Talk:Mazda Familia

Familia Neo

There was also a Familia Neo sold some time around the 1994-9 model - it was a 3-door liftback with a glass panel on the back, much in the fashion of the Honda CR-X and Insight. I've also seen this sold in the UK and Ireland badged just as a "323". Anyone have better information on these? --Zilog Jones 23:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The Neo is the Mazda equivalent to the Ford Laser Lynx - I'll try find some more information on it. --Carcenomy 11:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

extra

Later Familias appeared with a succession of names around the world, including 1000, 1200, and 1300, 800, 808, and 818, Mizer, GLC, 323 and Protegé (sic).

Engines

Looking at present, nothing is matching up. Based on the C-engine article, it would suggest several C family engines were used in the Familia in the early models, but none of the capacities or horsepower ratings for the corresponding C-engines match the cars they are claimed to be from. Can someone provide some evidence of the actual outputs of the cars in question, and link them to their appropriate engine pages? --Carcenomy 11:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is / was a Mazda Familia?

Mazda 1000 / 1200 sedan

Mazda 1000 / 1200 station wagonette

Where manufacturers such as Mazda (and Nissan and Toyota and Volkswagen and General Motors) use different names for identical or near identical models in different markets, I do not think Wikipedia has an established / consistently followed policy on what to call them. Any of the potential 'rules' that I can think of would threaten to open a can of worms. (Always use the US name because many wikepedians are aware of no other? Always use the name used in the market / country where the entity has its own corporate head office? Always use the name applied by the wikipedian who first wrote the article?....)

Which is a rambling preamble to reporting that I've just dug out a couple of pictures I took 35ish years ago of a car that I (in the UK but also I think in the rest of Western Europe) grew up thinking of as the Mazda 1000. But I have the sense that most contributions to this article come from US contributors. I think this picture must be of the car described in the article as the second generation Mazda Familia. If someone who knows agrees with me, and if no one has a better image available to accompany that section of the article and thinks one or other or both of these will serve the necessary purpose, please let me know (or install the picture yourself). If I'm wrong about assuming what the cars in these pictures, are according to the names known to other wikipedians - ie those outside of west Europe - I'd be interested to know anyway. And thank you. Charles01 06:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction about Mazda Familia in Colombia and Andean Countries

In Colombia and other Andean Countries the sixth generation Familia (known as 323), equipped with the B3 engine, was manufactured and sold as Mazda 323 until 2003.

In Colombia, further generations were sold as Mazda Allegro with the exception of the 1997-1998 sedan eighth generation model, which was known as Ford Laser and was manufactured until 2007. Currently, the ninth generation model is still in production (as Mazda Allegro with 1.3L and 1.6L engines); but it is expected to end in 2008, in order to be replaced by the Mazda2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.174.118 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Called & Related

I tried to sort out these lines in the infoboxes to match the article text, because many readers will better recognize these cars as a Mazda 323 or Protegé. However this model has been rebadged so many times, it is quite confusing. Perhaps a Mazda expert would like to take a shot at it. 71.134.228.37 (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Japan 5-door hatchback, pop-up headlights

This was also available in UK tali 07/05/09(80.195.161.249 (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Image for 8th generation

This image is not of a US model, it is an imported Japanese domestic model like the one I own. It has a different lane change light placement and grille to the one sold in the US. 131.203.127.133 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• It obviously can't be JDM since the steering wheel and the front pillar antenna are on the left side, and the image is not flipped. If it's not USM, then it's european. 91.122.190.157 (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

engines

BG generation: lack of 1.6l sohc 16valve engine 66kw/88hp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.110.135 (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

9th gen (BJ) production years: 1998, not 1999

• A redesigned ninth-generation BJ Familia was introduced on June 9, 1998 as a 1999 model.

