Jump to content

Talk:Mitsubishi i-MiEV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mitsubishi i MiEV)
Former good articleMitsubishi i-MiEV was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2011Good article nomineeListed
February 19, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Untitled

[edit]

"Mitsubishi i-MiEV's System Diagram" has a few errors in spelling and could be redrawn for clarity. Shigeru23 created the document, I'll contact him and work on fixing it. LeeColleton (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: I MiEV moved to Mitsubishi i MiEV Mariordo (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: I MiEV --> Mitsubishi i MiEV ?

[edit]

I MiEV → Mitsubishi i MiEV — Would it be better, as proposed by one editor, to change the title from 'I MiEV' to 'Mitsubishi i MiEV'?North wiki (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100% support for the proposal, that is the actual name and follows the format of all other car articles in Wikipedia. I suggest you tag the article and begin a formal discussion here for changing the name.---Mariordo (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, let's keep it consistent with the naming scheme used by most vehicles.  Stepho  (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where on that policy page does it say that vendor capitalization is not appropriate? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Wiki policy, this is a commercial name (just like a proper name) that we should respect as is.--Mariordo (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSTM is pretty clear on the topic. Wikipedia has never been an environment to respect text formating simply because it's a trademarked name. Quoting MOS:TM; "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner."--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that MiEV which kind of comes across as "my EV" is different than Miev or MIEV and is more pleasant for the reader to see the distinct EV. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Closed after two days and by a participants, not exactly appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the edit history? It was moved by User:JohnCD, an administrator, who did not participate in the discussion, so you should ask him why he moved the article before the deadline. I just followed the instructions he left to archive the discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recharging

[edit]

"Recharging is estimated to take 14 hours from a 110 volt power supply" The original wording "regular home outlet" comes directly from the news article. 1) I'd like to note that the article most probably refers the regular home outlet to those in Japan; 2) I'd think that (because I can't remember clearly) Japan uses 110 volt(or 120) in household outlets. 3)Though, at the end of the day, I don't think any further change is necessary. North wiki (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expression 'regular home outlet' is meaningless to readers in a different country (most countries use 220V and only a handful like Japan and the US use 110V). So for an Australian like me I would see '14 hours on a regular home outlet' (which for me is 220V) followed by 7 hours on 220V and see a conflict. Since we are urged to write the article in different words than the source, I feel my change to explicitly spell it out as '14 hours for 110V' removes the conflict for international readers and also satisfies the mandate of WP to write it in our own words. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be assured that I have followed all proper Wiki guidance to write it in my words. Nevertheless, not to replace important phrases, I think, is allowable.North wiki (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so much worried about lifting a few phrases here and there but I am worried about confusion caused to international readers. How many readers know what voltage a regular home outlet is in Japan? Japanese readers will know that it is 110V but they will probably read the Japanese WP anyway. By a lucky fluke, US and Canadian readers are likely to assume it is 110V. But most of the world is likely to assume it is 220V (eg Australia, China, UK, France, Germany). So different readers from around the world will be getting a different message based on their own experience - that is not good in an encyclopaedia. However, I see your point about the difference between a regular Japanese home outlet (110 V) and a special high voltage (220 V) outlet that is installed in some Japanese homes. Perhaps a qualified phrase like 'a regular 110 V Japanese home outlet' would satisfy us both.  Stepho  (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi i MiEV → Mitsubishi I Miev — per WP:MOSTM. The previous move discussion was closed after being open only two days and by a participant in the discussion itself.Labattblueboy (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Every one of the references cited above for pronunciation use the lower case "i", and four of the five use "MiEV". And WP:MOSTM says "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)", after all. Ugly it may be, but "Mitsubishi i MiEV" reflects popular usage just like eBay, iPhone, etc. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any reliable sources using "Mitsubishi I", or "Miev". Examples supporting our current title can be easily Googled, but here's several at the NY Times: [6][7][8]; the BBC: [9][10]; even the august Encyclopædia Britannica: [11]. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:MOSTM "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." eBay, iPhone, etc are Camelcase and considered acceptable under the current guidelines. This is not an example of camelcase. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The examples above are pretty good examples of why the commercial name should be respected. Furthermore, the proposed way would be WP:OR as we will be inventing such spelling. Look at the pictures of the car to confirm that it is indeed i MiEV. And by the way, the move was performed by an administrator, not me. I just did the closure after the sysop moved it, check the history to confirm. Ask him why he closed it before the deadline.--Mariordo (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. wp:mostm needs to be updated. Nothing wrong in this case with following the common capitalization scheme. If it were to be moved it should be MIEV since the letters are an acronym.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with having it in all caps as well, given it is an acronym. For me, it's the mixed styling that's an issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Estonia's deal with mitsubishi for charging stations and 507 iMievs + incentives for ~500 more electric cars of buyers choise

