Talk:Renault Estafette

Dacia D6 Estaffete

First of all, please, read WP:3RR rule, you already broke it! On the other hand, assume WP:AGF (do not push for a single point of view, see: WP:DE), and do not continue to revert all reliable sources!

I consider Dacia D6 Estaffete a reasonable name for this model (as we do not have an official source, reliable sources give us these variants):

• Dacia D6: [1] at gsp.ro, part of Intact Media Group;
• Dacia D6 (Estafette): [2] at stirileprotv.ro, part of Central European Media Enterprises;
• Dacia D6: [3] at libertatea.ro, part of Ringier;

Your source, daciaclub.ro, is an Open Forum, so it is hard (as per Wiki rules) to be considered as a reliable source (and also I have doubts about that Registration Card being the original one from 1975)! But even your source, daciaclub.ro Forum, has a page with the history of the Dacia brand which still consider Dacia D6 a reality: [4]

I hope you may want to reconsider your behavior (as per behavioral guidelines),

Thank you,

(Rgvis (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC))

As per WP:SOURCES:

• The article at gsp.ro doesn't have a good enough reputation for fact-checking and accuracy regarding the name of this van, because it is a tabloistic sports newspaper and website. They could have easily taken the name from Wikipedia.

• The newspaper/website libertatea.ro do not have a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy regarding automobiles, because it is a tabloid. Additionally it does not have a good enough degree of scrutiny regarding the Dacia D6 claims, they being most probably a resume of the Wikipedia content. It is most probably this kind of situation: Beziehung zwischen Wikipedia und der Presse.
• The article at stirileprotv.ro or incont.ro reproduces word by word the text from the website automobileromanesti.ro, which in turn cites Wikipedia.
• I'm conviced that you already noticed that on the Dacia Club forum is the same unverified text from the Romanian Wikipedia: [5].
• Also, the media groups they are part of do not give them a better reputation in specifying what this car's name was, than a book released by the manufacturer or than official documents.

Then, you said you have doubts about the originality of that registration card. First of all it is not the registration card, but a document preliminary to registration called registration form, produced at the date it was scanned and published (respectively February 2007), BUT one that contains exactly the data in the vehicle's official registration car: If you think it is not reliable enough then please check this link: [6], where you can see a photo of an authentic registration card of a Dacia Estafette from 1975, where once again the model is listed as "ESTAFETTE" and nothing is mentioned about D6. Not to mention about the fact that in the source you provided at the website Planète Dacia, there is a book scan from a technical book in Romanian, that describes the model as "Estafette" and not as "D6": [7].

The sources that support my claims are:

• Registration Form of Dacia Estafette manufactured in 1977
• Registration Card of Dacia Estafette manufactured 1975
• Book scan mentioning in Romanian the model name is Estafette

So, as WP:SOURCES states, a document is a reliable enough reference, in contrast to a website that could have taken its info from Wikipedia. (I mean it just in the case of this name: Estafette or D6?) I'm not saying that the D6 code was never officially mentioned for this model, but for that a better source, like an official website of the manufacturer or a book of those times, that would certainly not be related to Wikipedia. The official sources I provided, registration cards released by the national authorities in Romania, are in my opinion more reliable in the case of the name that should stay in the infobox. How can we know D6 was not just a platform code, like X90 in the case of the Logan? I think that if D6 was indeed a commercial name, then it had been mentioned in the official documents. But as there is no reliable enough reference so far, I consider that D6 should be removed from the infobox and kept only Dacia Estafette. (Note that registration cards I provided are for cars assembled in 1975 and 1977, so exactly the second and the last years it was manufactured, according to the article.) BaboneCar (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What are your personal feelings and assumptions about three publications is not relevant in this case (WP:NPOV). Wikipedia does not judge the reputation of CME, Intact or Ringier, and being neutral is a policy. As long as they are used as reliable sources in many articles, I do not see any problem.

Your supposed sources, again, are from Open Forums (daciaclub.ro and 3xforum.ro), two images with ID vehicles cards which are not The Original Registration Forms (from 1975 or 1977), and both of them do not have The date of the first registation (row 19 is empty)!!! Why? So, they have some misinformation! Besides that, the one from 1977 has a number, C-560351, that is not recognized by the online database of the Romanian Auto Register (http://prog.rarom.ro/rarpol/rarpol.asp) (might be fakes, who knows?).

As for automobileromanesti.ro, I do not see any reference to any Wikipedia article (but rather vice-versa), instead they do cite from daciaclub.ro or 3xforum.ro and still make reference to this model as Dacia D6 (Estafette)(http://www.automobileromanesti.ro/Dacia/Dacia_Prototipuri/).

As you could see, there are many other articles that call this model Dacia D6 or Dacia D6 (Estafette) so that's why I considered fair enough to keep the entire name Dacia D6 Estafette and not only Dacia D6 or Dacia Estafette.

