a BMW 3 series (on price). You are failing to give importance to what Charles01 has said much better than I have managed to - i.e. it is helpful to those of us trying to figure out how Mitsubishi expected to sell these cars against the competition. It is a true claim, backed up by more media than found against. You are again forgetting the Magna/Verada/Diamante was a world car, and its Australian competitors were not. The whole point of that quote is that Mitsubishi was shocked to have to sell their "luxury car" for less in Australia. On your further weak arguments, many cars in Australia cost less than overseas (the locals and Japanese); conversely, many cars cost more than overseas (the Germans). But so what? It's not unlike a Chevy SS, which is a better car in the US (more performance and fittings) for relatively less money, than the equivalent HSV in Australia. Specific market dynamics do not defeat the fact that the Magna and its platform, overseas, were much superior (also thanks to luxury fitments Australian never saw) and the quote clarifies what Mitsubishi's intentions were; again, it does not say "this is a BMW or better than one". And, as an aside, OSX, you caused the first verbatim quote because you (still) claim it is false; the name of the Mitsubishi representative was included to make you realise that, just because you can't verify it online, it is a true quote, as printed by Wheels. I rather this fully referenced information read something like "which Mitsubishi claims to have developed it as a luxury car to compete against BMW". CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When were you intending to respond to the actual substance of my issues rather than dancing around it and ranting about facts when we are talking about opinions here? "How can it be false if it is published in Australia's leading motoring magazine"... sorry I almost fell of my chair in laughter with that one! All Wheels did was regurgitate what the Mitsubishi representative stated. This does not make it fact, just opinion. Please learn the difference between the two. By quoting him, Wheels was not necessarily endorsing the statement.

None of the independent references mention that the car competes with the 3 Series. Stop misrepresenting these statements. Repeating yourself ad infinitum will not make it true. I will reiterate this because you seemed to have missed it, but this article does not state the BMW 3 Series as a competitor, it only says the the BMW occupies the "near luxury" segment, which is further divided by size. Likewise, this article also does not make the claim—it merely states some styling traits are similar to BMWs of an earlier time. This is not evidence okay... and it is really important that this is clear to you.

Where Mitsubishi expected to sell these cars against the competition is irrelevant because what they were trying to do was associate their cars with much more expensive vehicles that it does not compete with. This can be verified by the fact that no other sources have been located that specify the Diamante's competition as being a BMW. Car companies will always try to use language to describe their cars favourably. We do not quote this just because it has been said. Wikipedia does not exist to document other people's opinions. Please stick to reporting facts. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be if you had fallen off the chair the right way, OSX, this discussion and the subtle patronising would have stopped already with 2 editors (yes, me included for now) seeing nothing wrong with what you disagree with :) What someone says is fact, and it is fact here, coming from the person responsible for the project stating what Mitsubishi's intentions and target for this product were. No Wiki editor surely can say it is false, as you are trying to - were you involved in the development or marketing of this car to insist on this or are you an automotive journalist by profession?! I see you added to this by referring to "evidence" for no clear purpose or reason; is Wiki a court of law where everything needs to be tested or merely referenced, as it is here?! But since you are down this path, there's enough circumstancial evidence to justify the BMW comparative claims, that even go back to the earlier Mitsubishi model. Whether Mitsubishi met its target is irrelevant, and not opinion; it was their design brief or product plan (fact). Do yourself a favour and read the whole Wheels article to get the full context, if you can. For now, let me help you see the BMW comparisons that you are being conveniently blind to (crucially, these have not been excessively or unreasonably relied on in the article):