[edit]

http://majandus.delfi.ee/news/uudised/elektriauto-vaata-mis-autod-hakkavad-meie-sotsiaaltootajaid-vedama.d?id=41360931

http://majandus.delfi.ee/news/uudised/eesti-vahetas-saastekvoodid-elektriautode-ja-laadimisjaamade-vastu.d?id=41341927

http://majandus.delfi.ee/news/uudised/sotsiaalministeeriumile-tahendavad-elektriautod-kokkuhoidu.d?id=41363675

http://majandus.delfi.ee/news/uudised/kvoodimuuja-tehing-mitsubishiga-on-uks-maailma-suurimaid.d?id=41351153

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/593615

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/593611

http://www.logistikauudised.ee/default.aspx?publicationid=338910AA-B38A-4E4F-9DE6-16F5C7C9A4FD

http://www.logistikauudised.ee/?PublicationId=0058a047-45fe-4185-8eb2-e3d96947c140&ref=rss

http://www.logistikauudised.ee/?PublicationId=3924053a-9035-4868-a952-e66b32be448d&ref=rss

http://www.logistikauudised.ee/?PublicationId=a883255b-ad9a-4a4c-9245-43e77e888366&ref=rss


here are the news discussing the new deal between Estonia's government and Mitsubishi corporation

89.235.224.90 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) -- intgr [talk] 20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European-spec 2011 model year

[edit]

Anybody know what 'European-spec 2011 model year' means in the Australian section. I know it is a direct quote from the reference but does it mean mid 2011 to mid 2012 calendar years (as Australians and Europeans think) or mid 2010 to mid 2011 calendar years(as N.Americans think). Since WP:Automobiles has agreed that '2011 model year' is the phrase to be used for the American meaning, this could be ambiguous.  Stepho  talk  05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is American jargon, so common sense must prevail. Go ahead and fix it.--Mariordo (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but the problem is I don't know which version to use. Australian auto writers are more and more falling into the American meaning (which I don't like but that's another story). I can think of scenarios where the writer meant we get the current version and other scenarios where we get last year's version. Car manufacturers seem to think that us Aussies like being a year or two behind the rest of the world and getting only the base model, so I can't decide which is correct.  Stepho  talk  06:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the writer was referring to mid 2011 to mid 2012, because the article discusses how when the i MiEV is released for sale in Australia in August this year, it will be the updated, European-spec version. The European-spec version was released after the Japanese-spec i MiEVs were delivered here, and that's why they are calling it "an update".--Pineapple Fez 22:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My brain must be getting fuzzy :) Anyway, I clarified it as 'similar to the European-spec model released in 2011'. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  23:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent choice of wording, allows you to go around the problem. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
CITROËN C-ZERO BECOMES A REDIRECT
Full consensus to merge, including the creator of the article.-Mariordo (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2012 (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.

Citroën C-Zero has its own article, but it's just a badge-engineered version of the i-MiEV; designed by MMC, built in Japan... PSA's input is limited to selling it. It wasn't even separately tested by EuroNCAP, just given the same rating as the Mitsubishi. Redirecting is the standard approach on WP for such vehicles. The bizarre thing is that Peugeot iOn is a redirect, but to the Citroen article, not this one.

