Talk:Kia Mohave

Borrego

I added the information about the origins of the Borrego name, but I fear that I may have accidentally erased the External Links and references sections as I don't see them on the page anymore? When I click edit they are there though. Not sure what I've done. Any help would be appreciated. I just don't want to erase anyone else's work.

I fixed it, it was missing end tag for ref --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

2017 MY Updating/expanding this page?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X19mZOYZcxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH8Z6LfmaUI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.111.33 (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Updating/expanding this page

To whom it may concern: I've done just a little bit of work rearranging the article, creating sections and bringing it up to date. I have a few more ideas about what to do with the page, but I want to be extra careful for one good reason: Kia is a client of my employer (see my user page).

Among the changes I think should be made: 1) Rename the article back to Kia Borrego, 2) A new section about the vehicle's reception upon release in the North American market. I have several reviews from outlets including AutoWeek and AutoBlog, and I believe I can summarize them in a neutral manner.

However, I wanted to bring up the issue first to see if anyone from WikiProject Automobiles had a different opinion of the matter, we could find a consensus first. NMS Bill (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not that much au current with the vehicle, so no comment on name change. As concerns "reception", summarizing any reviews from media outlets is OR - and they border on recentism and POV anyway. Reporting POV can be POV too, your selection of articles is POV - not because you do it deliberately, but rarely ever do we do our media research in a scientific way. And, at the end of the day, a scientific research on media articles on the Kia in question would still be OR - so either publish it in an appropriate outlet for original research and wait to be quoted on WP, or quote somebody who did so. In case of vehicles with some more history behind them, we sometimes rely on automotive authors, who do more or less that in their publications - but I doubt it that The Grand History of KIA is going to be published anytime soon.

Concerning the article as-is - it is superfluous to add a section for "first generation" in case of vehicle that hasn't had any other generation yet. The section under this very heading is a bit of a mess, bordering on prosaic description of what is essentially a spec table (some of those specs aren't really encyclopedic anyway, please leave equipment level description for more specific archival sources). There is also POV sneaking through ("true off-roader" etc.)

For that matter, I am a formerly very active ;) member of WP:CAR (FA, GA and all), so you got what you asked for :D PrinceGloria (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Now I see that Mohave is the name used in Korea. We (used to?) go by original market names, so please leave it Mohave, just like in case of Daewoo Winstorm (aka Chevrolet/Holden Captiva).

Hi Prince Gloria, thanks for replying to me. You make some good points -- it is too early to say "First Generation" and I will remove that, though I will try to think of something better. (I had borrowed the phrase from other Kia vehicle pages.) I also agree there is some POV in some of the current phrasing; I am still planning to clean these up as well.

However, I'm afraid you'll have to explain one other thing to me a bit more carefully. First, I do not understand why including dispassionate accounts of what the auto press said about a new vehicle necessarily violates NOR. Also, while a direct comparison may not be apt, WikiProject Films usually includes a section on the "critical reception" of new movies. It seems reasonable to me that such a thing could be done with a new car. NMS Bill (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bill,

No, a car is not a film, it's "critical reception" is not as important or encyclopedic. I am not a big fan of "critical reception" sections on anything, but as I am not a member of the relevant WikiProject, I won't discuss the appropriateness of such sections in movie articles. I guess we should refrain from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here. For cars, I am definitely against, as it is 1) hardly encyclopedic 2) POV/OR.

Why OR? Well, by summarizing what you've read, selecting what is worth quoting/reporting etc. you are essentially doing original research. Don't get me wrong - original research, especially quality original research is good. It is just not appropriate to publish it on WP. Do remember you are consciously or unconsciously selecting what reviews to report on, and there is always some POV in such "fuzzy" research. We do consider results of such research quotable, as there is hardly place for ultra-scientific research in humanities. But we do report on somebody else's research, not do and publish our own here.

Are the opinions of reviewers notable and encyclopedic? Not really. In case the car becomes notable in the grand scheme of things, i.e. a spectacular success or failure, a pioneering or symbolic vehicle, we might want to resort to quoting the press to give the reader some insight as to why it is so. For now, the vehicle does not seem to be exceptional in any significant way, so for the main purpose of all Wikipedia articles, i.e. informing a layman on what the subject consists in, it is not necessary to quote any media revies. Just because information exists, it doesn't mean it's encyclopedic.

Now, I've been more constructive this time and did some editing to the article. Some comments on what I've done:

• Yes, the convention still stands, as prominently displayed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. The entire article borders on US-centrism, so by trying to write about a Kia Mohave rather than just Kia Borrego can help you better describe the entire phenomenon, not just its North American instance :D
• FWIK, the Terracan and Sorento are not technically related, so how can the Mohave be related to any of them. We usually use "related" to reflect the vehicle shares a platform, or at least an equally significant set of construction elements. Sharing engines, transmissions and such is common, so we do not count those. Sharing chassis and such would count.
• Please do check if the vehicle did indeed debut in Korea in 2008, not earlier. I am not familiar with it, so I made a guess based on previous edits to the article.
• If Lambda 2 is a family of engines, an article would come in handy. If you have no time to create it now, please leave a redlink for somebody else to take care of it.
• Equipment levels and pricing change continually and are too ephemeric for an encyclopedic article. Please leave those to specialist sources.

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your insight and for your direct edits. This is the first time I have tried to work on a WP:CAR article, so this has been a learning experience. Your second explanation about why no "critical reception" section worked for me the second time, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes perfect sense. I did find a citation stating that the Mohave was unveiled in Korea on Jan. 3 of this year, so I have added that, and I made a small edit for grammar. I'm just as mystified as you about "Lambda 2" as you are, so I haven't touched it. For the record, I have no idea where all that original text came from.

Lastly, you may notice the article has, in fact, been moved back to "Kia Borrego." This was done at my original request to User:Bull-Doser who has moved it before. I put this request in prior to discussing it with you. I had come along to your thinking, but another editor, User:Roguegeek had expressed to me that it should just be "Borrego." Me? Now I'm just confused. The link to WP:CAR conventions doesn't address this point specifically. So I'll stay out of it for now, certainly until I'm much more familiar with how things work at WP:CAR. Cheers NMS Bill (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On second reading, I think the Conventions page does address this -- shouldn't the article, in fact be titled "Kia Mohave" with Borrego merely in the first paragraph? This is how I'm reading it. NMS Bill (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words and understanding, in spite of me bordering on being rude and smug in my comments - as I read them now :/ As concerns the naming convention - it should clearly be "Kia Mohave", unfortunately we've already got a redirect by that name and we need to go through requested moves :( I'll see what I can do. PrinceGloria (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kia Borrego --> Kia Mohave

Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Titles states "Article titles shall bear the name used in the original market by the original manufacturer or marketer", which is South Korea so the name "Kia Mohave" should be used. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Either keep the name as is or make it Kia Borrego & Kia Mohave.--Funandtrvl (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per established convention. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - obvious, I have already discussed that above but was too lazy to formalize the proceedings :D PrinceGloria (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Gateman1997 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Platform

Hyundai Terracan and Kia Sorento first gen was based over the old Mitsubishi Pajero second gen platform... I don't believe that Kia Borrego was based over this platform... Borrego have the modern and the new diesel 3.0 CRDI and V8 engine! I believe the chassis is the same of the Hyundai Genesis but there isn't resource on line (exucuse for my english but i'm italian and i don't speak english)... :( --Corvettec6r (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kia Mohave. 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/20091001154001/http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104 to http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F03-03-2009%2F0004981801&EDATE=

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kia Mohave. 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/20090404134823/http://www.avtotor.ru/kia/ to http://www.avtotor.ru/kia/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)