Wheels (AUS) car development article titled "No more Mr Nice Guy", May 1996 at p. 51, citing Mitsubishi official stating it is "a luxury car [...] designed to compete with BMW" (context: Mitsubishi Japan's reluctance to market and price the car much lower in Australia)
Wheels (AUS) car review article titled "Please Reconsider", May 1996 at p. 33, stating engine noise is "reminiscent of a BMW six"
GoAuto (AUS) online review [13], 1999, stating "As the luxurious Diamante, this Mitsubishi is exported. In the US, for instance, it rivals the likes of upscale Hondas and smaller Lexuses, Audis, Mercedes and BMW models. "
NRMA (AUS) online review [14], 1997, stating "If you want stretch-out rear space, it's hard to go past a Fairlane or a Statesman, but on rear leg room and seat width the Verada is more than competitive with other lower luxury competitors such as the Honda Accord, Saab 900/9000, Audi A4 and BMW 318. " (note: for what it's worth, this published comparative fact is AUSTRALIA not overseas-related)
(your find, thankyou) NY Times (USA) online car review [15], February 1997, stating "the Diamante mixes flowing, aerodynamic lines and sharp angles in a way that reminds me of an earlier generation of BMW's"
(your find again, thankyou) Boca Raton News (USA) car review [16], September 1997, stating "It had a distinct BMW-esque body" in relation to the previous generation, and for the one the subject of this discussion, that it sits in the near-luxury segment (as quoted by you) whose sales include "Volvo, Buick (Park Avenue), BMW (3-Series), Lexus (ES 300) and Chrysler (LHS)" (as narrowly misquoted by you)
Automotive (USA) online car review [17], 1998, stating "The Diamante has a chiseled exterior styling similar to a BMW" and listing as competitors "Nissan Maxima, Honda Legend, Audi A4, BMW 328" (side note: on the issue that in Australia this car did not go up against any BMW; the Honda Legend did, and the Honda Legend was bigger, more prestigious and twice as expensive than Magna in Australia - I even recall it being tested against the equally bigger Holden Statesman and the more premium but smaller BMW 328 by Wheels; again, individual markets' dynamics do not magically negate a manufacturer's stated design plan or brief)
Orlando Sentinel (USA) online car review [18], 1997, stating "This car has the vaultlike solidity of a Mercedes-Benz, the athletic prowess of a BMW and the high-quality design and assembly of a Lexus" and "The Diamante competes in the near luxury segment of the market against such notable hits as the Lexus Es 300, Acura Tl series or Bmw 3-series" and "BMW's competitive cars have nothing on the new Diamante" and "Mitsubishi's interior designers have crafted front and rear seats that look and feel as if they were destined for an expensive BMW or Mercedes-Benz".
Cars.com (USA) online review [19], 1999, stating "But the Diamante? What's that? A car with a front end that resembles a BMW's" and "Purse-strings note: A good car stymied by lackluster styling, and, in its price range, swamped by the competition. Consider Acura 3.2 TL sedan, Lexus ES 300, BMW 5-Series, Volvo S80, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Cadillac Catera, Oldsmobile Aurora, Mazda Millenia."
the independent and non-automotive World Resources Institute (USA) stating on page 14 of this report [20] on BMW, "Despite its past success, BMW, along with Mercedes and other European performance luxury car producers, faces a significant challenge from lower-priced Japanese competition. A majority of Japanese manufacturers have created subsidiaries in order to penetrate the European market. Honda's Acura, Toyota's Lexus, Nissan's Infiniti and Mitsubishi's Diamante units and new models from Mazda, each with high customer satisfaction ratings and on average lower prices, have found good success in the North American and Japanese markets, and are set to challenge in the European market. "

So, as you can see, no false claim/s and all verified by multiple international sources/editors (not just from the manufacturer directly) giving weight and validity to the BMW comparative facts for this car, of which there are only 2 minor (referenced) ones in the article. Mere coincidence or puffery? I think not, given the automotive experts involved. The only content and person not being neutral, seem to be just yours and you, OSX. Cheers, CtrlXctrlV (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning WP:POV, it has been removed since:

OSX obviously has previous gripes, as is evident from regurgitating past discussions and stubborn contention that "policies" are compulsory and must be followed ((i) the dispute concerning the main photo was resolved by consensus, with the replacement of OSX's original photo and if that experience went overboard, happy to admit it was due to my Wiki inexperience... by contrast though, as a more experienced user, OSX was aptly reprimanded for engaging in an edit war, as seemed likely on this occasion too until this new discussion was started; (ii) the pricing issue is a non-issue, since the "new car prices" listed have since become fully referenced; moreover, they are those that applied at the specific time of launch of each series, and the car is no longer available new eliminating any misuse of Wiki for marketing or spam... this degree of accuracy is missing from most Wiki car articles, which just list prices without reference)
The original disagreement in this new discussion by OSX was based on WP:V (specifically WP:SELFPUB)
Now WP:POV has popped up, provokingly after this discussion had already started here and by notice in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles
If NPOV is/was at all necessary, it should be posted only in the Mitsubishi Magna#TE / KE sub-section and not the whole Mitsubishi Magna#Third generation (1996–2005) section

and specifically, none of these points are made out:

Avoid stating opinions as facts - BMW comparative references (only 2!) are not stated in Wikipedia's voice and follow the example given ("an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.") by attributing the staments to those who made same
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts - there are no different reliable sources that make conflicting assertions about the matter, or treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts (with respect, OSX is not a source unto himself)
Avoid stating facts as opinions - "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice" see point 1 above, about the statement not being in Wikipedia's voice anyway. Further, the passage is not worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested, as per point 2 above.
Prefer nonjudgmental language - this does not apply "Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed" since the quotations are verbatim
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views - there are no reported differing views on the subject, with the exception of OSX purporting to dispute what a Mitsubishi official and international automotive experts have had to say, as set out in the sample references above.