There's little encyclopedic content to merge (i.e. reliable, notable, and verifiable), and would in fact give broader coverage of the i-MiEV's significance, in my opinion. There's even a pre-existing section that the redirects could specifically point to, i.e. Mitsubishi i-MiEV#France. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. The C-Zero should only a redirect to the i-MiEV article. There is almost nothing worthy of being merged in the i-MiEV article (almost all the content is already in the latter article) and the C-Zero by itself does not have notability for a stand alone article. I do not see the need to redirect to the "France" heading, it should be just a redirect, just like the Opel Ampera redirects to the Chevrolet Volt (see a similar recent discussion here). .--Mariordo (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as per Mariordo. --Pineapple Fez 05:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Both the Citroën C-Zero and Peugeot iOn are mere rebadging exercises of the Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Neither of the cars have any self-defining characteristics that aren't present in the Japanese model. --Pc13 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe that rebadged cars should be described in a single article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per reasons above. Warren (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the article creator and main contributor of Citroën C-Zero, I have no objection to the merger if that is the consensus.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2012 (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.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:AutoCAD which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sales/production figures

[edit]

I have worldwide sales and production figures for 2011 for the C-ZERO and iOn but an attempt to add them was reverted. I find these figures far more notable than the ones for individual countries and more so because someone has added a Guinness World record to the article on these figures. These are much more comparable than a block of text about sales in different countries and directly from PSA. Mariordo's revert summary was "This is a GA: it doesn't make sense to have a one entry table (the article already covers more details of production and sales))" which i find troubling since the information is more useful than the breakdown for individual countries and "Good" doesn't mean it can no longer be edited. So again, here's the table:

Year Sales Production Notes
C-ZERO iOn i-MiEV C-ZERO iOn i-MiEV
2009 — — 1,426[1] — — 1,710[1]
2010 0[2] 1[2] 2,541[1] 425[3] 425[3] 8,496[1] C-ZERO and iOn launched.
2011 2,074[4] 2,392[4] 2,552[1] 3,377[4] 3,257[4] 14,795[1] 3,607 total Peugeot iOns produced.
3,724 total Citroen C-ZEROs produced.[4]
2012 3,300[5] 2,900[5] TBA 1,800[5] 1,800[5] TBA 5,400 total Peugeot iOns produced.
5,500 total Citroen C-ZEROs produced.[5]

