Talk:Land Rover Discovery

Article Wording - Tense

The main article, mostly in the Disco 3 section, has several conflicting uses of tense, e.g. is/was, will/did, has/had. I feel that it should be brought into conformity. Is there a consensus of which tense should be used? —Travis ^C/_T\^U 15:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Specifications

Is the width right? 86.2 inches is wide - I've read it's 75.4" Are the other specs correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.19.25 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

External Links

Please do not add links that are contrary to guidelines. The external links section should be used for official sites, reviews and sites which contain information that is pertinent to the subject but can't be included for whatever reason. Forums, fansites and clubs are not acceptable links due to the fact there is lack of editorial oversight, lack of notability and lack of accessibility in some cases (ie. needing to sign up to enter the site).-Localzuk^(talk) 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out the standard list of links normally to be avoided, specifically, sites which sell something or have a lot of advertising. I have seen several "get your Land Rover parts here"-type links added in the past. —Travis^talk 15:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

i am thinkin of buying a land rover discovery 1996 model. i wonder is there any where to check honest reviews ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.15.101 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Classification of cars in the chart

Possibly a need to review the classification "full size" and "mid size" etc... given

- the Discovery I when it arrived was larger than the then current model Range Rover - the Range Rover Sport is based on the Discovery chassis/pan

so to call one "full size" and the other "mid size" seems somewhat misleading.

Ccomley (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:A 1999 Land Rover Discover II.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A 1999 Land Rover Discover II.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File:2005-2009 Land Rover Discovery 3 TDV6 SE wagon 02.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2005-2009 Land Rover Discovery 3 TDV6 SE wagon 02.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:1999-2000 Land Rover Discovery II Td5 5-door wagon (2011-06-15) 01.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:1999-2000 Land Rover Discovery II Td5 5-door wagon (2011-06-15) 01.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help!

As an authority on the history of the Land Rover Discovery, and someone who is in the process of writing a book about same, I'd be happy to help with this page to improve it where required and to keep it up-to-date as far as possible.L-R-D-EU (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Discovery Concept Vision

I would like to see some write-up on the Discovery Concept Vision, unveiled on April 14th, 2014:

• Press Release on the official US website
• UK mini-site

Discovery lineup will be extended with the creation of a smaller LR Discovery Sport - similarly to the Range Rover & Range Rover Sport lineup; not sure if that would warrant a separate article, or if Discovery Sport would be described here...

I'm happy to put something together, but wasn't sure if someone wasn't already looking into this... Mstruzak (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The one millionth Discovery ...

... should be part of the Discovery 4 / LR4 section, not a section on its own... Mstruzak (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A matter of judgement

I do not understand why this picture:

has been replaced with this picture

In my opinion, for one of the pictures the photographer stood much too close, and set his zoom to maximum distort. Also he angled it oddly for no obvious reason, which gives rise to an image rather different from what you would see if you were there at the time and saw the car.

(And the car's a tad dusty. And it's got some distracting reflections along the side.)

In my opinion the other picture is not too bad.

However, I appreciate that what you see when you look at a car has as much to do with the processes unfolding inside your brain as it has to do with what is objectively in front of you. Also, I've noticed we all see things differently. And I should point out that one of these pictures was taken by me, so if no one else shares my opinion on this I'll shut up.

Happy days Charles01 (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that the subject, framing, etc. are all superior in the first photo. --ColinMB (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Charles. I changed the photo as the white car is not in original condition. The wheels appear aftermarket (there is no LR badge) and the driving lamps and their mounting bar are surely non-stock. This is in accordance with WP:CARPIX: "Avoid pictures of customized cars (e.g. incorrect wheels or other aftermarket components like bodykits or conversions for police or taxi applications) as they are not representative of the vehicle's factory specification". OSX (talk • contributions) 07:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

New Discovery 5

And now we have the first pictures of the Discovery 5 in testing, due out 2017 but may be revealed later during 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.160.50 (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no citation for the last paragraph of this section: "A mid term update with a refreshed interior and new engine range was launched in 2021. Larger infotainment screens and revisions to the layout of the Commercial variant including more underfloor storage were the main highlights. Mild hybrid engines with automatic 2WD/4WD switching was now introduced as standard across the range. The smaller 2.0 litre engines have been deleted from the range. All engines are now 3.0 litre size." PennyTraps (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the wording of the second last sentence is not quite correct: "The smaller 2.0 litre engines have been deleted from the range." The word "deleted" is usually used in the context of destroying or removing text or digital media. I suggest using the word "removed" instead. PennyTraps (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Land Rover Discovery. 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/20061225050206/http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2190/ to http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2190/

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) 14:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)