If you disagree with this proposal, outside opinions are necessary (WP:3O).

Thank you,

(Rgvis (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC))

Who said anything about personal feelings? It's just their reputation for facts of a such level. Please read again WP:SOURCES and you'll find the sentence that says: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". These sources that you suggested are not reliable enough, to be convinced that this car was ever sold under the D6 name and I listed above the arguments.

Regarding the Regisration Cards, don't be so absurd to consider them fakes... The row 19 is not important because the most of the Romanian cards today have that cell empty. You can search for other to convince yourself if you want. Also, the database of the Romanian Auto Register is not updated with the complete number of Registration Cards. It can happen sometimes that a card was not added to their database. So don't draw erroneous conclusions just because of the arguments you have listed.

Content on automobileromanesti.ro is often identical to the one on the Romanian Wikipedia, so I don't know how great is the level of reliability of the information displayed there.

I remain to the opinion that the misinformation is there where it says this car was called Dacia D6. You can see the illustration of the reason in the image beside. Unverified information comes on Wikipedia, then goes into the press. Now we find that information in the press and consider it reliable. I still consider a better source is needed to accept that alternative name in the infobox, if possible one that was published some decades ago. Until then, a compromise would be to list the both of them separately; both Dacia D6 and then Dacia Estafette below. BaboneCar (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The only original and trusted evidence we have now comes from the Romanian Post, and it is an anniversary postcard from 1977 dedicated to Automobile Dacia, with a picture called Dacia D6 Van!!! So, no reference to Estafette!

• Dacia D6: 1977 Romanian Postcard [8]

I understand your assumptions, but, still, you have to prove that all publications are not acting in good faith. As for those images with the supposed Registration Cards, obviously they are not the original one (that ID model was issued after 1992), contain misinformation and, more, no being identified in the official database, there are no guarantees they really exist (even with mistakes).

More references for Dacia D6:

• Dacia D6: [9] at autoevolution.com

• Dacia D6 Estafette: [10] at planetedacia.com;

• Dacia D6 Estafette: [11] at money.ro, part of Realitatea-Caţavencu;

• Dacia D6 (Estafette): [12] at incont.ro, part of ProTV;

Thank you,

(Rgvis (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC))

Official documents cannot contain misinformation, because their role is not to inform; they show the reality, in this case the model's name in the official register. That postcard is the only trustable source regarding this car's name that you provided so far. Under these references, I consider we can add the both of the names, as they can each be independently referenced. BaboneCar (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, only in the Perfect or Ideal World Official documents cannot contain misinformation!! :-)

So, we can consider this disagreement as being solved!

Thank you,

(Rgvis (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC))

I thought you were thinking about one name, but if you were talking about two different names for the same car, I certainly do not agree with you!

It's up to you if you want to reopen the dispute!

(Rgvis (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC))

Stop removing the source "Renault şi Dacia de 10 ani împreună". That's where the number of vehicles produced can be found and it's an official book, released in collaboration with Automobile Dacia. Your cited source is a non-official blog that is NOT reliable according to WP:NEWSBLOG!!! As for the name, there is no reliable source that says this car's official name was D6 Estafette. They reveal either one or the other. We cannot rely on those you listed (gsp.ro, stirileprotv.ro, libertatea.ro, money.ro, incont.ro) as they are far from being reliable when it's about a car's name of 35 years ago. The postcard clearly says D6. That's allright. You didn't like the official documents. All right, until a better source will be found it remains D6 only. I repeat, none of the websites you suggested are reliable on this topic and the fact that they are so different one from the other over the name is one argument more. BaboneCar (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, Wikipedia works with references and all of them are valuable. So, as I already told you, it's not important what are your personal feelings regarding stirileprotv.ro, autoevolution.com, libertatea.ro, money.ro, etc., they are used as references (even in auto subjects) in many Wiki articles!

As for the book you make reference to, it needs more data, page, year, publisher, ISBN (see WP:CITEHOW).

In this case, there are three variants:

• Dacia D6 - the one that I supported from the begining but you did not agree and reverted my changes in the Dacia Template;
• Dacia Estafette - the one that you supported from the beginning with two references questionable to me;
• Dacia D6 Estafette - the one with a lot of references from many different publications (not liked by you) and which I supported as a middle way to solve this problem;

In the meantime, if you changed your mind and want to reconsider the first name (Dacia D6) as being the most acceptable variant, it's not a problem, this is my opinion too. But, please, do not make any changes (at your own wish) until the issue has been settled.

So, for me Dacia D6 is the most acceptable variant!

Thank you,

(Rgvis (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC))

I agree to keep it like that for now. Those soruces regardless of my feelings towards them, do not have a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when it comes to the name of this car. As you could see they are mixed up information from around the Internet. That book would be the ultimate solution. Until then I agree it stays like that. BaboneCar (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)