Does anyone have an issue with the addition? Keep in mind that a lot of information in the article could be merged into the notes section and i've made a lot of improvements since the initial revert. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, and seems well-researched, although to raise a small nit I would prefer to see production before sales in the table rather than after. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Biker Biker that prod before sales would be better, and perhaps a cumulative column rather than the notes? Warren (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These data enhance the article. I don't understand why anyone should want to exclude the table. But (yes, sorry, always a but....in this case two) (But 1) IF the volumes in the notes columns are in addition to the volumes in the main columns, it could be made clearer. How about replacing "3,607 total Peugeot iOns produced" with "+ 3,607 badged as Peugeot iOns" (OR "includes 3,607 badged as Peugeot iOns") and same for the other similar notes. I'm not sure I've got the wording right here, but I do think it should be immediately obvious that these Peugeot/Citroen badged cars are in addition to those in the columns. Unless they're not. And obviously the clearer the table the less anyone who doesn't care so much about cars is going to be tempted to object to it... (But 2) The 2012 figures appear to be rounded to the nearest 100. Data for the other years appears to be unrounded. It would be even better if the data for all years could be presented on a consistent basis.
On the "text vs table" thing, if you've ever made a presentation to a group of auto-executives (or any other group of business folk) you'll have spotted that some focus on what you tell them, while others focus on the data in the charts on the slide show, and still others will focus on the bullet points also on the slide show and not even bother to hear your attempts to nuance the necessarily simplistic information contained in these. Some even seem to understand the endlessly elaborate bar charts superimposed on pie charts and pictogrammes. We all have different preferences about how we like to be fed information, and I don't think it's unreasonable that wikipedia tries to accommodate both the prose junkies AND the clever folks who can digest and analyse the contents of a table in thirty seconds. (Me, I like looking at the pictures of the cars, at least where they're any good....)
Thanks for the good info. Success Charles01 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Text vs table is a valid point. I personally like information i can decifer and compare fast, instead of blocks of text with scattered numbers.
This took the entire day to research and all the figures are from PSA (Peugeot and Citroen) and Mitsubishi directly so i haven't altered them. That also means since PSA is not offering unrounded figures for 2012 in their annual report - then neither can i. These things are never exact though as they have missing vehicles, spoiled stock, display models and prototypes which are produced and never sold - but which still get included in some of their published figures - causing discrepancies.
Thanks for the support guys! Biker i'll start on your suggestions soon. Warren, i'm not sure i follow, can you explain it in a bit more detail? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 18:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jenova20, I also support the inclusion of the production table in the article in its new format/additional content. Also I think this time you placed it in the right section, production. It will be great if you can get a hold of the 2012 data for the i-MiEV, I had looked for it before, but Mitsu has only been providing total production figures for some time. Sorry for the inconvenience of reversing your previous edit. Let me explain. The existing production table only had one entry, and was located in the production section. You created a new section with a separate table for a different year, plus, you moved content from the lead to the main body, duplicating almost the same existing content in the sales section. Also the title of the new section partially duplicated the name of two existing section. These type of changes affect the quality of the article, and it is this way that many article began to deteriorate until they lose their quality status. For example look a the history of the London congestion charge, little by little was changed until recently demoted from FA. Great work! --Mariordo (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to avoid duplicating the content, which is why i grabbed some of the content to put it in the same section. I've got three of those PSA releases now and so it's much simpler, in fact it's practically super-fast copy+paste, for me to work through the releases one at a time, instead of all three at once by vehicle. The problem with that is that when a new vehicle pops up in once requiring special research (iOn and C-ZERO) the article can be left with just a single year on the table for a while. That's what happened here, and also that i rearranged things. Overall though it looks like no harm was done now. Thanks for the replies guys ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realise this might get me yelled at but has anyone else noticed that Negative ions must have been produced in 2009? Eddaido (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's always discrepancies with the figures to an extent: 1+ iOns may have been produced as prototypes or display models and then sold. And Citroen may not count prototypes or display models in their production figures. Heck, it could even be one from the future =P
Unfortunately the people who know are PSA (Peugeot/Citroen). Interesting though ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More interesting is why are Mitsubishi by 2011 producing about 5-times as many I-Mievs as Citroen and Peugeot are when sales are similar across all three? Where are all these extra I-Mievs going to? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jenova20 - I have found the answer to your question. The production figures quoted by Mitsubishi in their report includes all models. See their note: "Including commissioned OEM production". This would suggest the Peugeot and Citroen figures are included in the Mitsubishi figure an not in addition to this. I suggest the table might need an edit! Warren (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of simple maths should sort it. I'll give it a stab Warren ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've sorted it. Mitsubishi only produces 3-times as many as they sell now...That's still unrealistic... but this is an electric car and if they didn't mass produce them the costs would be so high that they would never sell. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f "Mitsubishi Annual Report 2012" (PDF). Car manufacturer. Mitsubishi. Retrieved 11 April 2013.
  2. ^ a b "PSA Annual Report 2011". Car manufacturers. PSA. Retrieved 11 April 2013.
  3. ^ a b "PSA Annual Report 2010". Car manufacturers. PSA. Retrieved 11 April 2013.
  4. ^ a b c d e "PSA Annual Report 2012" (PDF). Car manufacturers. PSA. Retrieved 11 April 2013.
  5. ^ a b c d e "PSA Annual Report 2013". Car manufacturers. PSA. Retrieved 11 April 2013.

Mitsuoka Like

[edit]

Is the Mitsuoka Like real? And if so, should presumably be merged into this article. Warren (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a short summary of the equivalent entry in (the) Japanese wikipedia. In which case your question would be best answered by someone who understands Japanese. Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is real, but it's pretty heavily modified from its Mitsubishi origins. The stub could probably be turned into a redirect, but I don't see a real problem with leaving it a standalone. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mr.choppers, this is not a rebadged version, but I wonder if it has enough notability for its own article. In the meantime I will add a link to this article in the "see also" section.--Mariordo (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to be merged and redirected, it would probably be better to merge it into Mitsuoka than to this article, as it is a Mitsuoka product. I would be more inclined to keep it as a stub if a photo were available, or some indication of what it's supposed to look like. Mitsuokas are usually styled to look like some kind of old British or Italian car. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal of a merge to the Mitsuoka page. Other content related to EVs without enough notability appear as a section in the carmaker or the vehicle used for to developed the EV. See Roewe E50, Venucia e30, Chevrolet Spark EV, Scion iQ EV, Mitsubishi Outlander P-HEV, and there are more. Shall we open a formal merge discussion pointing here?--Mariordo (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charging connector