By my reading, WP:POV is not to come to the aid of a Wiki editor unhappy with what external reliable editors and sources say, when they are consistent (as in the present case). It is about promoting/presenting/handling, on Wiki, neutrality as between external editors and/or sources... but I'll happily stand to be corrected on this one, as the case may be. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard not to get frustrated when you ignore the policies here to push your agenda. My chair comment was my way of stating how humourous I found your assertion that Wheels magazine is someone how akin to sacred religious texts because it is in your view, "Australia's leading motoring magazine". Just because a company representative has an opinion published in Wheels does not make it fact.

Regarding the above sources, just because the same source mentions Mitsubishi and BMW in the same article does not mean this can be automatically extrapolated to say they are competitors. Googling the term "BMW" and "Mitsubishi Diamante" and repeating to me every hit back is something I can do myself, I don't need you to make a long list to give the impression that the two cars are competitors, when they are not. The Diamante never was a mainstream competitor to any BMW. At the most, the 3 Series and Diamante were both in the "near luxury" segment in the US—so a top-spec Diamante may have slightly overlapped with a 328i in the same way a BMW X5 might overlap with a 5 Series wagon. The BMW 3 Series is a much smaller car by some 0.5 metres, is rear-wheel drive, and its established competitors around this time were the Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Lexus IS, and to a lesser extent, the Audi A4. Cars in different class sizes are not main competitors.

Wheels (AUS) car development article titled "No more Mr Nice Guy", May 1996 at p. 51, citing Mitsubishi official stating it is "a luxury car [...] designed to compete with BMW" (context: Mitsubishi Japan's reluctance to market and price the car much lower in Australia)

Again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this is a quote from Mitsubishi. You cannot use this. It is NOT a third-party source.

Wheels (AUS) car review article titled "Please Reconsider", May 1996 at p. 33, stating engine noise is "reminiscent of a BMW six"

This is opinion NOT fact. It also says nothing about the Mitsubishi competing with a BMW, only noting a similarity in engine sound.

GoAuto (AUS) online review [21], 1999, stating "As the luxurious Diamante, this Mitsubishi is exported. In the US, for instance, it rivals the likes of upscale Hondas and smaller Lexuses, Audis, Mercedes and BMW models. "

GoAuto from Australia does not even mention a model, this is vague. How can one model compete with the entire brand? If the Diamante did genuinely compete with these cars, one would expect most contemporary US sources to mention these cars. US sources mainly refer to the "near luxury" cars of the same size, i.e. the Lexus ES, Cadillac Catera, Infiniti I30.

NRMA (AUS) online review [22], 1997, stating "If you want stretch-out rear space, it's hard to go past a Fairlane or a Statesman, but on rear leg room and seat width the Verada is more than competitive with other lower luxury competitors such as the Honda Accord, Saab 900/9000, Audi A4 and BMW 318. " (note: for what it's worth, this published comparative fact is AUSTRALIA not overseas-related)

The BMW noted here is in the smaller class below; the much larger Fairlane/Statesman are in the class above. The BMW 3 Series may compete in the sense that it is "near luxury", but it far smaller and much less powerful (85 kW versus 147 kW). Competitors need a greater nexus than just "near luxury", otherwise the list could be endless.

(your find, thankyou) NY Times (USA) online car review [23], February 1997, stating "the Diamante mixes flowing, aerodynamic lines and sharp angles in a way that reminds me of an earlier generation of BMW's"

Again, as has been pointed out to you, this says nothing about the Mitsubishi competing with a BMW, only noting a similarity in styling.

(your find again, thankyou) Boca Raton News (USA) car review [24], September 1997, stating "It had a distinct BMW-esque body" in relation to the previous generation, and for the one the subject of this discussion, that it sits in the near-luxury segment (as quoted by you) whose sales include "Volvo, Buick (Park Avenue), BMW (3-Series), Lexus (ES 300) and Chrysler (LHS)" (as narrowly misquoted by you)

Again, as has been pointed out to you, this says nothing about the Mitsubishi competing with a BMW, only noting that the BMW 3 Series is also a "near luxury" car (a very broad term).

