Talk:Yo-Mobile

Ё

There is not latter "ё" in English, may be it would be right to write Yo-mobile? 195.78.60.60 (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, since there's no equivalent in English for "ё" like there is for the rest of the car's name. Yo is only the pronunciation; since there's no way to represent the Cyrillic letter in English, I don't see a way to get around using it. C628 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I see a way to get around using it - remember the rule about using ENGLISH in the ENGLISH version of Wikipedia and direct prohibition to change fonts and style to support corporate style. I suggest you take a look at WP:Spam. Changed Ё to the English transliteration. Nomad (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What the bleeding fuck? How is it even remotely close to spam to use one version of a word to another? I suggest you actually take a look at the policy you so glibly link to. C628 (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to discuss anything in such tone. Please watch your language. Nomad (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, seriously, «Ё» in the car's name does have much meaning apart from its direct pronunciation. See, for example, how Virgiyanov uses this letter in his article. It has a lot of cultural references. On the other hand, those references are impossible to translate anyway, and on seeing the letter the default (incorrect) reaction of an English-speaking person is that it's exclusively an ads symbol ('corporate style'). - 89.110.25.79 (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cooperation

Hello I cannot speak Vietnamnese. I have found it, have let it translate. I understand that yo- Mobile is to cooperate with Vietnamnese TMT an will produse there Yo mobiles.

Plz read and confirm.

http://www.tinthethao.com.vn/news/173/2ED049/TMT-se-san-xuat-lap-rap-xe-hybrid-su-dung-nhien-lieu-sach

188.105.54.1 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Vietnamese, but I was able to get a good enough translation to add a bit to the article. Thanks for the help. C628 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Name

The name Ё-mobile [yo-mo-BEEL] is from russian word ёбаный [YOH-bany] which means "fucking". So it is a "Fuck-mobile", "Fucking car".

Learn the Russian, troll. Русские идут! (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I know Russian and the user is absolutely right. And I suggest you behave! Nomad (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I know Russian too, because i am Russian. Theese words aren`t the same (so, somebody think, that russian "fucking" is like "Yo-mobil"). In the Net you can see a lot of jokes about it. Штирлиц 1997.02 (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And not only this... - 89.110.25.79 (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sedan?

There is no evidence that Yarovit are planning to produce any vehicle of that body type. Actually, Byrykov said that sedan is an inefficient type of vehicle's configuration.Manchjurshi (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hybrid

Under the criticism section, one of the bullet points says that "Presenting the car as "hybrid" while it's actually gasoline-electric" is a criticism. I think this is completely ridiculous; the definition of a hybrid powertrain is one that uses multiple propulsion syatems, eg, gasoline and electric. The sentence as it stands seems contradictory to me. C628 (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the criticism is not credible, especially given the fact that project is in development and the exploitation characteristics of the car are not known for sure. The first source in the criticism section is outdated (it looks like published before the ptesentation of Yo-mobile design), and the second one is from certain Олег Малеев, технический директор ООО «Гибридные автомобили» (Oleg Maleev, technical director of OOO "Hybrid automobiles"), which looks like some kind of a rival organization. The last point on hybridness is ridiculous (in fact even the author of the article admits that Yo-mobile could be called hybrid with some reservations), the first point is self-contradictory, the 2nd point is not clear and looks like relevant to any innovative product, the 4th point on design looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Only the point on the center of gravity looks somewhat serious, but this is WP:SPECULATION which could only be confirmed after the release of the car and its mass usage. GreyHood ^Talk 14:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remove those dubious criticisms at all, and add such stuff when the auto is released and criticism could be based on some hard facts. GreyHood ^Talk 14:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. Center of gravity problem is speculation and giving the nonexistent car's mileage is not? Praising the project in development based only on what the manufacturer says is credible and criticizing the same project based on experts' opinions is not? Is that right?

Adding criticism section is the essential part of WP:NPV. What you are trying to do is direct and clear WP:ARTSPAM.

