Jump to content

Talk:Nissan Caravan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Datsun Urvan)

Untitled

[edit]

Added the nissan caravan, not much info is available about this vehicle in english..Sean1978 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling experts

[edit]

It would be a great help if someone familiar with Nissan vehicles could look at the poorly written Nissan Urvan article and attempt to edit it into shape. Thanks. Canderson7 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Urvan

[edit]

I have an old Urvan as a farm vehicle, though we have had it since new back in the 1980s. The exterior is silver with a mostly purple/blue decal/pinstripe running the length of the body. It seats nine (in 3 rows of 3), and has the original tan fabric interior. It looks nothing like any of the Nissan Caravans featured in the Nissan Caravan article.

When we bought it the dealership was changing over from being called Datsun, to Nissan, but the vehicle is badged as a Nissan Urvan.

I have found these three other articles (Datsun Urvan, Nissan Vanette and Nissan Van C22 (Vanette)), but I am unsure of the connections between the different car models. The latter two articles are up for merge.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, in clearing up the confusion/making the articles clearer. Tinkstar1985 05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Caravan 4 x 4

[edit]

there is no reference to the 4 x 4 option for the nissan caravan. I have a 1989 moden with the E24 body shape and a sort of PTO off the back of the gearbox which drives the front wheels. Front suspension is by torsion bars instead of coil springs, I think the front end may be similar to the Navara Can anyone give me more details? Thanks

Jack 122.57.116.158 (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useless dab tags

[edit]
Seems interest in this RFC died out a month ago. And then we could not get a closer to settle this for some weeks. Well, the result is to leave the single dab hatnote about other makers' Caravans as is. – S. Rich (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No one will ever confuse the Nissan Caravan and the Dodge Caravan. Because they have different names. Template:Distinguish is meant to quickly distinguish things that could be easily confused (usually from misspelling), such as coma and comma. "Care should be taken to avoid trivial uses". Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to spot the difference between the model name 'Caravan' and the model name 'Caravan' (without presupposing foreknowledge of the manufacturer). Perhaps another disambiguation hatnote template might be preferable to Template:Distinguish, but regardless, identical existing model names used by multiple manufacturers seems to me precisely the sort situation where disambiguation may prove useful to readers. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.-- For others who might take interest, there's a similar thread at Talk:Dodge_Caravan#Dab_tags. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While part of the title is similar, "Nissan Caravan" is not the same as "Dodge Caravan". And I quote from the template page: "This is typically used when readers have misspelled their desired title". One would not misspell Nissan "Dodge". A few bored editors have sprayed these tags onto a number of articles sharing partial names (I'm looking at you, User:Regushee). This is exactly what TRHAT is trying to avoid. If a person was unaware that the car they saw had a manufacturer, they would have typed only Caravan and ended up at the dab page.
There is also the absurdity of adding Cessna Caravan to the Dodge page (but not here, and also not in reverse at the Cessna entry). What about the Nissan Caball, which only has three/four characters that are different from Nissan Caravan? And then there is the Curtiss-Wright C-76 Caravan, the Chevrolet Caravan, the Opel Kadett Caravan, the Opel Astra Caravan, Opel Rekord Caravan, Opel Omega Caravan, Opel Olympia Rekord CarAVan, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Similarly, Honda Accord does not have a tag redirecting to Dakar Accord - because the titles are different.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the term "Caravan" is used on multiple vehicles, then maybe someone should consider inserting a disambiguation link at the top of each "Caravan" article.(Regushee (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
No, because they all have different "family" names. Otherwise there would also be such tags on all pages with people who have the first name Isabella, for instance.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevjonesin: No one has responded to a single issue I have raised. You pretended to respond above but only by pretending to misread what I said. Distinguish is there to make sure that things that have similar spellings are not confused. TRHAT also makes abundantly clear not to place this trivially, which is clearly the case here.
For the umpteenth time: "Nissan Caravan" is not similar to "Dodge Caravan". They share the eight last out of thirteen letters. They do not require any kind of disambiguation. If someone who didn't care for cars was to search for simply "Caravan" they would end up here, from where they would easily be able to find their way to the correct article. And again, if this was not the case then there would be similar tags on Robert Plant and Robert Redford etc etc.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on disambiguation hatnotes for 'Caravan' named vehicles

[edit]

Since Kevjonesin has not provided a response to a single point I have raised (and has not responded at all in eight days), just reinstating, I reckon a request for comment from someone who is actually familiar with what these are for.