Automotive (USA) online car review [25], 1998, stating "The Diamante has a chiseled exterior styling similar to a BMW" and listing as competitors "Nissan Maxima, Honda Legend, Audi A4, BMW 328" (side note: on the issue that in Australia this car did not go up against any BMW; the Honda Legend did, and the Honda Legend was bigger, more prestigious and twice as expensive than Magna in Australia - I even recall it being tested against the equally bigger Holden Statesman and the more premium but smaller BMW 328 by Wheels; again, individual markets' dynamics do not magically negate a manufacturer's stated design plan or brief)

Again, this talks about the Mitsubishi having similar styling traits to the BMW. The BMW noted here is in a completely different class. It may compete in the sense that it is luxury, but it far smaller. Competitors need a greater nexus than just "near luxury", otherwise the list could be endless (there are lots of "near luxury" cars and the term itself is broad).

Orlando Sentinel (USA) online car review [26], 1997, stating "This car has the vaultlike solidity of a Mercedes-Benz, the athletic prowess of a BMW and the high-quality design and assembly of a Lexus" and "The Diamante competes in the near luxury segment of the market against such notable hits as the Lexus Es 300, Acura Tl series or Bmw 3-series" and "BMW's competitive cars have nothing on the new Diamante" and "Mitsubishi's interior designers have crafted front and rear seats that look and feel as if they were destined for an expensive BMW or Mercedes-Benz".

Again, this talks about the Mitsubishi athletic prowess akin to the BMW (which is opinion, not fact). The BMW noted here is in a completely different class. It may compete in the sense that it is luxury, but it far smaller. Competitors need a greater nexus than just "near luxury", otherwise the list could be endless (there are lots of "near luxury" cars and the term itself is broad).

Cars.com (USA) online review [27], 1999, stating "But the Diamante? What's that? A car with a front end that resembles a BMW's" and "Purse-strings note: A good car stymied by lackluster styling, and, in its price range, swamped by the competition. Consider Acura 3.2 TL sedan, Lexus ES 300, BMW 5-Series, Volvo S80, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Cadillac Catera, Oldsmobile Aurora, Mazda Millenia."

This merely lists examples of luxury cars. It talks about the 5 Series and C-Class as being competitors, yet these are in completely different segments themselves. The 5 Series is an E-Class competitor, and the 3 Series a C-Class competitor.

the independent and non-automotive World Resources Institute (USA) stating on page 14 of this report [28] on BMW, "Despite its past success, BMW, along with Mercedes and other European performance luxury car producers, faces a significant challenge from lower-priced Japanese competition. A majority of Japanese manufacturers have created subsidiaries in order to penetrate the European market. Honda's Acura, Toyota's Lexus, Nissan's Infiniti and Mitsubishi's Diamante units and new models from Mazda, each with high customer satisfaction ratings and on average lower prices, have found good success in the North American and Japanese markets, and are set to challenge in the European market. "

This is general commentary on the brands, not any particular model(s).

I note how of the three competitors that were mentioned in the article, only two of them (the Lexus ES and Cadillac Catera) have actually have a majority of sources listing them. It seems odd to list the BMW 3 Series, when it is barely mentioned at all, and when it is, it is listed as an example of another luxury car. The 3 Series is 0.5 metres shorter, much less powerful at the low end (e.g the four-cylinder 318i was 85 kW versus 147 kW for the Verada V6) and is in very much a different market segment than the Diamante. The DIamante is a larger, more powerful car, with a different drive layout, for similar money to the bottom end BMW, and in that sense, some may have cross-shopped the two cars. To state that they were strict competitors is false as the two cars are quite different.

Motor Trend specifically lists as competitors: Lexus ES 300 and Cadillac Catera
AutoWeek specifically lists as competitors: Lexus ES 300 and Cadillac Catera
Car and Driver specifically lists as competitors: Acura TL, Chrysler 300M, Lexus ES 300, Mazda Millenia
The Car Connection specifically lists as competitors: Pontiac Bonneville, Toyota Avalon, Chrysler 300M, Volvo S80, and Nissan Maxima
Cars.com (article by Rick Popely) specifically lists as competitors: Lexus ES 300 and Infiniti I30
Cars.com (article by Alan Vonderhaar) specifically lists as competitors: Toyota Avalon, Lexus ES 300, Nissan Maxima, and Volkswagen Passat
Consumer Guide specifically lists as competitors: Infiniti I30, Lexus ES 300, Acura TL, Mazda Millenia, and Nissan Maxima
CarCostCanada specifically lists as competitors: Toyota Avalon, Mazda Millenia, Chevrolet Impala, Nissan Maxima.