ООО «Гибридные автомобили» is not a competitor. I would recommend you to do some research before you post something publicly. It's a Moscow based company that sells and services hybrids. So (I would say) they are quite interested in this project as a business opportunity. Or at least have no serious reason to be biased towards it. Nomad (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

ООО «Гибридные автомобили» is not a competitor and company that sells and services hybrids - hm, isn't it too obvious contradiction ;)? As for criticism, it should be substantial and hard-fact based, not outdated, speculational, self-contradictory and WP:COI-involving. Presenting information on the new projects is not WP:ARTSPAM if the information is presented neutrally. But anti-advertisement is as bad as pro-advertisement. GreyHood ^Talk 23:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

After edit conflictA criticism section is not required for an article to be neutral. A neutral article is an article that presents facts about the subject. If the subject has been criticized by credible sources, with evidence to support the criticism. The criticism currently noted in the article is largely not such. The "Overly ambitious..." point contradicts itself, the "Designing a vehicle..." point is inherently true of any new design, the "Dangerously high center..." point was made before the most recent model of the car was released, and is therefore out of date, as well as not being backed up with evidence in the source that makes the claim, the "Archaic design..." point is just silly, a car's appearance is not relevent (unless it becomes a definging feature of the car, like the Pontiac Aztek), and saying that the drivetrain is similar in design to old mining equipment is not a criticism (a car sold with a manual transmission today has the same drivetrain as a car sold with a manual transmission in 1930, doesn't mean the manual transmission is bad or outdated), and the point on capicitors is ridiculous, it's like criticizing a straight gasoline-powered car because gasoline is flammable and can explode in a crash. C628 (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

C628, as for your comment, I refuse to discuss anything with you until you retract and remove your offensive comment and dirty language. If you don't, I'll have to resort to reporting it to administrators. Nomad (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I will not retract it. C628 (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To Greyhood (just moving the paragraph down for convenience)

I really like how you carefully avoid commenting on other issues I outlined - like presenting the nonexistent car's mileage. :-)

You are interpreting the rules in a very interesting way. Would you like to elaborate on your accusations of COI? What exactly constitutes COI, do you think?

I don't think a company that sells and services hybrids would want to shut down their potential business partners. If this project takes off successfully, Yo-mobil will be very interested in people who have the experience AND the clientèle in the hybrid sector. It's easy money for them and serious grounds for dealer discounts. But that's just my private opinion. If you think they are not objective, prove it.

Presenting information on new projects is a good thing, if (I repeat - IF) it's presented neutrally. But even your reaction to my well substantiated and quite mild critical remarks proves that you're not quite unbiased here.

Again - I don't have anything against Yo-auto or Yo-mobil or whoever is behind all that. I'll even go as far as to say I don't really care about the project or the company. All I want is to balance this promotional brochure with a little bit of criticism to maintain neutrality. Nomad (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral representation of parameters of non-existent car in development is normal. Criticisms like given in the article (outdated, self-contradictory, speculational until the car is really released) are not normal.

RE:COI - I mean the COI on the part of the source. As far as I understand, Yo-mobile is going to be sold and serviced by affiliated organisations, while ООО «Гибридные автомобили» seems like working with imported cars, and thus Yo-mobile is a rival product for them.

All the information in the article are either hard facts or neutrally represented facts, except perhaps one citation from Prokhorov (which is however extremely relevant to the essense of the project and represented neutrally via "according to") and for sure except the criticism section which consists of opinions (mostly outdated, self-contradictory and speculational). Adding such criticisms to the article is not maintaining neutrality, but giving it negative slant (while without this addition the article has neither positive nor negative slant and is neutral). GreyHood ^Talk 14:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Greyhood, please read WP:COI MUCH more carefully. You basically accused me of contraposing my interests with Wikipedia's. No need to apologize, I understand you simply don't know the rules too well yet and I'm here to help.

