Talk:Citroën C3 Picasso

C3 Picasso Advertisements

Found one more in French here but i need a translator...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a man in a car...

(Car/SatNav) "In 50 metres turn left"

(Voice over) "Fancy a full-equipped car? Splash out on [a model from] the Citroen C3 Picasso Hdi collection. Note that we have slashed the VAT rate to zero percent, meaning you'll save EUR4,580".

Screen at the end shows it has bluetooth, panoramic windscreen and climate control, lists the amount saved (EUR4,580) and something about the 110 Fap.

Handily translated by User:DracoEssentialis. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There's another which uses "augmented reality" too ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Need to find out how to change the colour of sections inside tables...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Trnava production in the Sales Figures table is only ever available with the Peugeot 207 included so i may just remove the entire column to make it easier. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Done ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Aircross

• One advert on Youtube ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decent review for the Aircross here ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Engine specifications

As european car this should have metric horsepower also, the torque is also written not as in convention says lbf·ft >lb·ft, the table also says hp when the actual figures are now bhp. Here is proposition to new table , the whole article is bit Britain centric . "The Spanish market received only three different trims to choose from: a 95 bhp 1.4 L VTi Attraction, a 120 bhp 1.6 L VTi Seduction and 1.6 L VTi Exclusive (with the same engine as the Seduction model).[23] The reference link does not work so I cant check if Spanish model has bhp power figures advertised -->Typ932 ^T·C 10:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Engine specifications
Petrol engines
Model	Engine	Displacement cc (ci)	Power	Torque	0–100 km/h,s	Top speed km/h (mph)	Note	CO2 emission (g/km)
1.4 Litre VTi 16v	EP3	1,397 (85)	71 kW; 96 PS (95 bhp)	184 N⋅m (136 lb⋅ft)	TBA	TBA	five-speed manual	145
1.6 Litre VTi 16v	EP6	1,598 (98)	89 kW; 122 PS (120 bhp)	217 N⋅m (160 lb⋅ft)	TBA	TBA	five-speed manual	149
	EP6	1,598 (98)	89 kW; 122 PS (120 bhp)	217 N⋅m (160 lb⋅ft)	TBA	TBA	EGS6	137
Diesel engines
1.6 Litre HDi 8v	DV6	1,560 (95)	67 kW; 91 PS (90 bhp)	312 N⋅m (230 lb⋅ft)	TBA	TBA	five-speed manual	112
1.6 Litre HDi 16v	DV6	1,560 (95)	82 kW; 112 PS (110 bhp)	366 N⋅m (270 lb⋅ft)	TBA	TBA	six-speed manual	125
	DV6	TBA	82 kW; 112 PS (110 bhp)	366 N⋅m (270 lb⋅ft)	TBA	TBA	EGS6	125
1.6 Litre e-HDi 16v	TBA	TBA	67 kW; 91 PS (90 bhp)	TBA	TBA	TBA	TBA	TBA

This stuff is a bit technical for me as i'm crap with engines. So i welcome your help in this area.

If that link is dead then that poses a problem as i had very little on the Spanish market and now have even less...The engine table should be useful for you on that issue though? And also the missing two columns of this table here are a bit challenging for me even with the links at my disposal... Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

Wikipedia:Peer review/Citroën C3 Picasso/archive1 ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Citroën C3 Picasso/archive2 ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Split discussion

The article is now within 5,500 bytes of being 100k, making it a perfect candidate for a Size split. The C3 Aircross is not another trim, it's a very similar vehicle and the easiest thing to split. The C3 Picasso is an MPV, while the Aircross is an SUV or 4x4. With the new model section increasing in size over the next months as it is released then it is imperative the C3 Aircross is split. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Support There's seldom a cut and dried right or wrong answer on these things. It's down to judgement. But as the sub-entry on the C3 Aircross builds, the case for giving it its own wiki-entry becomes ever less resistable. Success Charles01 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Support The Aircross seems like a natural place to split, being a well defined vehicle in its own right.  Stepho  talk  01:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it. And it looks very nice. Thanks for the support guys ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

