User talk:Urbanoc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dacia sales figure discussion[edit]

Hi, I answered to this discussion: Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I answered once again. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Avenir Telecom for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Avenir Telecom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avenir Telecom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renault Captur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Renault Z.E.[edit]

Please don't create straw man arguments or jump to conclusions. The Renault Z.E. *is* a range and more Z.E. vehicles are in development right now as we speak. This is hardly speculation or wishful thinking nor an attempt to create a new reality or distort the future: to suggest so is ridiculous. The FR Wikipedia reflects the fact that the Z.E. vehicles are a range in their own Renault template, so the EN wikipedia community should learn from that. Also, I could just as easily accuse you of not having a logical argument in your attempt to remove this change.

Thanks for your answer, I appreciate you are open to discussion.
First, I don't think the inclussion of that type of cars on the French Wikipedia template automatically means it must be included here. The French Wikipedia articles rely largely on primary sources (in the French Renault article they even take the "revisionist" official version of the company that erases Louis Renault as a founder to justify the expropriation). Besides, the French Wikipedia can be an indicator, but each Wiki determines its own consensus.
Second, my concerns are wider than those you mention, but I'll respond that. I don't say the ZE cars aren't real, I say their inclussion in the template within a separate group give them undue weight here and now. In many cases, and I uphold my opinion because is a fact even the ZE cars articles accept, they only are derivatives of conventional cars (Fluence "ZE", Kangoo "ZE"). The sales are insignificant. They are no specially innovatives or capables as, for example, the Nissan LEAF is (by the way, that is the only electric car of the Renault-Nissan Alliance with a moderated success, if you can include the category electric cars in the Nissan template, that will give more credibility to your position). The only really noteworthy electric cars of Renault (the Zoe and the Twizy) are included anyway in my version of the template. The others can be accessed through the conventional cars' articles, if someone is interested in that type of vehicles.
To avoid this discussion becames stale and we edit-warring each other ad infinitum, I'll bring uninvolved editors to it. They can give a fresh look to it. Not something for my own benefit, because I don't know what they think, but they can help to establish a consensus.
Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There's far too much talk and stagnation on Wikipedia — I've seen discussions go on for two years without a change being made — but I'll go so far as to say that Z.E. is much more than a range of cars by Renault as they are not ICE vehicles at all. They are EVs, a completely different class of vehicle. Renault is making an dedicated commitment to develop these EVs and bring them to market and the fact that two of the four current Z.E. vehicles are based on existing ICE vehicle bodies doesn't alter that fact. We'll see what Renault will announce next for Z.E. but according to Renault this class/range/whatever will only grow. reinthal (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, my view is the company's efforts to campaign for the electric vehicle are irrelevant, because they didn't meet expectations and not generated a sound effect in third-party coverage (except for blogs and company-paid articles). I think the future of the electric cars from "mid-size" carmakers as Renault will depend of two key factors:
1) Europe don't fall anymore: if the European car market (one of the more open to electric mobility because the use of non-fossil energies as nuclear) continue its falling, Renault will never be able to reduce prizes based on volume, and the EVs never will be rivals for the economy cars (like Renault's Dacias), which are the fastest selling because of its affordability and easy-to-fix features.
2) China really bets on EVs: Many of the expectatives of Renault-Nissan are in that market, because it can bring the much needed sales volume and make the EV projects a source of profit and not only a way to through out money. If the EVs are not profitable, I don't see them a long future.
Anyway, its all speculation. The thing is today the Renault's EVs are not relevant. For me, the fact two or them don't be more that variants of conventional cars is really significant, because it reduce its distinctiveness. And, at the end, the electric cars are cars, because apart from its engine, they share a similar configuration to its internal combustion equivalents. If some day are successful, they won't need its own template's group because they will be industry's standards. At present, they are more a curiossity and give them its own group seems "green" propaganda.
Changing the subject, I propose to you eliminate the Twizy and the Zoe from current cars' list to avoid repeating them. It didn't mean any other change, the current template's layout (with the electric car's group) would be preserved, at least until a consensus arises.
Regards.--Urbanoc (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your User Page[edit]