I hope that econ is the correct field for an RFC here. Somebody placed a "distinguish" hatnote on this page, directing users to Dodge Caravan. At Dodge Caravan, a hatnote also suggests that perhaps the user was looking for Cessna 208 Caravan. This seems a) illogical and b) against policy, as Distinguish is meant to separate articles that might be easily confused through spelling error, ie articles with titles that are very similar. This clearly falls afoul of trivial uses. Kevjonesin argues that a user unfamiliar with cars would somehow get here by searching for "caravan", but such a search would take them to the disambiguation page, from where they could easily find the correct article. Thus, no need for these tags that litter pages for no reason. From WP:HAT: "Only mention other topics and articles if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." Thank you, sorry to waste anyone's time on this.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove it It should be removed and if volunteer editor @Kevjonesin: continues to revert the removal without explaining why, we need to impose an admin solution as appropriate. Damotclese (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some sort of dab hatnote in place as in 'real life' outside the bubble of the Wiki editing community many readers use Google, Bing, Yahoo!, DuckDuckGo, etc. to perform info searches, the results of which may often lead to specific articles rather than disambiguation pages. I see it basically as coming down to whether we prioritize 'pretty for Wikipedia editors' or 'accommodating of a wider at times naive general readership'. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- we should use whatever ways are available to help people avoid confusion. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again: if an editor is unaware that they are looking for either Dodge or Nissan Caravan, they would end up at Caravan (disambiguation). Kevjonesin, could you please please please respond to me? These hatnotes are actively confusing as they imply that there is some sort of relationship between these (unrelated) vehicles. DGG: there is barely any chance of confusion. Same reason there is no hatnotes at the top of War and Peace and War and Turpentine - while they share a portion of their name, the titles are different.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As I see it, an issue off similarity in titles is of concern here in addition to similarity (or lack thereof) in the subject matter of the articles. There are similarities present; at the very least to the extent that they deal with vehicles given the same model name, 'Caravan', with the relevant article titles also showing similarity in that they present the same model name, 'Caravan', as well. Such overlap doesn't seem particularly subtle to me.
p.s.-- The layout of this RFC seems a bit haphazard to me (especially as visual presentation has been argued as a point of concern in this matter); I felt compelled to at least give it its own subsection heading, after the fact; some organization and guidance text delineating and describing intro, !vote, and discussion areas might've been helpful as well. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The organization is nice. You still haven't responded to the majority of the issues raised:
  • A relationship between unrelated cars (and an airplane) is implied - this ADDS confusion, it does not relieve it. This is actually what first made me react, as I thought that there was some kind of badge-engineered version with which I was unfamiliar.
  • The titles are not the same. "Distinguish" is meant for titles that are close to each other, misspelling being the only direct example offered on the template page. These pages have different titles.
  • Caravan (disambiguation) is where a non-car-person user would end up if they searched by the portion of the name that is shared. They would only end up at Nissan Caravan if they searched for that name.
  • How is this different from War and Peace and War and Turpentine? Or any article about persons who share either a first or last name? (this is not an invitation to go off and litter more of these tags)
  • Chrysler Town & Country provides a great example of a hatnote used correctly. Here, it serves to clear up a pair of confusing and similar names, and is thus a useful aid to the uninitiated. Hatnotes are a very useful tool, but trivial usage is no help to anyone.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: @Choppers, I like your suggestion to use Template:About similar to how the 'Town & Country' article has done so—rather than using Template:Distinguish or Template:See also as others have put in place here previously. Seems like a fine compromise to me. I'll go ahead and implement it in the article as:
{{About|a van manufactured by Nissan Motor Company Ltd|other vehicles given the model name 'Caravan'|Dodge Caravan|and| Cessna 208 Caravan}}
... so we can all see how it looks 'in-the-wild'.
[... and as a bonus now we'll actually have some sort of hatnote in place to make presenting !votes in a 'keep/remove' format seem a bit more sensible and reality based ...]
--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes, I just wonder why there are objections to simple subjects. Wikipedia is an environment where the reader can discover...if someone was familiar with the Chrysler built minivan called the Caravan, and didn't know there was another vehicle in Asia that used the same name, why does a simple note at the top offend? But for whatever reason, it does seem to, and Wikipedia tries to accommodate by attempting to build consensus, and there are options. For instance, Disambiguation (disambiguation) has been mentioned, which I seem to encounter often. There is another example I can think of, Imperial (automobile), or maybe something like this Toyota Sprinter. Now lets watch my comments "blow up" into a warmer discussion because I'm not understanding what's being proposed, what convention I've violated, etc., etc.(Regushee (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Reply: @Regushee, sometimes I wonder as well ... I frequently use Wikipedia as a place of discovery and empathize with others who do so as well. Surfing wikilinks is one of my favorite activities. I think 'Imperial' and 'Sprinter' both make good examples. Regushee, I don't think you've violated any convention, personally I think when you attempted to restore a disambiguation hatnote to the article you were actually applying one (as your links have indicated). Would you like to offer a !vote while you're here as to whether to 'keep' or 'remove' the hatnote now in place? --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:Kevjonesin, for consistency, a tag should also be placed on the Dodge Caravan page matching the tag on the Nissan Caravan page...you should probably be the one to add it so that everyone's happy.(Regushee (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Kevjonesin - you still have not responded to the issues I have raised. I am not suggesting that this tag be added here, and your doing so is outright rude. This is not an improvement, just useless clutter. Please please please listen and respond to the points I raised above.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers, I feel my arguments stand on there own merits and prefer not to engage your strawmen. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Regushee, I've streamlined the hatnote phrasing here and then, as you suggested, used the same template to put a comparable hatnote in place at Dodge Caravan. [note: Mr.choppers has apparently since presumed to remove our work again[1][2] and by proxy unilaterally overrule the work of whoever placed the original dab hatnotes—in place preceding this recent spate of removals[3]—as well] --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have an argument. Your entire stance is based on the mistaken notion that Nissan Caravan=Dodge Caravan. Two articles on the car named Chrysler Town & Country are confusing, and users need a redirec. I have responded directly to all of your supposed arguments and I expect the same courtesy in return.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Kevjonesin, I thought my examples for Imperial (automobile) and Toyota Sprinter would have helped. I could also try and find more examples, of which I can think of two, that I could include, but if I do, it might result in those other articles also having their "hat tags" removed as well. I am available for further communication; please feel free to reach out. I hope I don't become a target for "wiki-stalking". I have worked successfully with this editor in the past, Hino Contessa for example, which incidentally also has a "hat tag", which in this case seems appropriate for some reason, then again, it might also get removed for me having mentioned it. Some editors just want what they want, and can find "regulations" and other editors to support their assertions. We'll have to see where this goes...I hope it doesn't and we can go back to our projects.(Regushee (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I've left a note regarding the situation on DGG's talkpage. Hopefully he (and/or other admins) will 'weigh in' (advise/intervene) in some manner that helps us avoid the hassle of escalating to some sort of further official arbitration process. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Having read the above comments and suggestions my conclusion is that the hat note does not add anything to the locating of articles about vehicles called a caravan. If there were two articles and each was about a topic called Nissan Caravan then it would have a point. I would presume that confusion would only occur if you were searching for a vehicle model called Caravan without the make. The search for that takes you to the disambiguated page and from there you would easily find the various makes. NealeFamily (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: @NealeFamily, "in 'real life' outside the bubble of the Wiki editing community many readers use Google, Bing, Yahoo!, DuckDuckGo, etc. to perform info searches, the results of which may often lead to specific articles rather than disambiguation pages." Also, as an added benefit, I think such links encourage readers to make new discoveries; they may serve to reveal 'unknown unknowns' in addition to the 'known unknowns' of intentional info searches. A boon to editors like myself who like to explore broadly – but don't necessarily wish to resort to the full-on craps shoot of the 'Random article' link. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having lived in the real world - I typed the word caravan into a Google search and got a vast array of useless sites. You only find vehicle models called caravan when you refine the search by some specific terms - such as Nissan caravan, which is not much help if you are looking for an unknown make of vehicle called a caravan. At least if you use the search function on the of a Wikipedia page and type in caravan it takes you to the disambiguation page with a list of the different options - what could be simpler. NealeFamily (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The latest fad of mutual ad hominem (non)arguments of living in a bubble/being out of touch/not living 'real' life is soon going to given a privileged place in WP:LAME or Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid. The idea that some of us speak for the common man (real Americans, real Joe Bloggs, the real Joe Sixpack, real hockey moms, and real -- give it a rest already, OK?) and anybody you disagree with is kind of non-real (unreal?) fake or poseur or elite is absurd on its face. If you have data about the behavior of the general population, cite it. If you don't, don't assume you are the Common Man. Based on the evidence I see, if you the kind of person who !votes in RfCs, you're in the 1% of the 1% and you'll never live that down. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The choice to host this RfC under the blatantly presumptive POV master heading 'Useless dab tags'[4] seems worthy of protest as well. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to change it. As for the removal, first Regushee and then you altered the hatnote during the discussion. I would say that such moving the goalposts is much more problematic.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It occurs to that the associated cross-link above early in the overall section (preceding the RfC subsection) may have gotten 'lost in the mix' so I'm copying the contents here for consideration:

