Talk:Peugeot 107

Not in France?

So it's produced in the Czech Republic and not in France? No wonder it's poorly build. Central/East European-produced cars suck. 79.132.31.212 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Merging articles on Peugeot 107, Citroën C1 and Toyota Aygo?

2010

In the French Wikipedia, the articles on the nearly-identical cars Peugeot 107, Citroën C1 and Toyota Aygo have been merged. In the Dutch Wikipedia, I did the same. The original articles, nl:Citroën C1, nl:Peugeot 107 and nl:Toyota Aygo, now only contain brand-specific information. They also contain the interwiki links to other languages, as multiple intewiki's to more than one article in one language don't seem ot be allowed.

Proposal

Would it be a good idea to integrate the three articles Citroën C1, Peugeot 107 and Toyota Aygo into one main article Citroën C1, Peugeot 107 and Toyota Aygo?

As English is not my native language, I would rather not do this myself.

HHahn (Talk) 15:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. They are the same car with only minor differences between the brands. We should choose one of them (the company that did most of the design) and shift all the content into that article. The other two articles will then have a simple redirect link to go to the chosen article.

(Unsigned contribution by User:Stepho-wrs, 01:55, 14 July 2010)

I would prefer to not combine two of the three pages into the third one. That would imply integrating Peugeot 107 and Citroën C1 into Toyota Aygo, I presume. But that would undoubtedly arouse disagreement from 107 enc C1 owners. Also, it is not absolutely sure who did most of the design work, so it would also invoke unnecessary discussion on that aspect.

Much better is the way it is done in both the French and the Dutch Wikipedias: one common article on all three models, and a (very brief) separate article for each one of the three.

As I said, I prefer not to do this myself, as English is not my native language.

HHahn (Talk) 13:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support for merge, they are basically same car, with minor exterior differences. --Typ932 ^T·C 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merger. Although it is the same car with three different badges, the selling and marketing are differently handled in different places, and the partners should expect to draw very different lessons from the production experience. The car fills one gap in the Toyota range, below the Aygo, but a different slot in the Peugeot range - as a strong Peugeot/Citroen competitor to the Twingo. Operational considerations are different. IF the 107/C1 will turn out to have been better screwed together than some other recently launched Citroens, THEN it may raise the reputation of Citroens for not falling to bits. Citroen and Peugeot presumably hope to learn from Toyota about how Toyota operate a plant. They may learn things about how to avoid another 307 experience. Toyota will learn about how Peugeot and Citroen make their cars appeal in France and Italy. They may learn things from Peugeot about avoiding monster recalls. We had separate articles for the Old VW Sharan and Ford Galaxy. Both Ford and VW learned stuff from seeing each other's operations from inside when they set up that plant in Portugal. But the lessons were quite different for each of the two partners. :I tend to think we will learn that the same applies to this project in Czechia, if we can attract a contributor who knows what is going on. At the end, I can see logic in merging and I can see logic in not merging. But the logic for leaving the entries separate is, for me, the stronger logic. Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Curious, most of the points you gave seem to me to argue for merging. We've already agreed that they are essentially the same car. Filling different gaps in the market is a common thing for Toyota vehicles in different countries. For example, the Camry is a mid size car in America while being a large car in Europe and Australia. Being sold with different badges doesn't affect that at all. Being screwed together with different quality is also common to different Toyota factories (Toyota works hard to remove these differences but they always exist to some degree - especially at the start). Peugeot and Citroen learning from Toyota is common to other Toyota joint ventures (NUMMI being the main example). Toyota hoping to get an entry in a new market by using existing networks is also a well used tactic (almost all non Japanese Toyota factories did this). In fact, the points you made should be written down on the common page to show how well the sharing works.

I can't think of any company neutral name to apply to all 3 versions of the Aygo/C1/107. Since Toyota did the actual design, it makes sense to call the common article 'Toyota Aygo'. Of course, prominent text at the top should point out that it is built and marketed by Peugeot and Citroen. And of course the other two article should redirects to the new name. That way, anybody looking for the Peugeot 107 or the Citroen C1 will still get to the correct page. The two redirection pages can still have their company categories, so they will still appear correctly in Peugeot and Citroen categories and lists. This can be made virtually transparent to somebody looking for just their vehicle. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Support merger: however, there needs to be an accepted title. If the Toyota is sold in more countries, then use the Toyota name for example. Stepho, you state that "Toyota did the actual design". Do you have a source for that? If so, then the Toyota title is probably the best to be used. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Given Toyota's past history of using local factories to make Toyota products and Toyota never making someone-else's product, I would be very suprised if it wasn't a Toyota design. But you are right - it needs a source.  Stepho  (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What about the the Toyota Lexcen and Cavalier? From what I have read the Aygo et al was a collaborative effort between Toyota and PSA—each company specialised in the areas that they traditionally excel in. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken - I change my comment from 'never' to 'very rarely'. Better to find a source though.  Stepho  (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

2014

• Oppose French edition has now redirected to 107 pages. I don't really think it works.--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 03:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as although there's similarities with the cars, I wouldn't say they're identical as such ... Anyway to save confusion I think they should remain individual articles. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I think a merger of all three cars may be a step too far now that the second generation has been released. A case could easily made to merge the French twins together as for both generations they have shared all major panels, but I believe the Toyota should remain separate. For the second generation of the trio, the Toyota clearly uses completely unique exterior panels (including the doors and roof). The only thing from a customer's point of view that appears the same are the interiors of the three vehicles. This is not the case for the first generation, where the Toyota shared in addition to the interior its doors with the Peugeot and Citroën (only the front and rear styling changed). For the second generation, the Peugeot has changed names (108 from 107), so I would argue that Citroën C1 would be the best title for a merger of the Citroën and Peugeots only. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)