But they've been actually produced since May 1998. You can check spare catalogues: some parts are different for pre-07/98 cars but this is the same BJ generation. 91.122.190.157 (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Familia Infini

Added information under the 1989 - 1994 Familia models for the Infini trim model. References made to the original Japanese product brochure and summary of brochure listing special options specific to the Infini trim line. I saw this change as significant as the Infini sport trims for the RX-7 are mentioned in the RX-7 article, and not much in known about the sedan version. 06:00, 19 November 2009‎ User:66.91.78.3

Galleries

To Chacha15: there is absolutely no need for picture galleries with eighteen or more pictures. Also you removed several captions for no apparent reason. I don't understand the motivation for the majority of your edits, most of which don't improve the article but just shuffle things around for no apparent reason. No need for giant galleries, there is a Commons category which allows users to see all images of the Familia/323 etc.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored and reduced the last gallery to 16 imgs. BTW what captions do you mean? Please don't revert if there's any problem - tell me and I will fix them. Thanks.--Chacha15 (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You have deleted several image captions (for instance for the Familia 800 in the first infobox). Your galleries are still much too large. We do not, as a rule, use several images in the infoboxes.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, your removal of the "small family car" (useful to most of the world) in favor of the American Compact/Subcompact designations baffles me. Also, I don't know that the car was upgraded to "compact" until 1995, so unless you have a reference I don't see the point. I cannot honestly see the purpose of any of your edits, except perhaps the main image, which I will now restore. The galleries were fine as they were, please stop adding photos. The Wikimiedia Commons category page does an admirable job in showing all of the different versions of the car.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed Compact back to Small family car. Changed the compact upgrade back to 1995. Reduced no. of imgs in the galleries (including the two giants). Also reduced gallery widths by 50px. Now everything should be okay, right?

By the way, which caption do you mean I removed? I checked the history and there was never a caption for Familia 800 infobox. Just tell me and I'll fix it. --Chacha15 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, is the article still the way it is because you're sick of fighting it or because you've taken a break from reverting it? It's still a huge mess and should be reverted to where it was before today. Overloaded galleries, overloaded infoboxes, poor photo selections. IFCAR (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the state of the article was when you wrote this, but after your most recent edits it looks pretty decent. Perhaps too many Aussie market cars and no Euro spec ones, but I really don't care.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I fear I'm just going to be ignored, but let's go through the various changes made in the edit I just reverted:

1 - Lower-quality photo for the top infobox: washed-out details, covered in reflections, cluttered background. No justification provided for the change.

2 - Lower-quality photo for the 6th-generation infobox: Less than ideal angle, cluttered background, car features badly discolored body panels. No justification provided for the change.

3 - In general, too many gallery photos, specifically contrary to the guideline favoring a link to Commons over a large gallery. No justification provided for the change.

4 - In general, low-quality gallery photos, with the risible edit summary justification that "image quality isn't important." Issues include photographed vehicles with visible damage and aftermarket components, both of which are frowned upon when avoidable in the image standards, and photos with poor lighting or cropping when superior choices are available. No justification provided for the changes.

5 - Repeated unexplained caption changes, many of which make the caption needlessly vague or demonstrably incorrect.

Please weigh in on this page, Chacha15, and see if you can 1) clearly explain your edits and 2) see if anyone agrees with your rationale before continuing to make these changes. IFCAR (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I second all of the above. Please begin communicating (this also means listening to others, and responding to questions and concerns directly).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

1. There is no lower quality photo anymore: this new one that I added (the white 1998-2001 Familia) is high quality. Also, the original photo has a very bad angle.
2. The original photo might have a better quality, but has a very bad angle. It's taken all the way from the side and per Wikiproject conventions, the angle of a car's photo should be a clear front and side. And oh, if you complain about the quality, why don't you replace the photo yourself with a different one?
3. Too many gallery photos? No way. You lot removed SO much already. Also, using Commons is only good if you want to see more photos of a model. The galleries here just put one image of each type of a model!
4. Image quality IS not important in galleries, because the image size in a gallery photo is less than 100px (which is very small), so therefore the image is either little or no effective to the quality (if for example the image size is e.g. 500px, then yes, you've got a point; the quality is low. But a gallery image is very small in size and therefore no problem)
5. I've clearly improved the captions of gallery photos. I made the years bold so it's clearer, and I wrote the model and region clearly. And if there's anything incorrect, feel free to correct it! Why revert the whole article instead?

--Chacha15 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

1, 2. The original photo is the appropriate 3/4 front view, and is cleaner than the latest one that you prefer.