Quoted from 'Talk:Dodge Caravan#Dab tags'

==Dab tags== Somebody went and placed disambiguation tags on articles that will never ever be confused. No one who is looking for Dodge Caravan will read Nissan Caravan on accident and vice versa. And the Cessna Caravan warning is plainly absurd. Just additional useless debris placed here for no reason. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's my sense that disambiguation would be more in place to help a, perhaps technologically naive, reader looking for info about a vehicle (or vehicles) simply named 'Caravan'. Mr. Chopper, I get the impression that you're a person with a broad and detailed knowledge of vehicles (types, models, manufacturers, etc.) ... As such, please realize that you (and others with comparable preexisting knowledge) are most likely not the target audience for such a dab tag. I can see how with the knowledge and experience you bring to bear a disambiguation tag might seem trivial or frivolous to you, but please consider that not everyone comes to an encyclopedia with such a wealth of knowledge in advance. A lack of knowledge may even be what brings some readers to an encyclopedic article in the first place, yes? --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.-- For others who might take interest, there's a similar thread at Talk:Nissan Caravan. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevjonesin: I will respond at Nissan Caravan.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/restore. per WP:HAT Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. I think the caravan hatnotes are useful to readers, do no harm, and overall useful. I do not think there was a good reason to remove the caravan hatnotes.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You may wish to post this RFC on WikiProject_Automobiles to alert interested persons. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousMind01: - the reason not to have these tags is that the vehicles are a) unrelated b) have different names (ie, there is nearly no risk whatsoever of ending up at the wrong one - the unitiated would go to the Caravan dab page), and c) there are lots of other vehicles named something including "Caravan". The hatnotes add nothing beyond visual clutter and if anything, incorrectly implies that the articles refer to related things. They are actively disinformative. As for providing links to other interesting things, there is the article for that. If not, we could put hatnotes for all kinds of things atop any and all articles. I would welcome Kevjonesin to provide a possible scenario for how a user would end up at the wrong article, as per wpneale's comment above.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mr.choppers Hello Mr choppers, We have different opinions. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousMind01, I share your opinion. If Nissan Caravan/Dodge Caravan isn't suitable for a hat note, then is Chevrolet Cavalier/AMC Cavalier/Packard Cavalier/Vauxhall Cavalier, Lexus NX/Nissan NX, and Studebaker President/Nissan President also in violation? (Regushee (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think that any of them are requiring hatnotes. Lexus/Nissan NX is arguable, as some might confuse these Japanese brands.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Bratland: - the hatnotes are there to help people who may have misspelled something. How closely related the articles are is not the main concern. The reason the Honda Passport hatnote is there is because the motorcycle was also sold under that exact name. The airplane link is a bit of a stretch, I feel it should be removed because Super Cub is a dab page, which is enough. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at any of the FAs I mentioned? Or pick your own FAs. There are many, many examples similar to the Piper Super Cub/Honda Super Cub. Hatnotes can be for misspellings, but other potential reasons for confusion justify hatnotes too. Look at Jaguar for example, or read WP:HAT. It does not say misspellings only. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would a reader confuse a Japanese vehicle for an American one? The navigation from the disambiguation page for Caravan is clear, without the need for additional tags in the individual articles. If they were the same named make and model, then I would think that the argument held merit. The logic of your argument means that if for instance there are articles which include the word ship in the title then they should all have a Hatnote to all other ship articles.
An argument put forward by Denis Bratland suggests that as they are a similar type of vehicle they should have a hatnote. I would suggest that this is incorrect. The Chrysler is a people mover whereas the Nissan is a utility vehicle, which sometimes includes seats. I agree with his comment the Perl and Pearl articles should have a hatnote, but not in this instance. NealeFamily (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is the vehicles nationality origin a factor? The Nissan Caravan is a passenger vehicle in Asia before Dodge used the same name and purpose in North America. Millions of dollars are spent by marketing departments internationally to trademark names of all sorts, including vehicle model names. Sometimes, they are shared, when two or more companies agree to. Hat notes identifying shared model names are examples of Interwiki links, which is an essential component of Wikipedia. Removing these opportunities for additional discovery, as mentioned by earlier comments by User:Kevjonesin and User:Dennis Bratland reflect this premise. Why are some subjects deemed irrelevant, based on an editor or group of editors opinions?(Regushee (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I would ask again to look at the FAs I listed. Look at as many FAs you want. The community clearly has decided that we hatnote names that have as few as one word in common, even if one is a big cat in the Panthera genus and the other is British car marque for recently divorced men of a certain age. Conform to the guidelines as written, and widespread practice, and argue to have the guidelines changed if you think it's wrong. Deviating from the MOS this way makes Wikipedia worse. Besides, both the Dodge and Nissan Caravan have been made in people mover or cargo-specific versions. They are not even a little bit different types of vehicles. They're the same thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response' Thanks for the thoughtful replies. My logic is this - if you were looking for a model of vehicle called a Caravan without knowing the make you are unlikely to start at either the Nissan or Chrysler Caravan. The most probable search, be it on Wikipedia or any other search engine, is with the word Caravan.
On Wikipedia this takes you to the disambiguated page Caravan. At present this gives you four options, which, in my opinion, should be sufficient without the need for hat tags on the articles. If there was no reasonable distinguishing feature such as the Perl/Pearl example or pages where the naming is indistinguishable then I could see some sense in having one such as the Honda Passport motorcycle/SUV.
