Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Proposed naming convention

This convention is largely the way I have named the few model pages I've started so far and the way in which I think most people seem to name es. However, it should be useful to have this to refer to when people aren't sure exactly what to do. I can't think of any improvements that need to be made, it all seems comprehensive and clearly written as it is. Good work. 999 08:50, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating by year series

When disambiguating by year series, is it possible to separate years by en-dashes, rather than by hyphens? —Vespristiano 02:21, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

I'd rather not do it in page titles; I'm not sure that en-dashes are even supported characters in them (anyone?) and I suspect that they'd be less obvious for users. However, I would support the use of them in the article text. —Morven 05:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and en-dashes are not supported in page titles. —Morven 08:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the main article

A discussion over at talk:Mazda Mazda6 leads me to propose another convention - Name articles for the most important and unambiguous version of the automobile or series. By "important", I mean use the least ambiguous, most constant name. Then create redirects from all other name variations.

For example, most world-car articles should be named for their home-market version, and multi-marque models for their most stable/best-selling/most important marque and model name.

For example, the early Mazda Familia had many names all over the world (Mazda 1000, Mazda 818, Mazda GLC, Mazda 323, etc), but the main article is Familia. I have created redirects to the Familia article from all these other names. In this case, "Familia" is the most stable name, as well as the home-market one.
Another example is the Dodge Caravan. It has been sold as the Chrysler Caravan, Plymouth Voyager, Chrysler Voyager, and Chrysler Town and Country. But the Dodge is the main version - that name lasted the longest and sells the best.

I'm also putting bold versions of the other names into the article body. So, for example, the Ford Five Hundred article notes that there is a twin, the Mercury Montego.

Comments?--SFoskett 01:08, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hi SFoskett: I support this totally. I also support the way you've noted the twins down, using bolds—it's what I have been doing, too (great minds think alike).

Using home-market names gets around some other problems. The one I raised on the Mazda 6 talk page was the Chrysler Alpine. The only reason that probably got in there as the lead name was that a Briton wrote it, but Europeans would argue that the Simca 1307 was more widespread and more important (as well as being the last Simca). But it was designed by a Brit in the UK. So the car that got there first would solve this conundrum.

I agree with you on the Dodge Caravan scenario: no other name has been as consistent and many export Chrysler Voyagers (while Plymouth was still around) were rebadged Dodge Caravans with the cross grille.

Finally, I notice the guys at Autoindex[1] tend to go with the original names for the sake of their global database.

Your suggestion sounds like a very workable one. Stombs 00:15, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

One of the nice things about the AutoIndex is that they list a vehicles name for major markets. Perhapse we should create a template for vehicle articles with a place in the sidebar for global market names. -- stewacide 03:01, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree in the general case, with the proviso that if there is enough to say under the other name, then having two articles, properly cross-linked, does not hurt. I'm thinking particularly of cases where the cosmetic differences are quite significant and we have pictures of both, or when there is important history separate for both, or indeed the same name was used for several different vehicles over time.

For example, I'd generally want to have articles on any Mercury automobile we might have a photo of, simply because the trim is often so different.

One should always bold every significant name variant, especially if someone might have followed a redirect for that name.

In many cases, this would call for a short stub rather than a redirect, IMO. That short stub would be along the lines of

The Simca 1307, sold in Europe between 19xx and 19xx, was a rebadged Chrysler Alpine; for more details, see that article.

I think this generally works much better than simply redirecting. The redirect might leave someone confused as to why they'd arrived at a page about something quite different. A short stub can quickly explain the differences from the parent vehicle and then send the reader elsewhere for the detailed matter. —Morven 05:33, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I like that, Morven. A stub would be necessary in the cases you suggest. Also I agree that Mercurys deserve their own entries—particularly, too, since the "bloodline" does not always parallel Ford (e.g. the Mercury Cougar)—another case that you've covered. The same argument could be made for numerous GM and Chrysler products. Stombs 14:35, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Generally, though, between those of us on this page, we tend to do a good job—it's just those situations where there are global issues. The Simca is one; just thought of the Holden Astra as another (it wasn't always an Opel clone; it was once a Nissan Pulsar clone). In such cases, the short stub works perfectly. Stombs 15:31, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

GM

I noticed there are entries for General Motors Astra and General Motors Vectra. GM is not a marque unless you count the EV-1. I know by having GM entries, we overcome arguments between Opel, Vauxhall, Chevrolet and Holden. But since these cars are developed by Opel and usually have a pan-European launch where all cars are badged Opels, then can the entries not be for Opel? Stombs 00:09, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Agree, that makes no sense. However this gets kinda' trickey whe you remember the Astra was a Vauxhall model before it was an Opel... It'd be nice if Wikipedia let one article have multiple names, not just redirects. -- stewacide

You're totally right, Stewacide: I forgot about the 1980 Vauxhall Astra. Maybe the Vauxhall Astra page could have an entry for the Mk I, then a link to the Opel Kadett E/Vauxhall Astra Mk II on the Opel page? We do run into a similar problem with the Holden Astra, which was originally a Nissan Pulsar clone before it became the Opel Astra A/Vauxhall Astra Mk III, so there we could put in a brief entry for the days when it was a Pulsar, and then reference Opel afterwards. (It does get confusing, especially now the Australians are saying they'll have 'Astra Classic' and 'Astra' lines after the model changeover. And the Brazilian Chevrolet Astra, too, which got facelifted last year rather than becoming an all-new model as it did in Europe.) I reckon we change the GM pages back to make and model, based on Opel, and make these additional pages for the anomalies in each marque. Stombs 00:25, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily that complicated. We simply use a redirect (with a category!) where there are no substantial changes between marques (as in Plymouth Neon and Dodge Neon) and use the most "popular" model as the main page. In other cases (like the Nissan 200SX), we use a disambig page if the same name was used on different models. In still other cases (Think Vauxhall Cavalier), we build whole pages for the model and simply point to the other content as needed. It'll all work out.