Hope you don't mind, but I've added all the articles that you've created to your user page Seqqis (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem :-) Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo Faiveley Transport.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Logo Faiveley Transport.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Clear template[edit]

The clear template is not necessary simply because it lets too much empty space between the last paragraph and the references section. It has a definitely better layout without it as it looks more compact. I can understand the use of the clear template when it's really necessary, such as when you want to separate the first generation article from the lead section, with the table of contents and the infobox, in an automobile article. But here it is quite obviously not necessary. The references sections is acceptable to be right after the text. You may also check the guidelines regarding blank lines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. However, I appreciate your interest into the subject of the article and I hope we can get to an understanding on this issue. Thank you. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see that way, thanks for your explanation, I appreciate it :).I thought it improved the design of the article, but thinking about what you say you're right, it is not necessary that extra space. Anyway, I want to make it clear I didn't put into question all your edits, it was a problem with that in particular because at first sight I considered it detrimental. I think you are a constructive editor, there is no many in vehicles' articles. Despite we don't always agree I think you do an excellent job with car articles and you really improved the carmaker's templates. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renault Trucks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox automobile[edit]

Hi. There is a debate at Template:Infobox automobile whether to change the title style from how it has been so far, from outside the infobox to the inside. If you consider that it should remain outside the infobox (as in Template:Infobox company for example), please express your opinion at Template talk:Infobox automobile. Thank you. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I indeed prefer the title outside, but it seems there is an overwhelming consensus to put the title inside. Basically, the desicion is to make a copycat of the French infobox. I don't think French Wiki can be considered an example, but my opinion is clearly a minority. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gordini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Formula One[edit]

There's no doubt that it's the same championship - but it was orginally called the World Drivers' Championship, and it introduces fewer anomalies to call it that, especially in the early years. None of the Formula One races in 1952 or 1953 counted for the championship, for one thing. Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess it could accurately be called a Formula One world championship from the year the Indianapolis 500 no longer counted - the 500 has never been run for F1 cars. There's only the one championship, which has been held since 1950 - the name and the rules have changed along the way, though. For that matter, it continued from the pre-war European Drivers' Championship. Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Automobile Dacia[edit]

Hi. I don't understand why did you revert the whole of my recent edits in the article, as they adhere to the point supported by you in the discussion on the talk page, which in my opinion is definitely correct. Sales figures on the Automobile Dacia page should only count the sales under the Dacia brand, which is what I emphasized in my edits (in fact keeping the note that was already present there). You also reverted some edits where I added information about the history of the company, which do not have anything in common with the discussion on the talk page.

I see that the discussion on the article's talk page has got to a standing point and I think that it should not prevent from adding further useful information. The reference you provided as an example is very clear in this regard: the sales statistics document on the Renault website counts the Renault and the Dacia sales separately (including those of the common models, such as the Logan, Sandero, Duster, Lodgy or Dokker). To conclude, the edits I did in the Sales section are in line with the point in your edit summary, therefore I think they should not be reverted. I added a reply with my opinion on the talk page of the article and will add the information back if you have nothing against it. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'll reverted myself and return to your last version. I wasn't happy with some of the prose, but after I read your explanation in the article talk I saw my concerns were incorrect. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Renault Samsung QM3 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • engine range is limited to a single dCi 90 four-cylinder diesel and dual-clutch transmission.<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=Renault Samsung Motors |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renault Captur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for the advice about the Nissan logo! Now only i realized what i've done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuvarshanw (talkcontribs) 22:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maubeuge Construction Automobile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daimler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Altarea SCA vs. Altarea Cogedim[edit]

