Talk:Land Rover Discovery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Land Rover Discovery article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Cars Portal This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

I doubt many people in Britain would refer to the Discovery as a luxury vehicle. Perhaps the specification is more inclined that way in the US? Loganberry 16:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) I agree - LR's luxury model is the RAnge Rover Charlie123 13:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both statements - Omar C.

Very strange comment to say that people in Britain would not refer to the Discovery as a luxury vehicle. I purchased my 9 year old Discovery new in 1996. It has leather upholstery, air conditioning, electric front seats a 9 speaker multi CD player etc. etc. Even after 9 years I regard it as a luxury vehicle, even though I have owned other very well specced cars in the meantime. - Geoff H.

Contents 1 Banned wagons bandwagon 2 Article Wording - Tense 3 Specifications 4 External Links

[edit] Banned wagons bandwagon

Saw this tonight in an HTML comment on the "diff" regarding the adding of an external link:

please do not remove negative/criticism links without discussion

The link in question is the one to a site (http://www.bansuvs.com/) proposing a ban on certain types of vehicles for various reasons.

I for one am all in favour of allowing politics and social consequences into Wikipedia, but NOT like this. It's out of place as an "external link". It ought to be an internal link to a page on the subject.

And on the specific argument itself, well, I have a Discovery. I use it to tow 3.5 tonne trailers of humanitarian aid. I've saved lives in it. If it were banned from cities I'd have a whole lot of trouble collecting the medical, educational and other equipment we carry.

The arguments about large vehicles wasting fuel on the "school run" and other uneccessary journeys hold much merit.

The arguments about pedestrian safety hold much merit.

But the site linked to is not about logical arguments, it seems to me to be part of the current media-frenzy / moral panic wherein people are attacking a type of vehicle instead of a type of driver.

Furthermore it's far from impartial, and the person who added it should, in my opinion have provided a link to an alternative such as an off-roading club (the kind of people who do much to maintain and look after parts of the countryside, in the process of enjoying their hobby.)

After all, the Wiki page here doesn't argue IN FAVOUR of "off-road" vehicles (what the US-ers call SUVs). It's primarily a factual page - historical and technical. Kierant 01:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Wording - Tense

The main article, primarily in the Disco 3 section, has several conflicting uses of tense, e.g. is/was, will/did, has/had. I feel that it should be brought into conformity. Is there a consensus of which tense should be used? —Travis ^C/_T\^U 15:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specifications

Is the width right? 86.2 inches is wide - I've read it's 75.4" Are the other specs correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.19.25 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External Links

Please do not add links that are contrary to guidelines. The external links section should be used for official sites, reviews and sites which contain information that is pertinent to the subject but can't be included for whatever reason. Forums, fansites and clubs are not acceptable links due to the fact there is lack of editorial oversight, lack of notability and lack of accessibility in some cases (ie. needing to sign up to enter the site).-Localzuk^(talk) 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out the standard list of links normally to be avoided, specifically, sites which sell something or have a lot of advertising. I have seen several "get your Land Rover parts here"-type links added in the past. —Travis^talk 15:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)