Notice how they all refer to different cars? The only common one is the Lexus ES, hence why I included it. To list every potential competitor is absurd, which is why Wikipedia discourages comparisons and why I brought up this topic in the first place. Given the controversy surrounding this, the best option is to not list any competitors as it often requires a lot of discretion to do so. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OSX I honestly don't know what's the matter with you, but practising what you preach (quoting one of your revisions), "Convention is restore to version of the page before the dispute started" and I just did that. You are compromising the article and its content because, yet again, you are treating cars and markets homogeneously and/or using your sources selectively ignoring the ones confirming this car was designed to compete against BMW (the only contentious point). In saying that, I will aim to restore things that aren't disputed. Apart from that, do allow this discussion to continue, and if you have issue with prices, start another round too instead of lumping all into one. Shouldn't you know better? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding what it means then. You added the controversial material. It has been removed, restoring the article to a version without this material until the dispute is resolved. This included reinstating prices, which goes against the consensus above and also WP:NOPRICES. This BMW-related information is not material that was sitting in the article for a long time, with a dispute raised much later. Quite the contrary, I pulled you up on it straight away. Please do not touch the page again, removing all my hard work just so you can insert these questionable biases. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was against Wiki policy to claim ownership? "removing all my hard work"? Recalibrate your views... and note what I said - anything not disputed, I will try to restore. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add the information back until a consensus has been formed for its inclusion. I hope this is clear. There is a dispute about the point-of-view and accuracy of the claims and the information needs to stay off wiki until a resolution can be found. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, equal warning issued to you, for obvious reasons (I note you swiftly deleted it off your Talk Page... because you disagree with that too?). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite futile discussions opened by me on this page, a current RfC, a war edit warning placed by me on OSX's talk page but deleted by him, others' war edit warning on OSX's talk page AND a ludicrous sockpuppet complaint against me—user OSX has continued to compromise both the fully referenced content of the article through his ongoing deletes and disrupting discussions here - effectively preventing others to focus on the crux of the issue. Request for protection renewed for this reason. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the administrator that responds to this, there is a discussion above that resulted in a 5-to-1 consensus to not include prices. The RfC below also has two participants stating there is no case to include prices (and no one supporting). I also note there is an investigation for sockpuppetry is underway against CtrlXctrlV currently. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And also for the administrator that responds to this, the WP:NOPRICES discussion goes back to 2014, and 2 of the participants in the current RfC below are the same hardly partial participants. More importantly, WP:PRICES (which is neither mandatory nor definitive) has become an issue only after user OSX has absurdly claimed that the "BMW comparative" information put by me in the article (fully referenced) was "false". The pricing information in the within article has been merrily sitting there for almost 1.5 years, with OSX being fully aware of it, making edits around it but never complaining until now, when he found opposition to the "BMW comparative" issue. Sockpuppet investigation is another retaliatory action by a disgruntled OSX (aided by a partial participant in the 2014 WP:NOPRICES discussion) who has demonstrated an inability to deal with matters constructively and open mindedly. I note he has been the subject of other war edit warnings and that he has been in the practice of deleting same off his page. Protection is requested so that RfC commentators can consider the article as it stands, without the disruptive deletions by OSX and supporters. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This page is not protected, please do not fill the edit-protected queue with pages that require no editing. To request protection, please post at WP:RFPP. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article?

There is no consensus on the issue of whether or not to include the quote about the BMW, but there is a consensus against stating it as fact. In other words, it may (or may not) be appropriate to include the quote as evidence of a strategy by Mitsubishi, but it is not appropriate to state that the Magna competed with the BMW in the market. There is clear consensus against including prices, especially considering the discussion above on this talk page. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 13:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Two issues:

The article was recently edited to include these fully referenced claims: (I) "which, according to Mitsubishi's general manager of the medium class car project group, Shunji Takeshita, was built as a "luxury car [...] designed to compete with BMW" and (II) "[engine noise] was described by automotive journalists as being "reminiscent of a BMW six".
For over 1 year, fully referenced Recommended retail prices for each series and each model of this car, have been part of this article.