Thank you for your contribution. As you said the name of the public company is Altarea SCA, but only used for financial purposes; the name of the company as officially referred to for business purposes and the general public is Altarea Cogedim. We will change the infobox then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltareaCogedim (talkcontribs) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood me. The legal name, except in the case of articles covering divisions or brands from larger businesses, always is the one used in the infobox, it is a Wikipedia convention. Altarea Cogedim is a mere trading name, regardless of the importance the company gives it. You can search through similar articles if you don't believe me. By the way, be careful of not being over-promotional, as the article seems to be moving on that direction. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your User Page[edit]

Hope you don't mind again. But I've made a few changes to your user page. Seqqis (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, Seqqis. I have neglected my user page anyways. Thanks for your interest in my work. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI threshold[edit]

Do you think this Renault business has reached the threshold for an ANI case? I for one am tired of being called names and accused of stuff I haven't done; and there are those threats of sock/meat puppetry and bad press, etc... against Wikipedia. Not having been involved in an ANI incident before it's new territory for me.... Vrac (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vrac, I wasn't in an ANI either, but I do think the IP's behaviour is borderline to say the least. He always demands "good faith" criteria for his edits but considers all the editors opposing him "dishonest." He's very uncivil, makes baseless acussations and never wants to find a compromise. In brief, maybe a case at ANI would be the only course of action to confront this situation. Urbanoc (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The IP is a fool, but I also think that you guys are overreacting a bit at times. I don't have the time to read everything (full-time job + 8-month baby) but why was the text about the reason for privatization removed? And the Laguna was the first car to get five EuroNCAP stars, which might just be enough for an inclusion at Renault - or not, but I don't see it as an immediate revert. I feel like a bit of politeness and also diversion onto other pages will calm this guy down considerably. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mr.choppers. I suppose you are refering to my last edits. I didn't delete the reasons for privatisation, I removed a added word on that, the text saying "Renault was eventually decided that the company's state-owned status was detrimental to its growt...", I left it as "It was eventually decided that the company's state-owned status was detrimental to its growt...", which was the original text. While I agree the Laguna's bit was essentially true, all the extra promotional wording on Renault innovations that included highlighting the word milestone made the text difficult to save. If important, that can be re-added in a more neutral tone (in fact, the first 5-star bit is still present).
My problem with the IP's edits in the French car manufacturers' articles is he thinks Wikipedia must be a weapon in their "war" against VW, so any means of promotion are valid. The VW article isn't following NPOV and has a very low level, which is almost unbeliable considering it is the most sold (and known) European generalist in USA by far, but I don't think that's a reason to make the French Big 3 even worser. I do think he'll introduce his agenda into the article eventually (persistence is a powerful thing...), but I'm not so sure more politness from our part would change that, the only thing he'll accept is a complete acceptance of his views, even if they contradict Wikipedia principles and guidelines.
I hope you can still find some time to edit despite the baby-caring , good luck with both! Urbanoc (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I used IP's EuroNCAP source to validate the Laguna bit in the current version, as it was unsourced, but was more neutral. Urbanoc (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool. And yes, ip guy is obviously not balanced.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thanks for the article Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sfan00 IMG!Urbanoc (talk)

Unequal treatment of articles in the same domain[edit]

I have never written to you before. But you harassed me with you messages. You once again accused me to be uncivil whereas I am never. You once again accused me to do a promotion, whereas I never do that. I only added some neutral facts that are allowed in the articles of the same domain. You already attacked me with an ANI, so this time I ask that some administrators intervene. I don't particularly expect that any fair answer could come, but let's see. Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the ANI. I already say my piece there in the past; I don't see the point if no one wants to intervene. As for your claims, I think you are doing all the things you accuse other editors. You misrepresented my words and my edits in various opportunities with the purpose of portraying me under an unfavourable light. You never took time to read Wiki guidelines, considering all the edits that changed yours as a personal insult and "harassment." You make use of a very confrontational tone.
I think you are "honest" in your love for France and French cars but, as I say to you before, the Wiki is about trying to collect info in the most objective way. We need try to avoid nationalistic, promotional and biased overtones. I don't really like VW as you claimed, and I don't have any problem with French marques. I think we must avoid bias in all articles Urbanoc (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolls-Royce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Renault Super Goélette[edit]