As to changing the guidelines - I think this question falls within guideline 3. Only mention other topics and articles if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind. I do not think the proposed hatnote reaches that threshold. NealeFamily (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the solution is to accommodate the reader who searched on "caravan" and found the disambiguation page, then select the particular article, either Nissan or Dodge, great, but both articles should also state at the top that a disambiguation page exists, like the one at Pearl and Caravan. Place a dreaded hatnote that there is a disambiguation page on both "Caravan" articles. For other articles like Lexus NX and Nissan NX, leave a "see also" hatnote on both articles. Either way, a hatnote will be authorized on both situations of articles...yes??(Regushee (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I don't agree that readers would never mix up Nissan and Dodge. The assumption lacks evidence, and there is evidence that many don't easily tell them apart. As a gearhead, I can't imagine thinking Nissan and Dodge are interchangeable. But many people really do pay that little attention to cars and the car industry. They could very well have an image of a Nissan Caravan in mind, yet type Dodge Caravan because they are just guessing the names of car companies and Dodge is as plausible a guess as Nissan or Rover or Nash to them. There are also people who just want a phone, and don't have a clear idea of the difference between an Android and an iPhone. Some people find this attitude shocking. Anyway, Is That a Ford? Fiat? U.S. Consumers See Fewer Differences Between Car Brands and [ http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/01/consumers-see-fewer-differences-among-car-brands/index.htm?EXTKEY%3DI91CONL Consumers See Fewer Differences among Car Brands] are examples of the recent convergence in perception of car brands, partly to globalization, with brands losing a national identity, diffusion of technology, etc, making them interchangeable to non-car enthusiasts who only want to drive from A to B and don't care how or in what. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Regushee and Dennis for your thoughts on the topic. To address them - Regushee I frequently use hatnotes and they represent an important means to avoid confusion. I am not against them per se. The use on the Pearl article is an appropriate use. The use on the Lexus NX and Nissan NX is a maybe - are they likely to be confused?
Dennis - I don't think I need to prove that no-one could get confused. What I am saying is that the path to identifying the vehicles takes the reader through an area, Caravan, that makes it clear that there are several options. For your option to be valid the person would need to already know or guess that Nissan or Dodge make the Caravan model. I agree with your example about i-phones and androids - most of us don't care as long as it does what you want it to. If you go to the Iphone and Android pages, you don't find a hat tag referencing one another, even thought the average user may consider them to be one in the same. Hence my argument.
Also, I still don't see either of you proving that there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind. I will accept that there is a small possibility - but not large NealeFamily (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen WP:NAMB before, thank you Cloverleaf II. I feel that that is quite clear. Again, I request that those in favor of these hatnotes put forth an example of exactly how someone would end up at either page in error. I believe that Google's machine intelligence, the presence of Caravan (disambiguation) and the different titles ensure that nearly no one would arrive at either article in error. The only time my local version of Google places either of these two articles as the top result is if I search for the full term. It is far beyond the scope of Wikipedia to rescue a user who enters "Studebaker President" when they saw a Nissan President, or we would have to place similar hatnotes atop all pages for people with the first name Robert.
@Dennis Bratland: - First, thank you for entering the discussion. I just went through all of the FA links you listed, and in every case the hatnote is correct and justifiable (except, imho, the Piper Super Cub ones) because: the title (Jaguar, say) is the primary entry for that word/name. A user looking for the Jaguar automobile would end up on the mammal page, and it thus requires a hatnote. Here, not only are the titles different (Nissan, Dodge), but a user who searches for Caravan ends up at a dab page. It is redundant to place a hatnote here. What I am saying is that these are different cases and the examples you list all use hatnotes correctly. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. There is nothing ambiguous about the title of this article. We can't force readers who came here specifically to read about the Nissan Caravan to look at information about another article just because some user may have made a vague search on Bing or Google. Every hatnote has a cost in terms of reader distraction and general clutter. They shouldn't be used unless there is a good reason. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/restore. Largely per Kevinjonesin. One could easily end up at the wrong article without realizing it, for example by googling "caravan van". As a general point on information-seeking behaviour, designing a system based on strong asssumptions about exactly what a user will think and do is a failing strategy. It is much better to design a system with robust interconnection and many navigation options, because users are always unpredictable.--Trystan (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Trystan: - why doesn't WP:NAMB apply here? There are no confusing redirects, and the titles are not similar. When I google "caravan van" (in the US) I get a variety of results, with the WP entry for Nissan Caravan in fourth place. The first results are about the Dodge Caravan, meaning that a user would disambiguate long before clicking through to a wp article. There are also images to further help. Also, WP:TRHAT.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAMB is relevant here. As it states, "the presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other." I view the case at hand more like the Treaty of Paris example it gives, where the hatnote is included in articles with technically unambiguous titles to dispel residual confusion between the topics.
As I indicated, making strong assumptions about exactly what a reader will see is problematic. In particular, readers often click on the first thing they recognize, which could well be the link to Wikipedia, without paying much attention to anything else.--Trystan (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only mention other topics and articles if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind. - The fact that it is possible, with some really contorted search terms like Caravan site:en.wikipedia.org to end up at Dodge Caravan in error does not make it likely. This is quite different from the Treaty of Paris articles - those titles are much more similar, usually only separated by a year at the end, and the fact that this is held up as a disputable case indeed strengthens the case for not having a hatnote here, where there is no ambiguity.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers: Guidelines are flexible and can be overridden by consensus—the catch being that the guideline's existence implies a consensus that's usually wider than that formed on any individual page. In this case, I'm not sure that appeals to Wikipedia:Hatnote (WP:HAT) as written are helpful. As someone who's made thousands of edits to simplify and standardize hatnotes, it's my opinion that WP:HAT is to some degree out of touch with how it's practiced. Even if WP:TRHAT applied (and it certainly doesn't in this case), invoking it comes off as wikilawyering.