3. Yes, you are using too many -- far, far more than "one image of each model."

4. Quality is always important, with the justified expectation that someone would click on a tiny gallery image to see it bigger. You can't see (some) image quality metrics in the gallery size, but you also can't see most details of the car either.

5. When the vast majority of changes are poor, no one should have to hunt through to pick out what might actually be justified. IFCAR (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that the model years could be bolded. Otherwise I agree with IFCAR. Going through an article just to change photos, often seemingly at random, is not useful work but just something to keep you busy. Why don't you pick up a couple of back issues of Autocar or somesuch, and then make entries with any useful information you find? That would actually improve WP, rather than just change it.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Bad angle"?

That photo has a very bad angle. If you think my preferred photos are not 'clean', then feel free to replace it! But your preferred photo is also not good due to bad angle. --Chacha15 (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The angle is the appropriate 3/4 front view. IFCAR (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Hello, wake up! I'm talking about the infobox pic at the top of the page. It has a very bad angle. --Chacha15 (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comments here seem to illustrate why you're having so much trouble selecting suitable photos. Might I suggest you try doing something else? IFCAR (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To perhaps get some clarity: Is this the image which has a "bad angle"? And what exactly is a bad angle, in this case? To me it looks as a spot on 3/4 view representation.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a GOOD angle

I've shown an example of what is a good angle (an 8th gen 323 from Europe). This good angle clearly shows the front and side.

The image you want is a bad angle because it shows the side more and the front is not clearly seen. Also, it's taken from too far away.

--Chacha15 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

To me it's the opposite. Your image is taken from way too near, with too wide of an angle which distorts the view. It's not a bad photo, but not as good as the 99-00 Protege ES. That photo has nearly no distortion at all and shows a good proportion of side to front.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Regushee placed merger hatnotes on top of a few pages such as Mazda Étude and Mazda Grand Familia. There is a link to a discussion (which takes me here) but no discussion.

• Oppose I would like to express my objection to such a merger - the Étude has a different name and different sheet metal (all of it, as far as I can tell), while the Grand Familia was a considerably bigger car on a different chassis, sold with different names in all markets. No reason at all to merge these.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose mergers per above. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't have a wiki username, but agree with OSX to NOT merge Étude and in addition the Rx3 pages with the Grand Familia pages. The pages are fine the way they are, and contain appropriate cross-links. Ditto the OPPOSE vote. DLREED 20120504 not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.187.56 (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose—I oppose the Merge of the Mazda RX-3, another page on which the hatnote was placed proposing a merge. The RX-3 was a fairly successful (some 900,000 units) car, and was marketed in the US and other locations under the RX-3 model name. It should NOT be merged with Mazda Familia as proposed. N2e (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Confusion in the lead

The lead states, in a very convoluted and confusing sentence, that the name "Familia" was used in Southern Africa. This is not true, the South African made versions were always branded "323" and later "Etude". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Mazda Étude merger proposal

The Mazda Étude is an orphan article which is essentially a Familia hatchback with different rear window treatment, attempting to present a luxurious appearance on a more plain two-door hatchback, and it can join the "Sao Penza" South African version. (Regushee (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC))

• Oppose: the Étude seemingly has its own sheetmetal (are any body panels shared with the Familia/323?). As for the Sao Penza, that is merely a rebadged model with no material changes made to the donor 323. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Mazda Lantis merger proposal

This article already has an introductory paragraph for a very small, orphaned article that needs additional references. (Regushee (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC))

• Oppose: the Lantis has its own sheetmetal (and is on a different platform to the Familia/323. The only linkage is that is was sold under the 323 name in some markets like Europe and Australia. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mazda Familia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/forgotten_cars/10/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617135309/http://media.ford.com/plant_display.cfm?plant_id=49 to http://media.ford.com/plant_display.cfm?plant_id=49

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mazda Familia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113060424/http://gazoo.com/meishakan/meisha/shousai.asp?R_ID=8573 to http://gazoo.com/meishakan/meisha/shousai.asp?R_ID=8573
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100116091730/http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/story/p4.html to http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/story/p4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)