[edit]

Currently the text reads "This is a five pin IEC62196-2 Type 2 point". However this is impossible - the IEC Type 2 "Mennekes" connector does have 7 pins. May be it should have been "IEC62196-2 Mode 2"? But that would not give the reader any benefit as it is really a Mode 3 inlet (the Mode 2 is only useful in the US). And the inlet connector is commonly an IEC Type 1 aka SAE-J1772-2009 similar to that on the LEAF. How to correct the text line? Guidod (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current C-zero in the UK has a Type 1 aka SAE-J1772-2009 connector, not Mennekes. I suspect this applies across Europe (and to the Peugeot iOn too). 109.150.188.20 (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is wrong - no Mitsubishi i-Miev / C-Zero / Ion was ever made with a Type 2 Mennekes connector - a few very early 2009 i-Miev (a few of which made it to the UK) had a proprietary connector which would connect directly to a 240v 13 amp plug without using a regular external EVSE, however aside from these rare examples they all had a standard Type 1 J1772 connector including those sold in the EU, which is capable of up to 240v at 16 amps. I can provide pictures of both the Chademo port and J1772 connector of my Peugeot Ion if anyone likes - as the Chademo picture whilst the correct port is also a picture from a completely different car. DBMandrake (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Weather Range

[edit]

There is no information on the range in cold weather (-20C) winter ops, for example. Does the owner need to put the i-MiEV away for the winter? Is this information available anywhere? Santamoly (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Misc links:

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Mitsubishi i-MiEV. 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:

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) 16:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting GA review

[edit]

I've tagged this {{GAR request}}. This article is more than three times the size of the original GA-nominated article from January 2011, when it was less than 2,000 words. Now it is over 6,600 words, and much of that is unencyclopcdic sales and shopping advice, and fancruft. It's nothing like what it was, and has little in common with a typical good article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: It is not too bad. Not enough to justify a reassessment in my view. You are welcome to start one yourself however. AIRcorn (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2/3 of the article has not been subjected to serious scrutiny. It contineus to be called a "Good Article"on the basis of content, which is less than 1/3 or the current article, written 7 years ago. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am working my way through over 50 GA requests some from nearly 3 years ago. If you want to start a reassessment feel free, but I am only going to do ones that have obvious problems. Good articles get added to, as they are supposed to, so that in itself is not an issue. AIRcorn (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have all the time in the world, if a GA needs to be reassessed, it should wait for reassessment however long it takes until someone has the time to do it properly. I don't feel particularly qualified to do the reassessment myself, and some of the frequent contributors to electric vehicle articles would probably like someone other than me to make these judgements. Having a backlog of GA reassessments is a bad thing, and something should be done. But the solution is not to clear the backlog without due diligence. If you can't do it, and I can't do it, then it needs to keep waiting until someone can do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is just asking editors to see if the article needs reassessment. It does not mean that the article should be reassessed. If you are not qualified to do the review then start a community reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Mitsubishi i-MiEV. 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:

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) 22:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DC Fast Charging Info not for this vehicle

[edit]

The Fast Charging rate/power in the infobox is simply quoting the output limits for a specific Nissan manufactured CHAdeMO charger, not this vehicle.

The limits of this specific charger are independent of the vehicle/protocol limits and this reference should be omitted beyond noting it supports CHAdeMO and an implicit limit of 62.5kW, as sourced on the CHAdeMO page from http://www.fveaa.org/fb/Level3Charging_279.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.246.52 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Mitsubishi i-MiEV

[edit]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article requires updating (8 tags) + referencing (8 tags) + clarifying. Examples/issues:

  • The delivery of the first batch of 10 i-MiEV electric cars is scheduled for May 2011
  • Many one-sentence sections. No need to group by individual European country.
  • Bit too full of unlinked jargon (rebadge?). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitsubishi_i-MiEV&oldid=1208352449"