UK sales/registration statistics

I have been asked to comment on the UK sales figures. See here for some background. The question is, which figures should be included in the 'Sales' section? My own view, expressed at the Ref Desk, is that the UK figures from the DVLA are not sufficiently accurate, but that moreover there is no particular reason to include UK figures rather than any others. Thoughts? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest it's probably simpler for me to just delete the UK figures. They only seemed relevant because i could find them anyway. And they're only 10% of the total sales at most. Good luck trying to get others to contribute here, check the article history =P Opinions? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had an attack of boldness and removed the UK figures. Whilst I was at it, I took out the 2012 figures until there is a figure for the whole year, since the first time I looked it confused me as to why they suddenly only sold half as many as in the previous year. Whaddya think? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The reference was still needed for sales and/or production figures so i had to restore it. Other than that you did nice work. I was a bit miffed at not being able to source 2012 figures yet and so i agree it's better to not have half a year included. Thanks Mike ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just knew I was going to mess it up somewhere, so well done for spotting it! Glad you agree on 2012 - I think it works better now, and we can always add it in once numbers are available.

Since I'm here now, and am relatively interested in the subject, what's next on your to-do list for the article? I don't get enough practice editing real articles - I tend to spend most of my WikiTime at the RefDesk - but I'd be interested in helping out here if I can. What's the plan? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it's a common car but a low traffic article. The new model has just been released, but as yet doesn't have enough models sold and reviewed to finish off the mpg and CO₂ table. I've got it to Good status and had 2 peer reviews, which have for the most part left me scratching my head in some areas. The links to them are on this page or you can just suggest changes/additions or even do them yourself. What do you think? Thanks for the assistance ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Conjecture, Original Research

The article is FULL of unsourced conjecture and original research, both big no-no's.842U (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Citroën C3 Picasso

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 • Most recent review

Result: All users involved have declined to improve the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This whole article is an advertisement. Much of the article focuses excessively on the trim levels and violates WP:NOPRICES. Lead is five paragraphs, and some parts do not summarise the article. Also, some of these references do not seem reliable.  750h+ | Talk  13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If the vehicle is encyclopaedic then so are the differences - the trims in this case. I have no opposition to the prices being taken out, and included them only as they seemed valuable at the time for historical information. They certainly weren't added for sales, since the vehicle was discontinued long long ago. The original GAA had no issues with any of this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Most of that content wasn't in the article at the time of the original GAA - here's the diff between then and now. I'm not expressing a view on that content btw, just pointing out it wasn't part of that GAA review. WaggersTALK 11:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The prices were clearly in the article at the time it was passed as a GA without any issue, and that's present in the link above. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Then, Jenova, please go ahead and remove the prices. I would also recommend removing the "Full model line-up and engine availability" table since that's literally just an advertisement in itself, ensure the lede summarises the article (some parts of the lede are not in the article itself), replacing references of questionable quality with those of good quality. By the way, when this article was promoted, it fell well short of GA standards. Given the tightening regulations, the articles should maintain a high level of quality. Best,  750h+ | Talk  05:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You're free to edit it as you see fit. I'm semi retired, and not here to obstruct - rather i'm here to see what the result of the assessment is. Giving detailed or technical information isn't the same as an advert, or everything would be considered an advert - and the vehicle hasn't existed for sale since 2017, so that just strikes me as an odd line to take. I gave historical information that was available to state what variants Citroen offered worldwide - a common practice with vehicle articles, and a thorough attempt to stop the article from becoming centric to just the US - which is prevalent throughout all of Wikipedia. The article isn't different from any other vehicle article. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Jenova20, I'm sorry but this burden isn't on me. Unless you or another editor would like to help bring this back to GA status, this will see a delist. I understand your point about trying to make this article comprehensive, but if a buyer would like to buy one, they would go to a catalogue territory--which no offence, but is what some of this article looks like. Eg this Code Red/Code White was released in January 2012. The limited edition C3 Picasso Code Red and Code White replaced the Blackcherry in the UK. The Code has the same engine as the Blackcherry and has been finely tuned for a marginally increased fuel economy and lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It features obsidian black bumpers and 17-inch (43 cm) Polar White or Cherry Red "clover" alloy wheels, and can be equipped with extra features, which include roof bars, curtain airbags, cruise control and a speed limiter. Body colours exclusive to the trim are Belle Ile Blue, Shark Grey and Cherry Red. sounds like an advertisement to me. Pinging @GAR coordinators: to see their opinion.  750h+ | Talk  12:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I have seen this ping. I will need to get back to you once I've had a chance to look over the article fully (hopefully tomorrow). There is also the caveat that I am not carsandotherthings but I'll try my best. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing immediately stands out to me as advertising as I know it, could you pick out examples of passages you believe are advertising? I'm not familiar with trims as a concept (in the train corner of the encyclopedia I deal with people obsessing over locomotive paint schemes in unencyclopedic manner all the time, not sure if that's an equivalent or not) but far as I can see everything there is cited appropriately, so it's a question of is the content appropriate for inclusion. I could definitely see an argument for trimming (pun not intended) the text in that section particularly for trims where it appears only minor changes were made. Clever reorganization could likely convey the same basic information in fewer sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTPRICE.  750h+ | Talk  03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I am taking the time to engage with your concerns. I asked you for examples, and all you do is link some policy pages. Please meet me halfway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I will supply some instances alongside other things I found wrong.

