A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Avenir Telecom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avenir Telecom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renault Captur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create straw man arguments or jump to conclusions. The Renault Z.E. *is* a range and more Z.E. vehicles are in development right now as we speak. This is hardly speculation or wishful thinking nor an attempt to create a new reality or distort the future: to suggest so is ridiculous. The FR Wikipedia reflects the fact that the Z.E. vehicles are a range in their own Renault template, so the EN wikipedia community should learn from that. Also, I could just as easily accuse you of not having a logical argument in your attempt to remove this change.

Thanks for your answer, I appreciate you are open to discussion.

First, I don't think the inclussion of that type of cars on the French Wikipedia template automatically means it must be included here. The French Wikipedia articles rely largely on primary sources (in the French Renault article they even take the "revisionist" official version of the company that erases Louis Renault as a founder to justify the expropriation). Besides, the French Wikipedia can be an indicator, but each Wiki determines its own consensus.

Second, my concerns are wider than those you mention, but I'll respond that. I don't say the ZE cars aren't real, I say their inclussion in the template within a separate group give them undue weight here and now. In many cases, and I uphold my opinion because is a fact even the ZE cars articles accept, they only are derivatives of conventional cars (Fluence "ZE", Kangoo "ZE"). The sales are insignificant. They are no specially innovatives or capables as, for example, the Nissan LEAF is (by the way, that is the only electric car of the Renault-Nissan Alliance with a moderated success, if you can include the category electric cars in the Nissan template, that will give more credibility to your position). The only really noteworthy electric cars of Renault (the Zoe and the Twizy) are included anyway in my version of the template. The others can be accessed through the conventional cars' articles, if someone is interested in that type of vehicles.

To avoid this discussion becames stale and we edit-warring each other ad infinitum, I'll bring uninvolved editors to it. They can give a fresh look to it. Not something for my own benefit, because I don't know what they think, but they can help to establish a consensus.

Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's far too much talk and stagnation on Wikipedia — I've seen discussions go on for two years without a change being made — but I'll go so far as to say that Z.E. is much more than a range of cars by Renault as they are not ICE vehicles at all. They are EVs, a completely different class of vehicle. Renault is making an dedicated commitment to develop these EVs and bring them to market and the fact that two of the four current Z.E. vehicles are based on existing ICE vehicle bodies doesn't alter that fact. We'll see what Renault will announce next for Z.E. but according to Renault this class/range/whatever will only grow. reinthal (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my view is the company's efforts to campaign for the electric vehicle are irrelevant, because they didn't meet expectations and not generated a sound effect in third-party coverage (except for blogs and company-paid articles). I think the future of the electric cars from "mid-size" carmakers as Renault will depend of two key factors:

1) Europe don't fall anymore: if the European car market (one of the more open to electric mobility because the use of non-fossil energies as nuclear) continue its falling, Renault will never be able to reduce prizes based on volume, and the EVs never will be rivals for the economy cars (like Renault's Dacias), which are the fastest selling because of its affordability and easy-to-fix features.

2) China really bets on EVs: Many of the expectatives of Renault-Nissan are in that market, because it can bring the much needed sales volume and make the EV projects a source of profit and not only a way to through out money. If the EVs are not profitable, I don't see them a long future.

Anyway, its all speculation. The thing is today the Renault's EVs are not relevant. For me, the fact two or them don't be more that variants of conventional cars is really significant, because it reduce its distinctiveness. And, at the end, the electric cars are cars, because apart from its engine, they share a similar configuration to its internal combustion equivalents. If some day are successful, they won't need its own template's group because they will be industry's standards. At present, they are more a curiossity and give them its own group seems "green" propaganda.

Changing the subject, I propose to you eliminate the Twizy and the Zoe from current cars' list to avoid repeating them. It didn't mean any other change, the current template's layout (with the electric car's group) would be preserved, at least until a consensus arises.

Regards.--Urbanoc (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind, but I've added all the articles that you've created to your user page Seqqis (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo Faiveley Transport.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clear template is not necessary simply because it lets too much empty space between the last paragraph and the references section. It has a definitely better layout without it as it looks more compact. I can understand the use of the clear template when it's really necessary, such as when you want to separate the first generation article from the lead section, with the table of contents and the infobox, in an automobile article. But here it is quite obviously not necessary. The references sections is acceptable to be right after the text. You may also check the guidelines regarding blank lines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. However, I appreciate your interest into the subject of the article and I hope we can get to an understanding on this issue. Thank you. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]