Talk:Kia Opirus

from VfD:

Promotional article with little value Jschwa1 12:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Maybe someone might want to turn this into a proper car article? As it stands (with a mere link) delete, but I think the title merits an article. The article is proper now. Keep and kudos to Norman. 129.177.61.124 08:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I turned it into a proper stub and I am now working on it. [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers\^talk]] 15:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep now with Norm's edits. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 16:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Good save. Andrewa 17:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Couldn't agree more. Keep, delist article and shoot a Barnstar over to Norm. The original was nothing more than a weblink. Signed by the poster, yet! - Lucky 6.9 19:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete This information should be in a car almanac, not an encyclopedia. Tomato 23:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Respectfully disagree. I helped bring three articles about individual cars into featured article status: Ford Mustang, VW Type 2 and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9. I've added lots of info to Chevrolet Corvette, Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet Nova, Mercedes-Benz 300SL, Mercedes-Benz 600, Ford Escort, Ford Escort ZX2 and the Mercedes-Benz main article. An article about an entry-level luxury car from Korea (unusual in and of itself) could prove interesting. Heck, this car might even prove to be historic at a future date as a result. - Lucky 6.9 23:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. As notable as any other car model --LeeHunter 01:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, what's the difference between this and any other model of car? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 02:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak delete, I don't think random car models are notable. --fvw* 03:14, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see why we cannot have information about cars in an encyclopedia, especially from well-known brand like KIA. -[[User:Ld|Ld | talk]] 05:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Duh, keep. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Wouldn't it be awesome if Lucky 6.9 helped bring this one to featured status. It would be Wikipedia's ultimate Horatio Alger story: from VfD to Featured. --Szyslak 08:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. All car models are notable in their own way. Well done norm. Gazwim 09:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Post rather excellent expansion, clear keep. Dan100 09:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Article name change

I moved Kia Amanti to Kia Opirus, because the car is only known as Amanti in North America, and it's called Opirus everywhere else in the world. --Pc13 23:59, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

No prob. I imagine the same could be true of all the Kia and Hyundai articles. --SFoskett 15:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Photographs

A photo of this Kia should be added to the page.

Armani?

I was wondering if Kia Motor USA chose the name Amanti because of its similarity to Armani? And therefore people will think Armani when they hear the word?Davez621 08:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

obvious mercedes rip off

why arent they sued --KpoT (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kia Opirus. 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)

Verifiability of the Engine Chart

There are currently no citations in the engine chart. Parts of it that are not substantiated in references cited in the remainder of of the article will be removed unless they receive inline citations for bona fide, specific sourcing. 842U (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Alawadhi3000: thanks for your (unsigned) comment on my Talk Page. That said, it is a core tenet of Wikipedia, editors have a responsibility to provide VERIFIABILITY; "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

So, per Wikipedia guidelines, if you want the information to stay in the article, it is incumbent upon you to provide relevant bonafide sources with inline citations, or the information will be removed. This message appears also on the Kia Opirus talk page.842U (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• You talking about verifiability and citations/sources is quite ironic, aren't you the one who added that the Opirus is a "rear drive" vehicle not ONCE but TWICE a few days ago? Did you provide a source for that edit as well? No you didn't, so apply the rules to you as well. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The article as it stands doesn't have a reference to rear-wheel drive, so we can move on from that. On the other hand, the single reference that you attached to the engine chart does not align with or substantiate the numbers in the chart. The hp and torque figures don't agree, etc. It's close, but the reference doesn't support the chart. If you want the reference/chart to stand, perhaps update the chart so it agrees with reference. Thanks 842U (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL, the chart will stand regardless of your opinions. And where does the table doesn't match the source? Alawadhi3000 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Alawadhi3000: As I said before, the single reference you added contains different names for the engines, horsepower and torque ratings for engines than those cited in the article's chart. So the references doesn't verify the information in the article. I'm fine with removing the chart from the article, and doing this is a perfectly acceptable. Or if you're interested in keeping it, perhaps you can find references that support the chart -- or revise the chart to reflect what's really in the reference.

Either way, I'd like to ask you to please refrain from further dismissing my opinions (as above), insulting me by calling my previous edits crap [1] or junk[2]]; calling me ignorant [3]; expressing overt annoyance [4] — or demonstrating ownership behavior by telling me what will and will not stand in the article (as above: "the chart will stand regardless of your opinions"). All of this is discouraging and disruptive. I have a lot of enthusiasm for improving this article and I know you do to. Please assume good faith, and I will do the same.842U (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

842U:

1) These aren't engine names, its model names, read the top of the table (!) These are used all over Hyundai/Kia/Genesis pages as well as other manufacturer pages since trim names vary by market and cannot be used.

2) Your ignorance on that car is a fact and is clearly evident, you removed parts of the article which are correct (like engines ...etc), adding incorrect info (like RWD ...etc) and by being unaware about that different markets have different specs, names ...etc.

3) Why should I assume that you have good faith when you removed correct info from the article without warning, an enthusiastic editor with good faith will research unreferenced facts and add the reference to them himself or at the very least put a citation needed tag so that any other editor can do that. Your refusal to say what exactly is wrong with the table is a prime example of your unwillingness to improve the article.

4) I'm displaying ownership behavior?? Aren't you the one who first wrote about "what will and will not stand" by telling me "If you want the reference/chart to stand, perhaps update the chart so it agrees with reference" and AGAIN "I'm fine with removing the chart from the article, and doing this is a perfectly acceptable"? Again, the table will stay as its correct, and if you see anything is wrong with it I'm all ears, you can say exactly whats wrong (i.e prove it), show your "enthusiasm for improving this article".

Alawadhi3000 (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)