Anyway—to get back on topic—in this case, the ambiguity comes not from the (unambiguous) title, but from the (highly similar) context. Let's suppose I'm a reader and I heard someone talking about a car called a "Caravan". I decide to look it up, and search Google for Caravan site:en.wikipedia.org. In my real-world test I see Caravan, Caravan (band), and Dodge Caravan in the top three spots. I'm betting that most readers aren't going to specify "van" as well in their search, and Caravan car site:en.wikipedia.org also turns up only the Dodge Caravan.

The disambiguation page found in the first search isn't terribly appealing to readers—it doesn't indicate anything relevant to a car in its search snippet—and so there is a good argument that some people will end up on Dodge Caravan when they might be looking for Nissan Caravan. Erring on the side of including a single quick hatnote solves a knowledge discovery problem for some people who'd be looking for the other car. Not including it … gives us a negligibly simpler article. The former is preferable. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. Hatnotes are explicitly meant only for where the full page title is ambiguous. These are not. The handling of this appears to been poor all around, but Kevjonesin's behavior has been especially galling by virtue of his being confidently and stubbornly wrong about a standard practice. You can argue for an exception from guideline-level consensus (I don't see a strong case for one here), but that consensus must be acknowledged from the outset; go WP:BEYOND #1. If it's the guideline consensus itself you disagree with, then you're having that fight at the WP:WRONG VENUE. —swpbT 16:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you cite explicitly states there is no consensus on whether to include hatnotes in articles with disambiguated names, and highlights an example where such hatnotes are included. Given how egregiously biased the formulation of this RFC is, it's quite a stretch to view disagreeement on interpretation of a very ambivalent guideline as the worst behaviour on display here.--Trystan (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty-odd articles entitled "Treaty of Paris (year)" is considerably more ambiguous than Nissan Caravan vs Dodge Caravan. Thus, not analogous.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the comments made about this article is the underlying premise that a group of "editor academics", representing the Ministry of Truth have decreed that "certain topics of information are deemed irrelevant to be known by virtue that the Dodge Caravan is a recognized topic of interest to the general public, and shares nothing noteworthy with the Nissan Caravan. If said reader wishes to learn about the Nissan Caravan, said reader should have specified said subject in search parameters". Gavel pounded on desk...sceptre resolutely contacts ground with resounding thud by monarch, those in attendance in court are hurriedly cleared out of the royal chambers. The mere mentioning that two passenger and cargo transportation devices made by two different manufactures which share the same brand name..."caravan"...should have been cleared by the Central Committee and agreed upon before brand name was bestowed on said vehicle to avoid this "consternatious situation", thus endeavoring to alleviate the stress unjustly imposed upon the citizenry. Why is there a problem mentioning the Dodge Caravan on the Nissan page, and vice versa? Isn't this the purpose of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, unless, of course, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Japanese cars task force governing boards must be consulted and ruling proclamation uttered from within a recognized member in good standing. (Regushee (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
@Trystan: I'd like to see a few basic principles acknowledged here. One is that the real estate occupied by a hatnote is extremely valuable – right after the title and before the lead, so that everyone who comes here is forced to read it, even readers who only read the lead. It's like someone grabbing your lapel and saying "I know you came here for the Nissan Caravan, but can I interest you in a Dodge Caravan?" Some people find this very annoying. I do. No, I'm not interested, and could you please let go of my jacket? Another is that the guideline applies to "a reader who is following links within Wikipedia". This applies generally to WP guidelines. We can't structure our articles according to what users do or don't do on Bing or Google. Then you are assuming an extraordinary degree of ignorance. That someone looking for a Dodge Caravan doesn't know that it's sold by Dodge, and doesn't know the difference between a van and a minivan. This is different from not knowing the difference between Treaty of Paris (1623) and Treaty of Paris (1626). But OK. Suppose they don't know. Such people can do what every user will do in that situation – simply enter "Caravan" in the search box. That leads directly to the disamb page which has a special section on automobile models and contains all the information that the hatnote does, and more. What is wrong with that? – Margin1522 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that it’s important that our first principles in evaluating questions like this be grounded in evidence, specifically in information science scholarship on information seeking behaviour and effective site design. Much of this is counter-intuitive, so it’s important not to assume that our own common sense alone will result in correct conclusions about effective design. A few findings from the field are particularly relevant here:
  1. Information seekers often have very incomplete information about what they are looking for. For example, someone might only know they are looking for a vehicle called a Caravan, and not know the manufacturer, vehicle type, or the existence of more than one vehicle by that name.
  2. Information seekers with fairly complete information about what they are looking for can effectively use a search box, but users with incomplete information will conduct an exploratory search, which is much more effective in an environment that supports browsing and not just search. Strong browsing means strong interlinking between subjects.[5]
  3. When reading web pages, people demonstrably don’t read it thoroughly like the page of a book from top to bottom. They jump around, they scan, they skim. One therefore shouldn't design based on the assumption that the user read and absorbed everything on the previous page they saw. It’s also more likely that the reader would be blind to a small banner-like notification than feel overwhelmed by it.
  4. People tend to click on the first thing they see that looks remotely correct, without taking in all of the available options. If they reach a dead end, they go back. It’s therefore important to quickly help them confirm whether they are in the right place. This also means that sites that provide lateral links between possible paths have fewer dead ends, and are more effective than sites that force a user to keep click the back button. Second chances to get to the desired destination are usually a good thing.
  5. Many users don’t use a site’s built in search box, preferring instead to either go back to Google (etc.) or to try to navigate to their destination. Effective site design allows for all of these options. We can and should take into account how people actually use the site in terms where they arrive from.[6]--Trystan (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trystan, thanks for providing the scientific principles, which I think justify keeping and restoring the hatnote, and also justified per WP Policy and good practices in Featured Articles.CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousMind01: - I think this proves the opposite. If you type the word caravan into a Google search you get over 100 million hits. If you type it into Wikipedia you get one page with a nice tidy set of options, including the four different vehicle makers. If they use the click and go back approach User:Trystan suggests as the norm then they will easily find the one they are looking for. Therefore in my mind the hat note is redundant and probably confusing, given that it only give one option out of three.
Hello User @NealeFamily:,We have different opinions. For example, a user is not sure of the van name, If a user does a google search on Nissan caravan, the user gets WP Dodge caravan as the 1st result, then by going to WP Nissan caravan, learns there is also a Dodge Caravan, which is what the user was seeking, or now knows there are 2 vans to compare. The hat note gives more info to a user.
The other point is that it simply does not reach the required threahhold for hat notes. NealeFamily (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "required threshold" for a hat note, only a vague "large possibility" which I think is met.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Trystan: This is arguing for hatnotes as a discovery aid for users who don't really know what they want. That's one way to think about it, but it's incompatible with the policy in WP:Hatnote, which is based entirely on article titles. If you really want to make a case for hatnotes as a discovery aid, why not suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote? I will argue against it because of the obvious potential for abuse. Like the hatnotes that clutter up the top of policy and help pages in the WP namespace, which are there because one-letter shortcuts exist to some topics, and some editors feel that there should be hatnotes to other topics that begin with the same letter. After all, who knows what the user wanted when he typed WP:C? – Margin1522 (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank everyone who added their opinion as to whether or not these two articles should notify readers that the other exists. In the respective home markets of Japan and America, the Dodge Caravan and Nissan Caravan aren't available in the others marketplace, so it's highly unlikely citizens will ever see the other vehicle. That said, Wikipedia does offer the opportunity for anyone interested that references to the other are available. An appropriate hatnote has been restored to simplify things, and referring the reader to the disambiguation page does seem excessive, based on the conversations recorded. Thanks (Regushee (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

