Talk:Volkswagen Polo

message: I've reverted edits by this user for several reasons:
*I do think there was useful information there, but this needs integrating with the existing page, not overwriting it.
*The user's edits completley ignored the useful info already built up
*the text was hardly linked at all, in contrast to that already there
*the style of writing was often unencyclopedic.
*the use of the Mk1...Mk 7 nomenclature, whilst accepted by some polo fans is not universal, and  VW themselves use the system previously up there, that is Mk1, Mk1F, Mk2...Mk4f, as does the  German wikipedia article. Using both systems in parallel, as at Ford Escort would be Ok, but to use the unoffical system only is not correct.
*Advertising the clubpolo at the end of each paragraph is not what Wikipedia is about
I would urge this user to join wikipedia as a registered user and contribute to this article. He/she clearly has a lot to contribute, and my revert is based on the need to move the article forward without losing useful information contributed by many people, not a personal attack. I'd suggest more step-wise edits might be more useful. Spute 10:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of edits by [[81.179.241.125]] 

message: I've now integrated all the info from User: 81.179.241.125 into the article. It probably needs a bit of tidying up still though. 82.69.4.121 00:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User: 81.179.241.125]]'s edits 

message: The MkII Polo hatchback model was not mistakenly labelled as a Wagon or Estate. That was the actual official name of that version. --Pc13 17:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polo Wagon 

message: I've just spend a long while edition some consistency back into this article. Everywhere else in Wikipedia seems pretty consistent on using metric figures - ie PS for power figures, km/h for speed, with common conversions held in brackets. The whole page has had some recent edits which have made the entire article a complete mix, and it was a mess. Not to mention numerous grammatical faults and typographic errors in those recent edits.
I gave up halfway through editing the 6N/2. It's a tedious job, I've got better things to do than waste 2 hours correcting mistakes, which brings me onto part two of this rant.
This article has got too huge, and doesn't scan at all nicely anymore. It's going to throw the casual reader off, and as a result they're not going to read it and go and find something much more interesting. I don't think we need to know the exact history, trim specification and price of each model as it was introduced into the UK; it might surprise some of you, but most wikipedians are not from the UK, even those who speak English. This isn't the place to hold every single item of detail on VW's favourite small car. I think everyone who finds their way to wikipedia can at manage to search out some further information using google, or we can include some more external links. Unless well written and part of highlighting something exceptional, I think we can also skip out power outputs, acceleration figures and top speed - these are difficult to verify, and should someone reading really want to find out the information, it's out there somewhere. Perhaps if we're really desperate for its inclusion, some tables could be built as they're much better for holding data than inline with the text.
Compare this version to the German version, and it shows what can be achieved. James Denson 03:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: totally agree, there's just too much info here. Maybe it should be split as BMW 3 Series, where that page has overall info, and each individual mark (e.g. BMW E21, BMW E90) has a more detailed page. Spute 17:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologise for any repetition between the main and separate articles at the moment, i'm trying to sort this out, but it's a big job and I would appreciate any other users' contributions. I'm sure it'll all be much more readable when this is finished.Spute 21:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I now think the size of the main Polo article is about right. It's much more readable without all the detail about specifications. All of this is in the separate articles i've linked to. I have not deleted any information. I'll now set about editing the MkI, etc articles:
*Volkswagen Polo Mk I
*Volkswagen Polo Mk II
*Volkswagen Polo Mk III
*Volkswagen Polo Mk IV
Spute 23:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency throughout article & scope 

message: Does the Polo name mean Polowind, or "polar wind," or is it a sports pun on "Golf?"  The origin of the name should definitely be included in the article. Captain Caveman July 14, 2005
:It's in there now. Earthlyreason (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: always thought it was just a misspelling of "pollo," i.e., chicken.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Polo name

message: It's a pretty good summary, though stating that the "The fastest version of the Mk III was the 16V engined model, with 100 PS" is technically inaccurate as there was a limited edition of 3000 6N GTi models sold in Germany with a 120PS 1.6 16v. Also I know it's a summary, but there is no mention of the 6N2 GTi.
Redline84 18:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead and add these bits of info. I've done a lot of edits to the Polo articles over the last week or so, but there's lots more to add, i know. ( i only introduced the Performance versions and Motorsport section the other day and haven't had time to research much additional info - it mainly pools together what was spread throughout the article). Please contribute what you can, it sounds like you're quite knowledgable about Polos. Thanks.Spute 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance versions and Motorsport

message: These are presently a shambles. VW Golf designations clearly align "generation" with "mk". VW Polo designations presently called "series" as per  align with "generations" would be more sensibly called "mk" to be consistent with golf generations. VW body type should be indicated for all models, as it is an unambiguous part of the VW chassis number.
--Blouis79 (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiyper 69.124.4.167 (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I've attempted to clean this up a bit more, using Typ numbers and nomenclature found in official VW source (eg. "Mark IV Phase II"), although even VW isn't entirely consistent in this regard, using both Roman and Arabic Mark numbers, and sometimes referring to "nth Generation Polo" rather than "Polo Mark n". I've preserved the alternative "Mark 1 to 7" identification, though made it clear this is unofficial. Letdorf (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polo model designations 

message: I propose that the article Volkswagen Polo GTI be merged into Volkswagen Polo. While the template may state a direct merger of the two articles, I acknowledge the fact that the sections of Volkswagen Polo GTI refer to the GTI versions of each iteration of the Polo, each of which have their own respective articles. That will subsequently be addressed in the merger, as the information in each section is merged into the appropriate article. Nothingmore Nevermore (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support for merge, also Volkswagen Polo G40  article should be merged, we dont need own article for every engine version --Typ932 T·C 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

text: *Comment: this article is already 43k, suggest WP:SIZE should be consulted before merging other articles into this one. Letdorf (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Article should be splitted by generations not by engines or trim levels --Typ932 T·C 13:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I concur that the current article is long. However, that should not significantly affect the merits of the merger. As mentioned before, the majority of the content in Volkswagen Polo GTI will be merged into the subpages of the corresponding generations, and represent themselves on this specific page only in briefest and most concise manners. Instead, we should look at and address the other factors that are contributing to its current size. Nothingmore Nevermore (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: I can't find anything about fuel economy in this article. If it is buried somewhere, it should be made easier to find. If there is in fact nothing on fuel economy, that is a fatal flaw and renders the article essentially useless to most readers. ---Dagme (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel economy? 

message: I saw a photo on the internet of the US model but i never seen it in the US. So I wounder if it was ever sold in USA or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by A8v (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this car ever sold in USA 

message: Just a suggestion but if anyone watching here is looking for a little bit of something to do, the Straight-three engine article appears to be a little out of date regarding VW, no acknowledgement there of the 1.0 litre engine this article says is used in the sixth generation Polo. 86.155.27.168 (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engines