COI covers editor's interests, not the source's. For example, imagine some Russian manufacturer hired some people to promote their project in Wikipedia by blocking and protesting any criticism to the project and "polishing" the article which describes it. In that case, people who do that would be in the position of COI.

Posting mileage of a car that has never been not only tested but even assembled as a test-mule, a car whose specification hasn't been frozen yet and whose drivetrain concept changes at least twice a year is not normal. Neither it is a neutral point of view. It's a speculation - at best.

As for the other things, we seem to be in slight disagreement over several minor issues which, however, may lead to an ugly outburst of war, which, I hope, we both want to avoid. Do you think we should seek consensus via third party mediation?

But before we go any further, let's summarize our dispute (briefly!). Which items you find impossible to acknowledge? Which ones you can tolerate? And which ones do you agree with? Nomad (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I've just used the COI abbreviation on the part of the source, which seems to be in conflict of interests.

Posting expected or targeted characteristics of an upcoming project is normal practice - how else the new project could be described? We have tons of articles on upcoming movies, video games, construction projects etc.

There are the following concerns:

this source is outdated, published before the presentation of prototypes.

this source appears to have a conflict of interest.

Overly ambitious plans for a company that has never designed or produced vehicles of any kind (Yarovit company only did SKD assembly of trucks based on large Terberg components) this claim is somewhat contradictory and is very poor criticism, since such thing could be said about any large project of any company which haven't made such scale projects so far.

Designing a vehicle around high-tech components most of which do not exist even as experimental machines wahat does it mean at all? Who knows whether these components indeed do not exist or if they do? Surely the developing company would not like to present all of its secrets to the public before the project is ready.

Dangerously high center of gravity, making it susceptible to roll-over Who has checked it and when? Isn't it too obvious WP:SPECULATION?

Archaic design, resembling go-carts by its body and mining equipment by the drivetrain. Well, really this is not a criticism, this is pure personal opinion and anti-advertisement. Any car design would have people who like it and who don't like it. And I do not see such criticisms in car model articles.

Use of capacitors as power storage devices which have numerous disadvantages and may become dangerous in certain circumstances again something never checked or tested and WP:SPECULATION. GreyHood ^Talk 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is simple: remove outdated and speculational criticisms - Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not a collection of speculations. The car is scheduled to be released very soon, in 2012, which suggests that the first two points of criticisms are not valid. And if it is not released in time or when some of those suspected drawbacks are confirmed, than we could add some hard fact critisisms, not those speculations.

Sorry for being not brief, but as you see I disagree with the very idea of adding speculational criticisms based on dubious sources. GreyHood ^Talk 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The first source you cited wasn't used by me. Must be a mix up. But allow me to note that you're perfectly fine with the first three "positive" links in the Reference section, which are also dated before the prototypes were presented. I won't comment but I hope you will.

As for the COI of the second source, it is a news-paper about science, a public media that is properly registered and is subject to the laws concerning the press. You should have some serious grounds to prove their bias. Do you have those? The same concerns the roll-over problem and the archaic design - I've taken the information from a published news-paper. And, AGAIN, you're using the term WP:COI incorrectly.

Who knows whether these components indeed do not exist or if they do? Surely the developing company would not like to present all of its secrets -- I totally agree with that. So until they are revealed and presented, they do not exist. And stating otherwise is nothing but speculation.

As for capacitors, they WERE tested. Believe it or not, but Yo-auto is not the only company in the world. Capacitors have been tested thoroughly and are used everywhere, from motherboards to amplifiers. And I've gone an extra mile especially for you - I've not only provided an external source, but actually inserted wikilinks. What other proof do you want?