FIRST ISSUE: Given a WP:POV dispute started by a user finding the above claims "false" (note: there are no third-party sources supporting this), are these fully referenced quotations unfit for inclusion, considering the many direct supportive sources found? See above discussion Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#Comparisons above for more.

SECOND ISSUE: The same user disputing the above referenced quotations has attempted to delete prices (in what can only be described as an act of retaliation given he contributed to this information being left in the article). Noting that WP:NOPRICES is not definitive, this car is no longer for sale new (eliminating any misuse of Wiki as a sales catalogue), the prices are all fully referenced to the same point in time (i.e. at the launch of each new series), and price was a key factor of the success and failure of this car, should they be deleted? See above discussion Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#WP:NOPRICES above for more.

Here's hoping OSX and I do not hijack the discussion again, by making it just our own. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This car was not designed to compete with BMW, as can be shown above. This is a quote from the manufacturer and is self-serving and does not satisfy WP:V. This vehicle is 0.5 metres (19.7 in) shorter than a BMW 328i. The BMW is compact, the Mitsubishi is mid-size. The BMW more expensive at US$33,000 and upwards with options, versus US$25,000–29,000 for the Mitsubishi. The BMW is rear-wheel-drive, and the Mitsubishi front-wheel drive. Almost every reference places this car a competitor to the Lexus ES 300. This user has found quotes that state both the BMW and Mitsubishi are "near luxury" cars, which is vague term. Near luxury cars can include anything from small hatchbacks, to large limousines, provided they are around US$30,000. This would be akin to saying that the subcompact Toyota Yaris competes with the Honda Accord because they are both "mainstream cars".

As for the engine noise comment, this is purely journalistic opinion. An encyclopaedic article is not a compilation of sourced opinions, it is supposed to be a collection of verifiable facts describing the subject.

The prices information goes against a 5-to-1 consensus above, yet this user insists on adding this information back in. In general, this user blatantly disregards policy, convention and consensus, and is a sockpuppet of User:MundusEditus (indefinitely blocked) with an investigation currently underway. CtrlXctrlV has admitted to being a sockpuppet at the investigation page. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CtrlXctrlV, it is not approprraite to delete my response to this section as you did here. Everyone is entitled to engage in the request for comment. You cannot bar someone from responding. This is another example of your desire to WP:OWN this page and disregard other users/policies/consensus. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to both points above, you have not found any sources to the contrary, it's only your inexpert (relative to my sources) contentions. Some cars in Australia are cheaper than overseas, and more expensive than oversease. You are comparing apples with oranges, cross-matching markets and different product strategies for the same car. I invite you again to peruse these articles (don't worry, I won't list them all again) from Australia [29] and [30] and the USA [31] [32], all either referring to the Magna/Verada/Diamante as a competitor to the BMW or describing it as designed/built resembling one (supporting the fully referenced quotations used, that you absurdly said were "false"). Below you talk about consensus... we were 2-to-1 against you, before you engaged in the retaliatory deletions of other fully referenced information. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised you say little about this. WP:NOPRICES is not definitive, mandatory or compulsory. You have seen, read, edited around, and accepted this fully-referenced price information for over 1 year. You deleted it only now in retaliation for the above dispute. Really poor form. The price information is fully referenced, cannot be a cause of spam as a sales catalogue because the car has not been for sale for over 10 years now, the prices quoted are all at the exact time (i.e. the launch of each series, facilitating trend analysis for any who may wish to do so) and price was determinative for the success and failure of this Japanese-based Australian-made car against Australian-developed cars.

I have dealt with this issue transparently, and you have known of "my background" for over 1 year as I stated in your report. You have reported me only now because of the above legitimate dispute. Shame on you for your bad faith approach, which includes deleting warnings off your own Talk Page. Says a lot.

WP:OWN is evident only from your conduct - e.g. complaining that your hard work has been lost (which it wasn't)