BTW, here are the offending pages:

--SFoskett 19:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

This works for me, SFoskett. If I understand correctly, we make the above Opel pages, but we have unique ones for the Vauxhall Astra, Cavalier and Carlton (where the model series do not parallel Opel) and the Holden Astra (which was a Nissan Pulsar once), where we point back to the Opel one? Stombs 11:18, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I recently took care of the Corsa and Zafira (making Opel Corsa/Opel Zafira the main articles) so I believe all six are proper now. I also recently moved General Motors van to Chevrolet Van, with the former and others (GMC Vandura, Chevrolet Express) redirecting to the latter. --Vossanova ^o< 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting this

To steal some text from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft):

For article titles, use the most common unambiguous name. A central tenet of wikipedia naming conventions is to give articles names that will be have the greatest chance of being directly linked to within an edit window of another article. Alternative names should be listed in bold type on or near the first line of the article as well as in the "aka" field of the infobox if it is used. See also Wikipedia:Google test.

Create redirects from all the more common alternative names. For example, the main article for the Dodge Caravan should be at Dodge Caravan; redirects to it at Dodge Grand Caravan, Plymouth Voyager, and Chrysler Town and Country.

Never use a generic name like "Chrysler minivans" or a hybrid name like "Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager" since these violate the Wikipedia policy of using common and familiar names. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

We need to get this policy up on Wikipedia:Naming conventions. It's been discussed recently at Lincoln MKZ and Chevrolet Silverado, among others... --SFoskett 14:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion about this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Articles of Similar Vehicles in an attempt to reach a uniform decision and standard format for all relevant articles. After all, isn't that what the project aims to do after all? Airline 23:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military vehicles

I've just drawn up an initial proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military vehicles), based on discussion at the Military History wikiproject's Weaponry Task Force. It refers editors to this policy regarding automobiles & trucks. Please have a look and comment. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 20:37 Z

Home market name or most common name?

Some people have asserted that we should always use the home market name for a car known by various names. I agree that this may be a good general rule in cases that are otherwise tricky, but I don't agree that it should always be done. If for example a car has a name used widely throughout the world, I disagree with using the home market name, if it's different. When in doubt, we should use the most common name, shouldn't we? Friday (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to establish what is "the most common name". Can you say that with authority, and can you point to objective criteria stating what is "the most common name"? Finally, can you draw an easily identifiable OBJECTIVE and undisputable criterion for identifying cases when the "most common name" should be used?

Also, standards that are applied at will aren't really standards. We create them to determine solutions for ALL cases to be able to refer to them rather than discuss each one independently. This would work totally against this principle. PrinceGloria 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. This convention is in part depreciated (talking about what's on the other side).

I'm asking for a bit of common sense, that's all. If a car is known by a single name in every country but one, generally I'd suggest that the worldwide name is the "most common" one. Standards on Wikipedia are guidelines- they're very rarely expected to apply to every single case. That's why individual articles have individual talk pages. Friday (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A standard is a guideline applied in EVERY case to avoid discussing individual cases in talk pages. You can discuss whether a standard is applicable, but the one discussed refers to ALL automobile models, and hence it applies to Mazda Axela without question. As concerns common sense - it's nice to have it, but it's hard to define it. Which is why we have to go by standards rather than each one's individual perception of common sense. PrinceGloria 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of working out standards. What I don't like to see is insistence that decisions cannot be made in individual cases. The individual articles need to be able to move forward, whether or not a standard emerges. Friday (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting your precious time and effort in trying to duplicate a discussion that took place a thousand times before in Wikipedia and was CLOSED a long time before. Standards are standards and one of their features is that they do now bow down to pressure in individual cases. As I said above, it is open to discussion whether a standard APPLIES in a given case, but when it does, there is no discussion as to whether to apply it or not.

I believe that, with your passion for the Mazda3, you could improve the article using the time you could spare not going into those futile discussions. The article needs help quite desperately! PrinceGloria 16:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not your intent, but you're coming off sounding to me like you're just stonewalling now. You act like this standard really exists, yet I've asked for it many times and you've never pointed me to where I can read the alleged standard. So I have no reason to believe a standard actually exists. One standard that does exist is that we try to call things by their most common name. So, absent any reason to do otherwise, that's what I'm going to do. Friday (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that although we all agree upon it, bring it up in discussions and regularly use it within the WikiProject, I cannot recall where we put it down. It should have been here, but it apparently isn't. I will try to have it put down in WP:NAME ASAP. I really don't see why you really have to go against an entire WikiProject. Why not join us and focus on what's really important, i.e. actually improving articles? PrinceGloria 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here on the talk page, giving my opinions. What more would you have me do? I'll admit I sometimes question the value of projects, as I feel they encourage inappropriate feelings of ownership of articles.. which is exactly what I believe I'm seeing here. And it's getting in the way of editing, to be frank. Friday (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]