I cannot agree with you and unless you agree to live with the criticism section, I suggest we seek mediation. Nomad (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The first three references are all reliable, well-respected sources. The references you present in the criticism section are, in a word, not. The autonews.ru source manages to contradict itself by saying that experts are skeptical about the car because there are no designs for it, right next to a picture of a mock-up car, which proves that at least some designs have been made, and makes me highly skeptical about is fect-checking. The professor-butakov.ru source, is as is said in the article, an open letter from one person to the company. Now that's just fine for saying that the guy is refusing to work on the car anymore, but for making criticisms of the design, it doesn't work, because it's only his opinion, with no evidence to back up his assertions (in fact, if the translator is accurate, I don't even see him making the claim about unproven new technology in there). Similarly, the trv.science.ru source, regardless of what the website may be, is an opinion article, which is inherently biased. It's the equivilant of the editorials of any english newspaper; it's presented to promote an opinion, and mindlessly regurgitating that opinion in our article only translates the writer's bias into our article.

As for your comment about the non-existant high-tech componants--well, until you added the sentence about them, there wasn't any mention of them in the article, so I guess you're just sabotaging your case there. And about the capacitors, it's a stupid argument to say that the design is flawed because capacitors aren't completely safe. If the entire encyclopedia went by your logic, we'd have a criticism section on every car article saying that "this car is dangerous because it uses gasoline, which is flammable." C628 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Edit: Instead of mediation, perhaps a better idea would be to seek further opinion from the cars wikiproject? C628 (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. I've placed the NPOV tag on the section for now. GreyHood ^Talk 23:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, Greyhood. Thank you for your patience. Nomad (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the apparently outdated capacitors part, removed the opinionated claims on design and pointless criticism of innovations. The remaining criticism is merged to design section. GreyHood ^Talk 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the criticism section which is vital for maintaining the neutrality of the article. If YOU personally don't like something, Greyhound, it doesn't mean it's wrong. I've provided prooflinks, some of them to the articles here in Wikipedia. You provided nothing, except "this is wrong because I disagree". Nomad (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the criticism section is completely undue. The car is not yet in sale, and yet you want 1/5 of the article to consist of criticism? Most of the other articles about upcoming products do not have criticism sections. Nanobear (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would second that. At the same time, if the manuracturers make some overhyped promo statements and someone of automobile authority expresses justified doubts, then this must be addressed in our article; however not in a separate section, but inline, in context. Lovok Sovok (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't care less what you guys think. The section I've added is in full compliance with the rules while YOU are deleting it in violation thereof. It STAYS. Like I said, if it's the war you want, it's the war you'll get. Nomad (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Nanobear. You're saying that it's perfectly alright to publish exact MPG of a car that does not (and never will) exist, but posting criticism is "undue"? Is that correct? Nomad (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Name, 2

I saw a brief discussion about the name above. Here is the explanation.

As someone have already guessed, the letter ё has a strong humorous association in Russian culture, primarily associated with the expression wikt:ё-моё, an mild euphemism to express surprize ,derived from an unprintable curse phrase. Therefore since the very first signs when the English prefix "e-" has become fashionable, jokers in all corners of Russia immediately turned it into ё- ; e.g, "ё-майл". Therefore it is of no surprize that when someone converted 'eMobile' into 'ёMobile', the company immediately saw a huge marketing appeal to a Russian heart, so much so that they even renamed the company from some banality to ё-Avto. Ёж твою медь odnim slovom, ёлки палки. Lovok Sovok (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright?

A sentence in the article currently reads:

However, the inventor of the engine Mikhail Virgiyanov in an open letter to the company refused to continue work on the engine and accused the company of copyright infringement.[4]

Unfortunately, the source is entirely in Russian so I can't investigate this myself, but surely this should be patent infringement? Copyright refers to the protection of creative works (books, music, movies, photographs, etc.) and not to technologies, which are covered by patents. It's possible that the system in Russia is significantly different, but a clarification in the reference note would be nice to clear this up if that's the case. siafu (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Realism of the article

The article is as far from reality as it can be. It draws some serene picture of an innovative project that is well underway to realization. It's NOT. Not even close. They haven't even started! It's a string of failure after a failure due to bad management, ambitious promises and absolute lack of any experience. As the TopGear motto goes, "ambitious but rubbish". Le Grand Bleu (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)