Trophy.png Renault Super Goélette
Thank you Charles01 (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that Charles! :) If you think you can improve it or if I made a mistake, feel free to modify it. Regards--Urbanoc (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Louis Schweitzer and Renault[edit]

Hello. Sorry that you block the whole Renault for the Louis Schweitzer input, because he is pointed out as a precious example of key management, like in this MIT source for example, so I am happy to teach you that. You're welcome ! Renault, the French automobile company, went through a radical transformation during the 1990s. When Louis Schweitzer became CEO in 1992, the state-owned company was languishing. Schweitzer cut costs through a number of well-publicized plant closures, but he also invested in new-product development (leading to such models as the Espace and Megane) and began the search for a strategic partner to take Renault into the top tier of the industry. After an abortive merger with Volvo in 1993, Renault gained control of a struggling Nissan in 1998 and, to the surprise of many observers, quickly turned around its performance. By 2001, the Renault-Nissan Alliance had joined the ranks of industry leaders and was one of the most profitable auto companies in the world. How did the transformation take place? Schweitzer developed a simple and consistent strategy built around what he called the “seven strategic goals.” The strategic planning and budgeting processes, and the bonuses and stock option plans, were all aligned with these goals. The communication of the message was, in the words of one executive, “doggedly consistent.” At the same time, the company developed what one executive called a “deep desire to adapt.” The seven strategic goals were updated every two or three years, the organization had an informal style of management in which expressing alternative views was encouraged and managers developed a self-critical approach, always looking to improve. The result was an organization that became proficient at continually making small adaptations to its strategy without losing alignment. Renault’s transformation during the 1990s involved a shift from the country-club to the high-performance context. Until 1990, employees had viewed the company as a comfortable and secure place to work, with an informal atmosphere. Over the following 10 years, a number of changes were brought about, primarily through top-down initiatives revolving around cost reduction and quality and through greater focus on, and commitment to, KEY STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. One executive commented that his business unit was run as a “commando-type organization — appraisal and evaluation interviews are run in a pyramidal form and compensation is [now] geared toward short-term objectives.” Most of these changes were instituted through a new executive team that gave people more structure, which led to a focus on new products and new opportunities as a means of delivering on the more ambitious goals. Stated slightly differently, the emphasis during the transition was placed on performance management but building on the social support that had existed in the early 1990s. Indeed, two of Schweitzer’s seven goals were concerned with the internal organizational context (develop a coherent and open group; work more effectively together). Renault achieved it by building a performance context around its existing social support.

=> It would be useful that you then change your mind and stop blocking the article. You could have found several sources that mention his key role yourself, but I am happy to have helped you to clarify your mind. Do you still deny Schweitzer's key role ? Actually, more text in the article is needed about Schweitzer too, in addition to the "key people" line, as you can notice. Anyway, my previous reliable source from Oxford University press is already clear also about his actions : "Renault's long-standing chairman and chief executive, Louis Schweitzer transformed Renault into a successful company". Georges Douin also had a significant role to convince Nissan and to buy Dacia and Samsung Motors. Thank you. (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you aren't convincing me, and we already spoke a lot about this. As I said before, you need to open a RfC or seek support to your position in related WikiProjects, as you have a fair chance of convincing a majority of editors to establish a consensus. My concerns can be resumed in two questions: Was Schweitzer relevant? Yes. Was the more relevant CEO in Renault history? I don't think so, and I don't believe there's a source supporting directly that. For me, there's at least three other people as relevant as Schweitzer in Renault history: Louis Renault, Pierre Lefaucheux and Georges Besse. Renault is already mentioned in the infobox, although not as "key people". In his short tenure during the critical period following World War II, Lefaucheux defined most of the company for the following years. He opposed the Pons Plan at a time when the French State was particularly strong, keeping Renault in the small car market and as a volume manufacturer. He also, against all opposition, introduced the Renault 4CV, a car that was the firt Renault assembled outside Europe and influential in a lot of manufacturers. As for Besse, he started the rationalisation of Renault. He reduced the workforce and sold money-lossing assets for financing and making more stable the company operations. Basically, the things Schweitzer and Ghosn kept on doing until the 2000s... However, if you can establish a consensus, I will accept it as I think you maybe have a point.
As for the article, I think Schweitzer is your only addition that met support from other editors, so he isn't blocking things at the moment. In fact, all agree that he's at least worth of a discussion. The problem is the rest of the things you want in it. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Saviem 720[edit]

