Template talk:SEAT
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The template should need to be corrected, cos not all SEAT cars, from 1953 to 1985, were licensed from or based upon Fiat designs. A rearrangement could also be useful, so as to include all concept cars made by SEAT, and make separate sections for concepts related and non-related to SEAT cars that were eventually produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.203.36 (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Which pre-1985 models are you referring to? I think there is some controversy over whether Ronda, Ibiza and Malaga could be considered Fiat derivatives, but I think it is widely accepted that they were not designed entirely from scratch. Note that navboxes such as this should really only contain links to existing WP articles, so concept cars should only appear here if there is an article about them. Letdorf (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC).
- Well what is the common belief, doesn't need to be the proper way to tell things accurately in WP. As an example the SEAT 1200 Sport and the SEAT 133 were neither rebadged Fiats nor cars based upon Fiat designs, but on the contrary developed by SEAT itself in Spain (SEAT had its own Technical center in Martorell since 1975), using Fiat components of course (quite natural since SEAT had been in partnership with Fiat by that time). The latter was a SEAT model to be eventually rebadged as a Fiat, ie the other way round. The Ibiza Mk1 (&the Malaga) would be another clear example of a car that was definitely not a rebadge of a Fiat licenced or designed car, cos it was introduced in 1984 when Fiat had already broken ties with SEAT since 1981, being actually the product of collaboration between SEAT, Giugiaro's Italdesign, Karmann and Porsche (using some Fiat parts underneath as well as some Volkswagen components too).
- I think the best would be to change the tags "current & former Volkswagen Group SEAT cars (1986 on)" and "former SEAT cars licensed from, or based upon Fiat designs (1953–1985)" to something more accurate and neutral, lets say
- "current SEAT cars", "former SEAT cars" or
- "current SEAT cars", "former SEAT cars (1986 on)" & "former SEAT cars (1953-1985)" or
- "current Volkswagen Group SEAT cars", "former Volkswagen Group SEAT cars (1986 on)" & "former pre-Volkswagen Group SEAT cars (1953-1985)" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.118.220 (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well what is the common belief, doesn't need to be the proper way to tell things accurately in WP. As an example the SEAT 1200 Sport and the SEAT 133 were neither rebadged Fiats nor cars based upon Fiat designs, but on the contrary developed by SEAT itself in Spain (SEAT had its own Technical center in Martorell since 1975), using Fiat components of course (quite natural since SEAT had been in partnership with Fiat by that time). The latter was a SEAT model to be eventually rebadged as a Fiat, ie the other way round. The Ibiza Mk1 (&the Malaga) would be another clear example of a car that was definitely not a rebadge of a Fiat licenced or designed car, cos it was introduced in 1984 when Fiat had already broken ties with SEAT since 1981, being actually the product of collaboration between SEAT, Giugiaro's Italdesign, Karmann and Porsche (using some Fiat parts underneath as well as some Volkswagen components too).
- Okay, I have revised the template to avoid reference to Fiat. Letdorf (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
Non-free content
[edit]Do not add non-free images (i.e. the Seat logo) to this template. Non-free images are never allowed in Template: space (WP:NFCC#9).
Notwithstanding Etonmessisthebest's edit summary to this template ("Undid revision 722918032, there are thousands of templates on Wikipedia with non-free images, and I believe that this constitutes a fair use of the image due to the logo representing the brand for which the template is about, this is within the rules."), this template is literally the only template on Wikipedia with non-free images in it (See https://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/NFCC9.html , the remaining Template: pages on the list are due to the database not being updated in real time). Also, irrespective of whether the use of the image would constitute fair use, it has to meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy and all of its 10 non-free content criteria, which are purposely stricter than the fair use provisions in U.S. law. One of those limitations is that non-free content can only be used in article space, not in Template: space (WP:NFCC#9). I have reverted the addition. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)