OSX, you and I are clearly incapable of sorting this out, and your ongoing regurgitation is forcing further debate amongst us. Forced further replies to you in bold, above. Now leave space for others to comment also, please - this was the only intention behind deleting more of the unsupported material from you. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what you say about WP:NOPRICES, the prices information goes against a 5-to-1 consensus above! As usual you ignore other users and have a tendency to ignore consensus and just do whatever you want taking ownership of pages, making up sockpuppet accounts to help your cause, etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This entire conversation is an idiotic waste of time. Can we please just block this sockpuppet vandal CtrlXctrlV and restore this article without price lists and marketing nonsense? Any admins out there? Mr.choppers | ✎ 09:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.choppers the only idiotic thing here is your contribution (or lack thereof), noting its contemptuos nature. I searched for your name on this page and, surprise surprise, I guess it's your trait on here. You suggested that this "RfC" be added, for what? To insult? Are you OSX's buddy? If you have anything constructive to say about the things in dispute, they will be welcome. Similarly, if you have anything to say about your idiotic accusations, say them in the sockpuppet report (where, incidentally, clarification is being posted). The world is not made up of me, you or OSX. I think going by your form, you're the least of impartial (or respectful) commentators. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does adding the prices to the article provide? Nothing, it just makes it unreadable. This has already been brought up here, there is an official policy against needless price list inclusions. Also, I suggest lucidly stating your reasons once, and awaiting an RFC. I have myself added car prices, when it was of relevance - I believe I added the price of the Suzuki Alto because it was so ludicrously cheap. Also I hope that Daimler Conquest has a price in the article, as it was cleverly priced at 1066 pounds sterling - otherwise, price inclusions are not necessary. What does "surprise surprise, I guess it's your trait on here" mean? I mostly edit car articles, so you're likely to find my signature on them. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.choppers, concerning the last question, just look up at your previous comments on this talk page. Glad the further comments you have made here now have been more constructive. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Called by bot. Sources support that it was designed/marketed to compete with smaller BMW's and that this marketing had an effect on how it was viewed in the market (car reviewers don't make comparisons baselessly). Policy and editorial judgement doesn't support inclusion of the price list. SPACKlick (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regarding the BMW comparison, I feel that it was hoped by Mitsubishi that people would consider it a competitor, but I cannot see it as a successful ploy. We could include the MMC quote as evidence of Mitsubishi's aspirations. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPACKlick extending my thanks also for your input. Mr.choppers, inclusions on the basis of the manufacturer's aspirations would be a good alternative. As mentioned above, it became a straight quote only after the absurd claim that the stated design brief (or "aspirations") was false; on the "engine noise" quotation, I can see how that can be considered as being somewhat too subjective. Concerning prices (leaving aside the fact that WP:NOPRICES is debatable and not mandatorily prescriptive), did you read the article and really found it unreadable? I know this is no justification, but in others, prices are just mentioned without the same degree of context or supportive references used here. Could an alternative be a table at the end of each series or entire article, which lists all models, their options of engine, transmission, body style and then the fully referenced prices? It would make the article more readable from how it currently stands compromised (with all this other non-price detail in prose). I take this opportunity to also note that this RfC discussion remains open and unsettled, hence reinstating what's been deleted. On the "BMW comparative" discussion, so far there's only 1 clear opponent. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you added back the prices again CtrlXctrlV [33]? Are you really that arrogant to think you can keep placing this back in, especially in light of the RfC? OSX (talk • contributions) 15:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant? Just echoing your actions. The material you keep deleting (which is fully referenced and you have known to exist and edited around for some 1.5 years) is the subject of a fresh unsettled discussion. I see someone other than me has warned you about war editing here and elsewhere. Please refrain and come to my Talk Page instead of polluting this RfC as usual (I would too, but you like to delete my comments and warnings on your page). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And minutes later they are back in again [34]. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The price inclusion is debatable, but to be debated there must be a good reason. As far as I can tell, CtrlXctrlV have never mentioned why he thinks that the prices should be listed. On a separate note, I do believe that CtrlXctrlV personally wants people to think that the Magna is somehow comparable to a BMW (I should mention that I myself have always lusted after a first-gen Diamante) and that he is not playing with open cards. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrlxckrtr, I think you will notice that the RfC did not support including prices, nor does policy. So far, only you want to include the prices, presumably since you went through so much trouble looking them up in old magazines. Opposing editors include every other editor who has looked at the issue. It's settled. Stop adding them back. To refresh:

Opposing editors, backed by policy:
OSX
Stepho-wrs
SPACKlick
mr.choppers
Bahooka
Dennis Brown

In favor: CtrlXctrlV, who still hasn't given any reason why we ought to override policy. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Remove the promotional opinion; 2. Remove the pricing information. Both for reasons given above by Mr. Choppers and others. Maproom (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.choppers, sorry, but I reject your list of people opposed, because it heavily relies on that of June 2014. To refesh you on reasons "why" for inclusion:

The list of people you mention (including you and OSX), had their say only in June 2014; the pricing information was carefully recompiled and republished and the discussion has been re-opened (I accept the list of opponents to now be OSX* and you (Mr.choppers) - with reservations - and only SPACKlick and Maproom otherwise (again, those I have excluded commented as things stood in 2014 and not now, in 2016 - the only consistent thing, Mr.choppers, have been your typical offensive comments about bona fide discussions here);
It is patently clear that this discussion has been reopened, only because of OSX's bad faith in deleting it, to get even with the fact I opposed to his deletion of fully referenced and meritorious BMW comparative information (indeed, *do note this: since June 2014, he has merrily noted and edited around the pricining information, which he has tacitly approved of... in the circumstances, it is very creative of him to say that, for a period, he lost track of this article and its contents);
If I still dispute against deleting this material, it is because this reopened discussion has been hijacked by extraenous discussions, that have caused it to become fettered by past events and OSX's bad faith;
Going back to 2014, and noting again that the pricing information has been left published in the article even by OSX, the pricing information has been fully referenced and consistently reported (i.e. quoted prices are only those at the time of launch of each series), which is why I do not believe referring to the 2014 is appropriate - the circumstances have changed;
The pricing information is (arguably) acceptable, because WP:NOPRICES is neither definitive nor mandatory (note: I now intend raising this point in that Talk Page);
Price was one of the key factors of this vehicle's success and ultimate failure;
The car in question has not been on sale as a new car for more than ten years, therefore not raising any issues of misuse of Wiki as a sales catalogue;
The prices reported are all at the same point in time (i.e. at the launch of each series), thus dealing with the issue that they might have been reported wrongly or inconsistently - by including only the prices at the time of each series, it is possible to even conduct trend analysis on how prices for this car altered over its 20 years of production (not at all a determining point, but also consider that past 2017, price analysis may become important once no more Australian-made cars will be made and we will just be buying imports);
If I have undone your own and OSX's deletions (which show your own and OSX' bias), it's been to bring it back to how it was for 1.5 years, before this dispute caused by OSX (see point 2 above) and, most importantly, to give would-be discussion participants (other than the very opinionated me, you and OSX) the opportunity to ascertain for themselves whether the prices are indeed fully referenced and/or render the article illegible (as per your new claim);
I have raised an alternative - that of containing a lot of information currently in the prose, to tables, to include the fully referenced prices - nobody has commented on this yet.

I hope the above reasons clarify why I have reopened the discussion, which, again, I do not consider has having been already dealt with in 2014 (different circumstances), and which has been the subject of comment by only 2 independents (SPACKlick and Maproom) so far, in not even 1 week.

Can we (me, you, OSX) let this run for a reasonable period of time, without argument amongst ourselves or undue deletions of referenced material at this time? I would welcome your agreement to start a new section, to do without the other extraenous discussions (including OSX's vindictive and laughable sockpuppet reporting). If you agree, feel free to reset the discussion in another section of this Talk Page, without leaving it just to me - and PLEASE do not delete the page, which has been restored to how it was before this argument all started for improper reasons (again, point 2 above). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern - as foreshadowed above, there is now a related RfC here.CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You posted an rfc, and you got it. So far no one has agreed with you, and the votes from 2014 are not invalidated as nothing has changed. The conversation is over, the RfC went against you, now go do something useful. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can all of you please stop referring to WP:PRICES/NOPRICES. It's nothing but an essay and has not regulatory value whatsoever. It's merely the opinion of it's creator and there is no assertion whatsoever it has any support. Read the box on top op the page. To sum op, it's irrelevant and not helping this discussion in any direction whatsoever. T v x1 19:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's really hard to understand what is going on with all the fighting here. I would strongly recommend that the editors who have already fully voiced their opinions in this discussion (i.e. posted multiple times) take a short break from the article and let other editors have some time to calmly post their opinions. Maybe come back in a few days and let a fresh set of eyes take a look at this. Thanks Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of them has been blocked as a sockpuppet and won't contribute anymore anyway. T v x1 20:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Include both - Whether editors think the Magna/Verada platform is a worthy competitor for a BMW, the source we have is from Mitsubishi, saying they designed it as one. The prices for a car no longer sold cannot be advertising and are comparable to other superseded model articles. Off the top of my head, the price for the Ford Mustang was a major factor in its success, and we reference it. I once owned a Magna, a very bland but capable car, and while I wouldn't have said the premium Verada variant had anywhere near the cachet of the BMW, at least in Australia, it was certainly comparable in terms of comfort and equipment to some models. --Pete (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitsubishi Magna. 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/20160106012930/http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth2.htm to http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]