I saw the mention that the Saviem 3.6 liter engine was MAN-based. I can't find any information regarding this collaboration and I am very curious. It is probably due to the problems of Googling "MAN" - one doesn't get very good results. If only the Germans had considered googlability in 1908 and placed Nürnberg before Augsburg as "MNA" would have been much easier to find. Do you know anything about which MAN engine it was based on?  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they could have been more careful with that. "MAN" gives a lot of disturbing results :).
I followed an "Automotive News" article which said the 720 engines were an introduction to the Saviem range of MAN-based engines. Oddly enough, it said they were assembled by Alfa Romeo (?) and that were later replaced by Sofim engines. The article didn't say more, though, as it was more focussed in Saviem merger with Berliet. I made a quick "Saviem 720" google search and I found it mentioned as the Saviem (MAN) 720, but nothing clear was mentioned of which MAN engine was the base for the 720. They mentioned the 720 was used as a base for marine engines, which is pretty curious. It seems more like a Saviem-developed thing using a lot of MAN technology. However, in various personal pages and forums (especially in French) is made clear that it was related to the engine called by the Saviem company Saviem or MAN 712, a 3.3L straight-four unit. Of course, that can't be considered something of WP:RS, but well... The 712 was used at least since 1959, in the JL, R-series and S ranges. But Saviem didn't use MAN engines until the end of 1963 and later 712s are mentioned as "MAN-based". I think they modified existing units and added them new MAN technology. So, my opinion is that some of the engines classified as MAN-based were actually MAN, but others were Saviem-developed engines with MAN components. Sorry I can't give you more precise info. :(
In general, the trucks info isn't nearly as abundant as the cars info. And, for a small and not-so-popular French manufacturer defunct long time ago as Saviem, it's nearly non-existent. Nevertheless, those somewhat obscure companies are interesting. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Renault Talisman[edit]

This is actually a 2nd generation Renault Talisman. So the first generation should be included in the article with

link on 2nd generation Renault Samsung SM7. I would also recommend creating a new article: Renault Talisman (concept), for more clearness.

Sorry for the late response, I was pretty busy and I wasn't able to edit or participate in Wikipedia these days. I see your point, but I don't think the other car called "Renault Talisman" can be considered a first generation model, at least with the info currently available. The first car called Talisman (a rebadged SM7 for the Chinese market) is pretty unrelated to this design: the SM7 is almost an E-segment car with European standards and the European Talisman is a clear D-segment vehicle aimed at the Passat niche, the SM7 is a vehicle engineered for the Asian tastes and the new Talisman a clearly European one, the SM7 was never (and won't be) sold in Europe and will still be sold in China as Talisman in the foreseeable future, while the European Talisman will only be sold in European and Europe-related markets. Renault seems to have chosen the name because of the backlash of the ill-fated Laguna and its intention of selling similar cars with identical names worldwide. The European Talisman would be in fact a fourth-generation Laguna. Almost none of the reliable sources available called the European Talisman a "second-generation" car, they only state the previous use of the name and that it will replace the Laguna and the Latitude (in European markets). --Urbanoc (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)