Talk:Yugo/Archive 1

message: It says Yugos are about as complicated as Model T Fords. I suppose it's a bit much to ask, but is there anyone reading this who has worked on both, and can confirm or decry that? -Litefantastic 23:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't work on Model T, but read about it. It's as similar as any other pre 1980 car really, since it still uses (actually, that may have changed in last couple of years) carburetor vs. fuel injection, there are no onboard computers, etc. I would argue that less computerization means lot more work hours nowdays, at least in more developed countries, so I will alter the paragraph to reflect that. --Dejan Čabrilo 00:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, not my view of maintenance cost, but the fact that any pre 1980 car can be considered similar to Model T :) --Dejan Čabrilo 00:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, my father and I have worked on my Yugo and his Ford Model T. Both are about as equally complicated. As far as the level of complication, it's not that high. My father has built two Model T's from the ground up, however, so he knows them well. I, on the other hand, haven't met a problem on my Yugo that I haven't been able to fix myself, and likewise on the Model T. --Brandon Simonson 06:51, 05 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yugo vs. Model T

message: I removed a big chunk of article as it seems to be a copyvio. The source is in the edit summary. Do not put it back in until the status is clarified. --Dejan Čabrilo 03:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: I have tried to clean up the article and streamline the information.  I have also tried to remove as much of the Zastava information as possible.  Hopefully I have made some headway.  I also removed the clean-up tag. Movementarian 16:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned Up

message: Please talk about things before reverting a massive section.  The Simpsons references are correct as is.  There is not a Simpsons Episode called Murder on the Orient Express.  See The Simpsons Episode Guide and therefore the reference does not belong in that area.  There is also no concrete proof that Homer's car is a Yugo.  There is just a reference.
I think the Pop Culture references to the Yugo are a little out of hand.  The amount of photos in that section makes the article look untidy.  I have removed a few them more than one time, but they keep getting readded.  Under movies Moonlighting is mentioned with a comment that it stars Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd.  That was a television show not a movie.  Whilst it is apparent that there are some Yugo entusiasts that would like every single appearance listed, I believe that the point can be made just listing the more prominent ones.  Perhaps limiting movies to Drowning Mona and Dragnet, where they were part of the story as opposed to just a car in the movie.  Television references could be limited to the Simpsons, Whose Line, and the Midas commercial.  Again, because they were part of the story.
I removed the point about Inspector Gadget driving a Yugo in the movie Inspector Gadget - because he was driving a Chevette, not a Yugo - and even reffered to the car as a Chevette verbally in the film. User:K-111
I touched up the TV section and removed the R. Kelly bullet.  I looked through that entire website and could not find a single refernce to Yugo or Zastava.  Either way, unless the vehicle is going to be marketed as a Yugo it does not belong here.  It would belong on the Zastava page. Movementarian 04:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is part of the marketing strategy not to put a connection between yugo and zoragy. but the zoragy is manufactored in serbia and montenegro in particular in lazarevac. this groups works for the zastava-yugo group in kragujevac. this link should exist, because it shows the capacities of yugo, and if the sanctions and bombings would never happen, imagine what cars would come from yugo... the name zoragy comes from the designer zoran radivojevic and his partners and was in the beginning a concept-car introduced at the chicago-motor show, where r.kelly felt in love with it and took it for his video. it is built on a toyota-mr2 plattform which also provides the engine and the middle-motor-concept. as i know only 3 cars were made, and only one was registered in e.u. in luxemburg particularly. the registry templates seen in the video exist only in luxemburg. nevertheless it is possible to order a zoragy with individual design etc. price is unknown.Nestore 06:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that it belongs here.  It would be like listing the Audi A3 as a Volkswagen.  They are the same parent company and share some of the same parts, however they are different entities.  I think that the company needs it own article and not a mention on the Yugo page. Movementarian 03:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  the zoragy is not a own company like audi, its more a own model of the yugo designers, maybe some people did not understand here that tha yugo is as well a model of a car as well as a brand name. whether zastava or yugo (written with  a Y) it is a name.for domestic sales the yugo was called zastava koral or zastava jugo. for export after 86 always in europe yugo 45 etc. and usa yugo gv etc. i think it is worth mentioning it because it shows what yugo the manufactor is producing, and the article is about yugo.Nestore 17:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Different badge, different company.  The Opel Speedster and Vauxhall VX220 are essentially the same car, but you would not list the Vauxhall under Opel.  The Zoragy deserves it's own article and not a mention here.  Movementarian 04:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits

message: Ok, this is getting old. Orphan1 is continually vandalising this article wiht POV, and removing any info about the Yugo generally being considered a crappy car by the general public. a peatial lock should be used to let the heat drop and then we can open her up. Orphin just joined, so wyhy don't we just do the anon and new lock. --Karrmann
if you want to leave the article a bunch of lies , controlled by a child. okay . you better be able to prove what you say. it is not vandalising when i correct lies. you better contact someone who knows the truth before printing lies. there was never a porsche motor in a yugo, etc. i guess this 13 year old knows more about cars than i do.
oh, i am new to this, so your objection is "point of view". what i changed was not point of view, like illegally bombing a country. it was facts, which i can prove. there was no porsche motor. parts are available where i said they were. that certain models were added to the line up is true. and the yugo jokes are slander, you can not prove that it was a bad car, you never owned one, so you have no right to insult yugo owners, yes human beings who own these cars, and you are ruining the value of their property. show me what i changed is point of view, and we will discuss it. what if i made jokes about your toys, and the other children laughed at you? would you like it?
*Excuse me, but we don't tolerate personal attacks or any form of age discrimination here.--MONGO 06:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock her up boys 

message: I believe the jokes must go as they are not encyclopedic and violate neutral point of view. Also, someone find out if indeed Porsche ever had anything to do with the engines found in Yugo's. If you find it, cite it.--MONGO 12:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral point of view means we don't take sides. If popular opinion - and press reviews - have it that the car is crap, it can be reported here. What NPOV means is that you or I can't enforce our opinion, or try to make the article unbalanced. In other words, what you or I as individuals think shouldn't influence the article at all. Neutral point of view does not mean neutered. Whether jokes are encyclopedic or not is a different matter of course - probably not, although it wouldn't do any harm to mention that the car was the butt of many jokes (assuming it was, it would seem it had a higher profile in the US than here in the UK. Our jokes were mostly about Lada and Skoda). --kingboyk 18:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NPOV]] 

message: Now that the user who caused the page protection has been blocked for legal threats, is there any reason to leave the page blocked?  Understanding that if he backs off his threats and manages to get himself unblocked, it could all easily start up again.  But as long as he's indef blocked, I don't see any reason for the page to remain blocked.  Just IMHO. - TexasAndroid 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Someone continues to add that a Yugo was in the 1999 Inspector Gadget movie. The car which was in that movie was a Chevette, not a Yugo. I deleted the misinformation. Thank you. yugobrandon 04:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugo in the Movies: Inspector Gadget 

message: Just a note to say that I have removed some [or an] image[s] from the page beacuse they were speediable under either:
*Category:Images with no fair use rationale
*Category:Images with no copyright tag
*Category:Images with no source
Or similar category. Iolakana|(talk) 15:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed deleted image(s)

message: For more details on my last revert, see pictures of the Innocenti Mini 120 at  and you will understand. --Asterion 22:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innocenti Mini 120 

message: *I have compiled a body of evidence suggesting that User:NestorYugo is actually User:Nestore, who has vandalized this page in the past. Please be aware. -Litefantastic 01:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: In the movies section, there is a note about Drowning Mona: "As with Dragnet, the Yugos were provided by Zastava." This is not accurate. All of the Yugos used in Drowning Mona were between the 1986 and 1988 model years, and this movie was filmed in 1999. The director's commentary also states that Yugos were purchased from all over the United States and not "provided by Zastava". In fact, when the director tried to contact Zastava concerning the movie, it had just been bombed. I am going to go ahead and delete this part of the note now, and if later proof is posted we can put it back in. Also, I will give my contact in Kragujevic (who worked for Zastava when the Yugo was exported to America) a call and check the part about "Verplanck, New York, the town where the Yugo was test marketed in the U.S." Again, from the directors commentary, it was implied that this bit was made up just for the movie. Best wishes. yugobrandon 05:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drowning Mona Note 

message: ...and if anybody know the dates when the model went by those names in all the different countries. That would be a help.
Thank you.
Jesus.
----
: I would advise to rename the article "Yugo" and add the list of models referred further down in the current article, then create individual redirects for each one of these models, pointing at Yugo: Yugo 45, Yugo 55, Yugo 65, Yugo Koral, Yugo Tempo, Yugo Ciao, etc as these are basically variations of the same car. Also add "For the rest of Zastava models, visit main article Zastava"
In the same way, I will then try to start brand new articles for (hopefully!):
:::Zastava 128 (redirects from Zastava 101);
:::Zastava Skala (redirects from Zastava ZLM,Zastava  ZLC, Zastava ZLX, Zastava 311, Zastava 411, Zastava 413, Zastava 511, Zastava 513, Zastava GTL, Zastava Comfort, Zastava Mediterran, Zastava Stojadin)
:::Zastava 750 (redirects from Zastava 850, Fico, Fićo, Ficho and Zastava Fićo)
:::Zastava 1300 (redirects from Zastava Milletrecento) (first Zastava made under Fiat license)
Regards, Asterion 12:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please see if all international names are correct for this car.. 