Examples:

• "C3 Picasso went on sale in France in February 2009 for €14,950"
• "The LX was the most basic and least expensive model, with a 71 kW; 96 PS (95 bhp) VTi engine, priced at €12,590, while the Exclusive model was most expensive with a 82 kW; 110 PS (110 bhp) HDi Airdream engine at €18,650. The C3 Picasso was launched in the United Kingdom on 9 April 2009, where it went on sale for £11,495 for the 1.4-litre VTi, the most basic model with 6.4 L/100 km; 37 mpg‑US (44 mpg‑imp), while the most expensive was the 'Exclusive' with a 1.6-litre HDi engine and 4.6 L/100 km; 52 mpg‑US (62 mpg‑imp) at £15,595."
• "As bonus, it came equipped with £1,000 of extras and was released..."
• "..comes with a free white Samsung Galaxy Tab 16 GB.."
• "...the least expensive being the Attraction with a 95 bhp (71 kW; 96 PS) VTi engine at €12,250 and the most expensive being the Exclusive with a 115 bhp (86 kW; 117 PS) HDi engine at €18,475."
• "In September 2010, Citroën do Brasil launched the Citroën C3 Aircross in Brazil and Argentina. The car is a C3 Picasso-based mini SUV with styling differences including: raised suspension, chrome roof bars and mirror covers, side skirts, and a rear spare tyre." isn't sourced

Prose is fine in my opinion. Self-published sourcing, I believe, is okay every once in a while. But this article excessively uses it, as well as some unreliable sources.  750h+ | Talk  10:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's blatant advertising, but I can see where the impression comes from. The prose could be shaped up, especially with regards to writing the WP:LEAD as a summary. CMD (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not blatant, a lot of the content just feels more catalog-ish than encyclopedic, I think.  750h+ | Talk  06:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw your comment but didn't reply because i thought it was ridiculously arrogant and hostile for a public forum. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Jenova, I then apologise if I've used an aggressive tone and will try to keep it mild for the rest of this conversation. I'm not actually trying to sound arrogant or hostile, but if is to you, then I will milden my tone.  750h+ | Talk  10:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Some of that doesn't seem to have aged well at all. I don't think it's worth mentioning that it came with a free tablet for example. Not sure how that was ever worth mentioning. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

750h+, do you intend to remove the material you find objectionable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I forgot about this. I'm not the main editor of this page and I'm not particularly interested in this car either, so probably not, but maybe in the far future. I'd be willing to stay and watch the page's issues get rectified though. 750h+ 15:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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.