IMO this is worse than the original hatnote that simply mentioned the Dodge, because it's longer. There is also the nagging objection that a van (the Nissan) is usually a commercial vehicle, not for carrying people, and a minivan (the Dodge) is usually the opposite. If we must have a hatnote, can we go back to the original one? – Margin1522 (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This restoration/change makes even less sense as it ignores the Opel and the Chevrolet. I don't think we have reached a point of agreement that the hat note is in line with the guidelines or even a consensus on its restoration. NealeFamily (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote remains inappropriate. Margin1522 laid it out fairly succinctly. To CuriousMind01, the practice in the Featured Articles as listed by Dennis above is fundamentally different. Take Charles Darwin as an example - the hatnote concerns other articles on topics which would have also been titled "Charles Darwin", had there not been a primary topic. Same thing with Jaguar, where there are two important articles competing for primacy - searching in WP would easily lead a user to the mammal when they were actually looking for the automobile. In this case we are dealing with two very different titles and a dab page at Caravan, so the FA cases only provide examples of correct usage of hatnotes and thus support the case for removal.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To Mr.choppers I think the practice listed by Dennis Bratland is the same, to help readers locate a different article they might be seeking, and a hatnote applies to this article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CuriousMind01 - so you are suggesting that an inaccurate hat note is the solution? The hat note does not include 2 other manufacturers of vehicle models named Caravan. As a compromise I suggest that if a hat note is accepted on this article then it should be along the lines For other vehicle models named caravan see Caravan#Automobile models - but quite frankly it is unnecessary for the reasons given by Mr Choppers, myself, and others above. NealeFamily (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other vehicle articles with the "caravan" name are titled Chevrolet Opala, and both the European Opel and Brazilian Opala are combined into this one article. Listing the "Chevrolet Caravan" is not directly clear to the reader, unless they read the article entirely. The disambiguation page is sufficient in this instance. Unless a declaration that all articles should refer the reader to the disambiguation page, and then selecting the article of interest. There still seems to be this pervasive intent from opinions expressed to limit knowledge and discovery of these vehicles unless the "Central Committee" deems it appropriate.(Regushee (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Regushee which is precisely the reason that having a hat note for two clearly titled articles is even more pointless. If there is no need for a hat note for an unclear item and the disambiguation page is sufficient then how much more is the disambiguation page sufficient for a completely clear article. NealeFamily (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is being debated is that there should be no mention at all of any articles by way of hatnotes. Mentioning the other vehicles within the body of the introductory paragraph with "wikilinks" is even more senseless. (Regushee (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
CuriousMind01 There is a distinct and unarguable difference. All of those hatnotes redirect the user to articles that might be expected to carry the same exact title. Thus the need for disambiguation on the article pages, as with titles that are easily misspelled. Jaguar vs Jaguar is thus different than Nissan Caravan vs Dodge Caravan, in that the expected titles are identical.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OR "For other Caravan vehicles see Caravan " like the featured articles practice and the WP:HAT purpose "help readers locate a different article they might be seeking". CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how the FA hatnotes work, as I have explained a few times already. WP:HAT is for when articles have similar titles, whether exactly the same or so close that careless spelling would send a reader to the wrong place. Neither threshold is even approached in this case. Otherwise, Charles Darwin would have a hatnote listing Erasmus Darwin and dozens of other individuals. It doesn't, it only mentions other people with the same name. The hatnote atop Charles Darwin also does not send the user to Darwin (surname), which would be the exact analogy of what you are proposing.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I see the fact that both titles use the model name 'Caravan' as a point of self evident similarity by definition. In addition to textual similarity relevant to navigating an encyclopedia, the terms have also been applied to two similar types of vehicle, a type of 'van' and a type of 'minivan' (itself a subclass of 'van'), among other things. To assert similarity does not deny differences, and vice versa, pointing out differences does not negate the presence of similarities.