message: In all honesty, I believe the best option is to follow the United Nations and stick to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This whole issue is collateral to the nature of the article and I would not like to see it hijacked by anyone. Regards, Asterion 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thats ridiculous. Wikipedia has a Naming convention. Unlike the UN etc. we don't have to bend over backwards for Greek nationalists. I can go into more detail if you like but essentially /no-one/ says FYROM in real life, people either say Macedonia, or, if they are Greek nationalists they probably say Skopje or Skopjan (for the language), or sometimes they say Slavo-bulgar or something. Whatever, the important thing is that Wikipedia doesn't have to kow-tow to nationalists. :) - FrancisTyers 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I want to get into an argument, but I hope common sense prevails :) - FrancisTyers 23:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, FYRM is a POV term. We generally call that country Republic of Macedonia on Wikipedia, so that's the most logical way to go and will cause least reverts. --dcabrilo 00:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I did not say FYROM but the full official name, as recorded in their UN membership, that is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. If you check the page history, I was the first one to revert FYROM. This way, we also cater for anyone searching for the word Macedonia in articles. To be honest, as long as we reach consensus, I would be happy. I just don't want a bloody edit war for a matter totally unrelated to the article subject. Regards, Asterion 02:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The convention on Wikipedia if for either "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia". I could do a count of pages that mention either in a similar context if you like, but the outcome is clear... Hell, even the countries Wikipedia page is at Republic of Macedonia. :) - FrancisTyers 11:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you've removed the reference... that works fine for me too :) - FrancisTyers 22:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Countries 

message: A well intentioned but new user has been unilaterally renaming a few well-established pages today, without consensus and without fixing double redirects, including this one. I've moved it back to Zastava vehicles. Please note that this was just an admin action and I have no opinion on what the name should be. All I will say is, please discuss any moves first - or at the very least fix double redirects when a page has been moved. --kingboyk 18:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: Can anyone confirm this? Asterion 16:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SynLube? 

message: The Nissan Cedric page is entitled "Nissan Cedric" because that was the name the car was originally sold as, and the Datsun brand was not used on that particular car in Japan. The Ford Mondeo article is named "Ford Mondeo" because it was the name the car was first sold as. It is general concensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles that articles for cars that were sold under many different names or slight variants should be named after their original domestic name, so the same should apply for this, i.e. the page should be titled after the original name the car was sold under in Yugoslavia, be it Zastava Koral or whatever (the article isn't very clear on what name was actually used there). All other names specific to this car should redirect to this page, and there should be a disambiguation page on Yugo saying what the name was used for, as (certainly in the UK anyway) it was used on several different models and was regarded as the brand (i.e. it was a more apparent name than Zastava). --Zilog Jones 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name argument continued 

message: The article's name should be Yugo, not Zastava vehicles. Why, because Yugo and Zastava are to two diffrent brand names under one company. And Zastava vehicles should be in the Zastava article. Also, the article mentions Yugo, many, many times. So there is my reason to change the article's name to Yugo.  CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the article back to Yugo. Karrmann 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for moving this article back to Yugo. I agree, start mentioning names of Yugo models and lets start articles about those cars.   CrnaGora (Talk/Contribs/E-mail/Edit Count) 23:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the article name to Yugo 

message: I've waded through this article and tidied up grammar where necessary. As for the 'evil NATO' issue, I've simply reduced the existing reference down to a mention of UN sanctions on Yugoslavia. For whatever reason, the sanctions were the cause of the company's problems. If anyone thinks the sanctions were unjust, they can create an article about them and argue their case there.
I've also made an effort to remedy the imbalance in the "Response to Criticism" section by retitling it, reorganising the material, and removing blatantly POV or irrelevant claims such as
*using the same gauge of steel as Volvo - could be said about a number of vehicles
*'very easy to repair with mechanical skills' - also relevant to a large number of vehicles.
The cars were inarguably more basic than contemporary Japanese and European vehicles, and buyers attracted by the low sticker price most likely expected to encounter a vehicle that could be abused and neglected with the same impunity as a Toyota (although under prolonged abuse, Japanese cars will pack up just as catastrophically as any Yugo). The Yugo can be a reliable car with the correct maintenance, as enthusiasts and proponents have shown, but modern buyers generally aren't prepared to get involved with cars to that degree - to their cost. I hope this helps to make some common ground between the various camps arguing over this article.
One final comment - a lot of people aren't displaying much of a sense of humour here. So I don't quite know why I find the volume of debate so immensely funny. And here I am becoming a part of it... it's a funny old world.
Anyway, please let me know here what you think of my edits. --Samf-nz 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV edits

message: I have heard that the attacks on Kragujevac were really US-led, but were labeled as "NATO." Is it true and is "NATO-led" just hiding the fact that a specific country actually did this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.196.129 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was NATO attack on factories US-led? 

