Talk:Renault Alliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Proposed merger discussion

I think that this article should merge with the Renault 9/11 page, simply because I think that since the Alliance was a rebadged 9, the Alliance info should be in the 9's page, not in its own separate page. I've already started a discussion on the 9/11's talk page if you want to talk about it. -Daniel Blanchette 16:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Do check out a proposed merged article @ User:Bravada/Renault_9,_11,_Alliance_and_Encore and take it into consideration!
  • Oppose. Daniel- I'm really opposed to merging the two articles, for one good reason - in order to have a full representation of AMC products, the Alliance needs to stand alone. If its merged into the Renault article, the Alliance and its impact on AMC become secondary to the Renault angle. Again, I am opposed to the move because the facts about the Alliance get lost in the "9" article. So lets give this article a chance to at least grow before it gets swept aside. Stude62 01:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not going to get lost. Look at the Chevrolet Epica article, for instance. I'm thinking of something like that. To me, I think having separate pages for the Alliance, Encore, and the 9/11. Remember, back in the 1980s, except for a few models, AMC was pretty much Renaults and Jeeps. I think it would be wise to merge them together. In addition, in keeping with the "home market" naming scheme that we have seem to have adopted, the 9 and the 11 were the home market names for the Alliance and the Encore anyway. Of course there would be full representation (I think it would be possible to cut and paste the entire article into the Renault 9/11 article, then add the AMC template box below the Renault box), it's just logically not making sense. No, I'm not underscoring AMC's impact, it's just that I want to get facts straightened out in my head, and I don't the Alliance would get lost in the 9/11 article, so long as it's in a separate section of the article, like the Epica. -Daniel Blanchette 14:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Dan- I think that the matter needs to brought before the Wikipedia Auto project. I have issued an invitation for them to come and post their feelings on the matter. Stude62 16:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am generally for having seperate articles following the "Wikipedia is not paper" guideline. I think since the Alliance was market by AMC and not under the Renault badge this article should exsits in its own right. (This is also why I favor a seperation of the Yukon and Tahoe article) AMC is not the same as Renault and if the story is indeed different for AMC as opposed to Renualt than the Alliance deserves its own article. One thing though, shouldn't this article be named the AMC Alliance, instead of Renault Alliance? Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As a former Alliance convertible (and Encore hatchback, don't ask...) owner, I think these cars, even though based on the Renault 9, deserve to stand alone. I agree with Stude62 that the impact of this car on AMC was profound. It was much much larger proportionally than the impact of one rebadged Daewoo was on Chevrolet. So I'd oppose the merge. Now I have a todo, to go digging for some pictures of my old cars that I can scan in, because the article really needs an illustration or two. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am against the merger of the two articles. Rebadged or not, the Alliance was well-recognized and important enough in its own right to merit its own article, not be buried in the article for an unknown (to me) model. ⇒ BRossow T/C 22:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I usually prefer having different articles about different cars. But here I can't see that any of your argument follow any wikipedia convention about having separate articles. If it's the same car, then all info about the car should be in one article. --Boivie 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just a note: the cars weren't even built on the same continent. According to the 9/11 article, they didn't even look the same on the outside (different silhouette.) By the logic expressed in proposing this merger, the Pontiac Firebird and Chevrolet Camaro articles should be merged as well. Right? --BRossow 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The VW Golf from Puebla and VW Golf from Wolfsburg haven't been built on the same continent either, but are still the same car. The same for a myriad of other "world cars". The "different silhouettes" sentence refers to the 9 and the 11 - the 9 was a sedan and the 11 a hatchback, therefore they had different silhouettes. The 9 and Alliance, as well as the 11 and Encore had identical silhouettes, in fact they are almost totally identical, the 9 and Alliance only have different fascias. --Bravada 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support These are the same cars (see above)! I could even agree that the 11 could be separated from the 9 (and thus the Alliance from the Encore), but why separate the Alliance from the 11? There is no separate article on Holden Vectra or Volkswagen Bora and it's OK that way. The beauty of Wikipedia not being "paper" is that you may not have separate articles on every topic imaginable, but rather a set of clever redrects, subsections etc. provides for coherent stories. Have a look at my proposition of the merged article. I know there are many people here who would like to honor the Alliance as an AMC vehicle, but I believe a section in the 9/11 article is not worse in any way.
    I wouldn't probably be so much against a separate Alliance article if the article in question wouldn't be deprived of any mention of or link to the Renault 9/11 whatsoever (while even the AMC template below links from Alliance and encore directly to Renault 9/11). --Bravada 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The 9/11 receives its due now in the Alliance article, as does Dick Teague for his design work on the car on behalf of AMC. Also the linkage is fixed in the template. Such is the ability of Wikipedia - being easy to edit and responsive to such changes. Stude62 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my comments so quickly! I believe, however, that the sentence you added might be a little misleading - a casual reader might think that the Alliance/Encore had a totally different styling than the 9/11, as well as being significantly different in the technical department. Perhaps listing the actual differences might be more suitable, like here: [[1]]
And I still believe the articles should be merged :D --Bravada 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Normally I would support merges like this, but there's plenty of info on this page already, and the Alliance is quite different than the R9/11 in several ways as people have already mentioned above. --ApolloBoy 20:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Support. I still stick by my idea of merging this page with the Renault 9/11 page. Again, I reiterate that since the Alliance was a rebadged 9, and the equivalent Encore was a rebadged 11, the Alliance info and the Encore info should be in the Renault 9/11 page. I think that Bravada had the right idea of what I was looking for. For those people who said that it was marketed by AMC, not Régie Renault - Renault controlled AMC in the 1980s; the only models that was distinctively marketed as AMCs were the AMC Eagle and the Jeeps (Renaults were sold as Renaults, and Renaults made up most of AMC's lineup in the 1980s), and since the Alliance/Encore was really no more than a rebadged 9/11, it would be pointless to have two separate articles. You don't see two separate articles for the JDM and USDM Toyota Corolla. Why? They are the same model. The Alliance/Encore and the 9/11, even with the modifications needed to suit the Feds' whims, are really the same model. Again, if we want to stick with the "home market" naming scheme that has produced such weird articles like the General Motors Astra, then the 9 and 11 are the home-market names (in this case, France and to an extent the EEA in general) of the Alliance and Encore. Even the Medallion part of the AMC template redirects to the home-market Renault (forget the number). Again, look at the Chevrolet Epica article, and I still stick by my original position. -Daniel Blanchette 20:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Dan, have you looked at the Chevrolet Epica article lately? It doesn't exist; instead its a redirect to Daewoo Magnus, so does the Suzuki Verona article. As for your arguments, I respect them because they are yours and your evidently feel very empassioned about this, but they don't make logical sense because comparing the Epica (a blip on General Motors radar screen) to Alliance (the make or break car for AMC) is like comparing apples to oranges. Stude62 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Images

Not having too much luck finding free or fair use images of this little beastie. Here's one I found, but it's tiny. Still, better than nothing? It's from a US government site. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/photos/1985_AMC_Alliance_W.jpg (EPA fuel economy site) ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lar- I went to the vault today and found the image that I posted in the article. Everytime I go down to the basement I remind myself that I really do need to get the ads and brochures out of there. But there are so many, and they weigh so much...Stude62 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice image it is, too. I like how they had the model sit all skewed in the seat so that her head wasn't blocked by the pillar. We saved our brochures (the white convertible was bought new) for a long time, but not THIS long! Well done. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the magic of commercial art. And oh, those automobile ads are stored with three-hundred or so dealer promotional models from the 1950s-1970s, all in their own boxes. I'm hoping that they all pay for my retirement in 30 years. Stude62 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)