message: Why is there a huge section specifically dealing with the US, but hardly anything about Western Europe, where the Yugo was also (albeit briefly) quite popular? The Bricklin stuff is notable, sure, but does it really need to be covered in quite such extreme detail, down to the precise trim levels? Stuff like "This event earned Yugo's already-tarnished reputation in the Motor City another devestating [sic - typo fixed now] black eye" doesn't help the impression of a US-centric article either. Hopefully some European editors with knowledge of Yugos can improve the non-US coverage; at the moment it's teetering on the edge of a  tag. 86.132.138.205 13:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More internationalisation please 

message: I was reading the article and I removed two subtly POV sentences. First off, saying that that local media outlets in Detroit are instruments of the big three automakers is completely ridiculous.  Its unreferenced, making it WP:OR.  This also falls under WP:Avoid Weasal words as well.   If someone died because her car blew off a bridge when that had never happened before in the bridge's history, I'd say that's pretty significant and doesn't deserve being explained away by a supposed media bias.  Second, in the trivia section, I removed the sentence about that incident.  Its mentioned above.  Also, there is nothing in the source that says the accident was due to high speed and not the car.  Again, at least WP:OR and at most a POV push.  Although this article presents both sides, there is little fairness of tone.  Whether or not editors believe the criticism was fair, the criticism needs be given a fair shake and not be explained away immediately after its presented.  I'm going to come back and give it a thorough reading to see if I can balance the points of view.  --Jdcaust (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some subtle POV. 

message: "United Kingdom has around 100 Yugos still in existence and an owners club has been created, unlike in the USA Yugo was never considered to be one of the worst cars ever imported, partly because there were other much worse imports from eastern Europe, and partly because the expectations were not so high as in the USA."
This seems to be quite biased....pro-Serbian if you ask me.  Norum 21:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias 

message: I significant number of edits of this article are being done by a series of anonymous IPs all starting 92.60.225, using quite poor language ("With communism's collapse, however, Yugoslavia began to unravel." was the federation knitted? "Also in Canada the Dodge sold Yugos through his dealerships." etc.) and inserting a huge number of images mainly of the GV variant. Most auto mobile articles contain one or two photos of each model, not this many.
I am thinking this article may need long-term anon blocking so that random IP users can be encouraged to do things the Wikipedia way and discuss their edits rather than reverting everyone else and re-booting their connection to jump to a new IP.
    Djapa Owen (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor editing 

message: If you intend to reinstate your edits, please provide a rationale before hand - especially as to why you believe that the "[w]hole segment is hear say and provoce hate. I can find artical from some newspaper that clame - for example- USA is evil nest, is it ok to put it here. No. More, information in this segment have nothing ti do with subject, car,rather politics.... If you put back text I clean, I will regarded as hate speech toward people of this article geografy"
Based on IP geolocation I'm assuming that English isn't your first language, so there may be some loss in translation, but you really need to clarify your thinking here.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate speech? 

message: topgear tank shooting yugo is dodgy, should really say "simulates shooting a yugo"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.221.47 (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  top gear 

message: By what standard? 38.140.226.82 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "enormously successful market introduction"? 

message: Yugo was the brand used by Zastava in most export markets. This car was the Zastava Yugo, later the Yugo Koral, with a wide variety of names used in different markets. I agree with the recent IP attempt to change the current, incorrect setup. Yugo should be a redirect to Zastava Automobiles and this title renamed Zastava Yugo as per WP:CARNAMES. Any opinions?  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The common name of the automobile described here was "Yugo", and this nitpicking about 'correctness' is meaningless. The average English reader doesn't generally recognize the difference between the versions of the car called Zastava Yugo and Yugo Koral and we shouldn't expect them to, this is a topic that has continuity and the split would be arbitrary and astonishing for the average reader. The guideline of the automobiles project can't be used as a blanket rationale to override the article title policy, you have to provide a coherent rationale instead, referencing the specifics of that guideline that would support this kind of a change. Also, to invite more people to discuss any such changes, use WP:RM. --Joy (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split and turn Yugo into redirect