I'm fine with having a hatnote that links the disambiguation page rather than specific articles – as CuriousMind01 has proposed; seems to me such would address both concerns about offering at hand discovery and disambiguation to naive readers while also minimizing the hatnote's 'footprint' at the head of the article so as to better accommodate style/layout concerns that have been raised.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regushee I don't think anyone is wanting to do away with hat notes all together. That would, as you say, be senseless. What both Mr.choppers and I am saying is that had the articles names been Caravan Nissan and Caravan Dodge then there may have been some possibility of confusion. Neither of us think that the current names would be confusing to the majority of Wiki readers. Also, neither of us think that a person searching for a car model called Caravan is very likely to arrive at either of these pages without first having been to the Caravan page. We are not saying that it is impossible, but we are saying highly unlikely.
The examples previously given have shown that where names can be easily confused hat notes should be used, a point I think we all agree on. Under WP:hatnote it is very clear how and when hatnotes should be used. Neither Mr Choppers nor I think that any of the people wanting the hatnotes in this instance have put forward sufficient reason in line with the for it to be retained. The point we feel the arguments have failed to address is why you consider there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind (emphasis added). That is the sticking point. NealeFamily (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have no knowledge and no interest in cars, and I was attracted to this dispute only by the incredibly insulting and inappropriate edit summary by User:Dicklyon on Kevjonesin's talk page. But, having arrived here, I have read all the arguments and this seems like a no-brainer. I had no idea until now that there was more than one manufacturer using the model name "Caravan" and without some kind of warning, I would certainly be confused. Ravpapa (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ravpapa thanks for your comments. You suggest that it is no brainer to have a hat note, yet you say you have no interest in cars, therefore, why would it matter to you whether the article has one or not other than curiosity? NealeFamily (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking, why am I even bothering to participate in an RFC on a topic in which I have no interest? Good question. There are a lot of editors who spend their time rummaging about the Wikipedia and making odd comments on topics about which they couldn't care less, but I am not one of them. I usually don't participate in discussions other than those directly related to my areas of interest. Actually, I popped over here only because of User:Dicklyon's attention-grabbing edit summary. Then, because my underwear had not yet finished in the dryer, with nothing better to do, I read the arguments. And, by George, I thought, suppose a patser like me were looking for a car to buy, and someone suggested a Nissan Caravan, and I looked in the Wikipedia, and, to my surprise and delight, I found that there was also a Dodge Caravan, and maybe also a Mercedes Caravan, or whatever - lots of these Caravans to choose from. But that would only happen if there was some kind of indication in the article that there were other Caravans lurking about. So, you see, from the point of view of someone who doesn't know his Caravans from a bulldozer, a hat note is a no brainer.
Sorry for being so prolix on this. I got carried away. Ravpapa (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break to see if we are close to a consensus

[edit]

Ravpapa thanks for the above, it was very helpful. In light of your comments and I think maybe the way forward would be a hat note For models of vehicle named "Caravan" by other manufacturers see Caravan#Automobile models.

Having argued strongly against the hat note I think Ravpapa's explanation brought me around to thinking that if the hat note indicated to the that there were alternative makes I think that would add value to the less informed. Which means I am tending to accept some of the earlier arguments put forward. My view is that this is an exception to the general rule, rather than open season for hat notes. Cases such as this would need to stand on their own merits.

Another option, as a compromise, could be a See Also paragraph which would achieve the link, but I think the hat note is a tidier and less cumbersome option.

If there is reasonable agreement from Mr.choppers, Kevjonesin, Regushee, Damotclese, DGG, CuriousMind01, Dennis Bratland, Nihiltres, Cloverleaf II, Bkonrad, Margin1522, Trystan, and Swpb I will make the change NealeFamily (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with your suggestion, I suggest a briefer:
For other vehicles named "Caravan" see Caravan
but I would prefer adding a broader reference, a link to the disambiguation page, for example: For other uses see Caravan ; as is done in the Jaguar featured article hat note, if others agree. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem here is that people don't understand the policy. There are two things called "Jaguar" – the car and the animal. Actually there are many things called "Jaguar", but the editors of Wikipedia have decided that the article on the animal will be the PRIMARYTOPIC. So if you type "Jaguar" into the search box, you go directly to the article on the animal. But since you may have wanted one of the other things, there is a hatnote to the disambiguation page. The hatnote is needed because "Jaguar" is ambiguous. It could mean any of the things on the disambiguation page. The situation here is different. There is no primary topic for "Caravan". So if you type "Caravan" into the search box, you go directly to the disambiguation page, You don't come here. Unlike Jaguar, "Nissan Caravan" is not ambiguous'. There is only one thing named "Nissan Caravan". So if you came here it must be because you wanted to come here. You don't want to go anywhere else, so no hatnote is needed. At least that is the assumption that underlies the Wikipedia policy on hatnotes. Now, from the discussion, it's clear that some people don't see it this way. They are curious about other things related to caravans. Which is great, curiosity is a fine thing. But satisfying the user's curiosity is not the purpose of a hatnote. Hatnotes are there for users who know what they want, to help them find it as quickly as possible. Playing association games and surfing around Wikipedia to expand your knowledge may be fun, and there's no harm in doing that. But that's not our basic mission. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Anything that detracts from the experience of users trying to use it like an encyclopedia is to be discouraged. In principle. Like I said, I'm not unsympathetic to people who enjoy exploring the world. But I would ask them to have a little sympathy themselves for people who are trying to concentrate on their work or their studies and don't want to be distracted. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, CuriousMind01, I wrote that offline. it was absolutely not intended as a dig at your user name. I apologize if it caused any offense. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:HAT hatnotes are not only for disambiguation, "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking" which is broad. My experience is hatnotes are not distracting but useful.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK. I've said my piece and can live with the brief one that is there now. Particularly, as someone noted, because this is the English Wikipedia and this vehicle has never been sold in the US, so it's conceivable that users might want a different article.– Margin1522 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' Margin1522 I accept what the policy says, namely wp:Hatnote#Linking to a disambiguation page. In all the debate, I think Ravpapa's point:

I thought, suppose a patser like me were looking for a car to buy, and someone suggested a Nissan Caravan, and I looked in the Wikipedia, and, to my surprise and delight, I found that there was also a Dodge Caravan, and maybe also a Mercedes Caravan, or whatever - lots of these Caravans to choose from. But that would only happen if there was some kind of indication in the article that there were other Caravans lurking about. So, you see, from the point of view of someone who doesn't know his Caravans from a bulldozer, a hat note is a no brainer.

 convinced me that for your non-petrol head there is merit in the hatnote provided that it points to the Caravan disambiguation page.
By the way, I commend you on your politeness towards CuriousMind01 - it is refreshing. NealeFamily (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK then...thanks to the comments from Ravpapa, NealeFamily, Kevjonesin, and Margin1522 I think my point, which I've been trying to delicately make, is starting to take hold. As you've might have noticed, I find myself trying to increase awareness of Japanese industrial contributions, as most articles focus on the American and European examples. Currently, it seems, that to own an American or European car more than 35 years old is entire acceptable, like Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Nova, Volkswagen Beetle, Citroën DS, Fiat 500, Mini and so on. But the same attitude doesn't seem the same for old Japanese cars...this isn't meant as a slight to Korean or Chinese, it's just that there aren't that many...yet, while Japanese cars from the 60s and 70s are still on the road, and are starting to show up at enthusiast car shows internationally. Japan has been in the car game just as long as "the West" and I try to bring attention to their contributions, especially when the product shares a common name used in Western cars, like the Caravan. There are dozens of others I can think of, where I've added hatnotes, only to find them having been reverted, because they "clutter the top of the page unnecessarily". To me, this comes off as "information sequestering" based on someone's ruling that "this contribution has been deemed irrelevant or inappropriate"...gavel pounds desk...and comes off as rude, to say the least. A hatnote is entirely appropriate, whether it refers to another article or a disambiguation page. Once I become familiar with the agreed upon convention, you can count on me adding the correct hatnote, and referencing this conversation for justification for other editors of the "Central Committee"...Wikipedia:Be bold, and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Thanks (Regushee (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Regushee I wasn't suggesting every other instance of hatnotes is correct. What I was saying is that in this instance - and it is border line - it seems appropriate. If you wish to debate the use of hatnotes relating to all articles in general then take it to the wp:Hatnote talk page. NealeFamily (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - as it still goes against what hatnotes are for. Hatnotes exist to redirect users who may have accidentally ended up in the wrong place, not to add kismet. Again, I use the example of Charles Darwin to show how they should work. As for Regushee, he makes his goals clear above: to increase awareness of Japanese cars. I also love old Japanese cars (at least 50% of my edits concern them, I should think), but this is simply not what hatnotes are for. We are opening up the field here for editors to randomly add hatnotes for whatever pet causes they have.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.choppers Thanks for you comments. I agree that Regushee takes the hatnote use to a position I disagree with. What I do think is that the point Ravpapa made was is valid and falls within both the spirit and intent of hatnotes under WP:Hatnotes without breaching the rules (or at least one I could find - so happy if you can correct me on that). I don't think it excludes what he suggested as being his reason for using it. There is an alternative and that is to use a See also but I would consider that a more cumbersome and less useful way to achieve the same result. NealeFamily (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer, "For other vehicles named "Caravan" see Caravan", linking the automobile subsection of the disambiguation page as proposed by CuriousMind01 to only linking Nissan to Dodge and Dodge to Nissan with, "Not to be confused with ...", as is presently the case. Greater opportunity of discovery, covers more options. Even has the 'Aeroplanes' subsection immediately following. Appending such to something like what's in place seems fine by me as well, though a bit bulkier; ie. "Not to be confused with the minivan Dodge Caravan; for other vehicles named "Caravan" see Caravan." --Kevjonesin (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me, a notification that refers to another related article is what I'm hoping to foster, instead of "denial of discovery" based on the opinion of a select few, ready to "use the gavel"...(Regushee (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I have changed the hatnote to better reflect what is being discussed. NealeFamily (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi y'all, using Template:Markup I've put together some options for ease of comparison starting with what NealeFamily recently put in place:
Markup Renders as 
{{see also|Caravan|label 1=Caravan for other makes with the same model name}}
See also: Caravan for other makes with the same model name
{{see also|Caravan#Automobile models|label 1=''Caravan'' for other makes with the same model name}}
 
{{see also|Caravan#Automobile models|label 1=''Caravan'' for other makes using the same model name}}
 
{{see also|Caravan#Automobile models|label 1=''Caravan'' for other models using the same name}}
 
{{see also|Caravan#Automobile models|label 1=''Caravan'' for other makes bearing the same model name}}
 
{{see also|Caravan#Automobile models|label 1=''Caravan'' for other vehicles with the same model name}}
  • I'm personally a fan of the third option. But regardless of phrasing, I suggest narrowing the target to the #Automobile models subsection of the DAB page and emphasizing "Caravan" in the displayed text. Other thoughts/suggestions/preferences? --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{see also}} is not typically used at the top of an article. It is used within seconds to refer readers to articles with more detailed information on a subject (not a disambiguation page). A {{for}} template seems more apt here (even though I still don't see the need for any hatnote). older ≠ wiser 12:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all Mr.choppers, Kevjonesin, Regushee, Damotclese, DGG, CuriousMind01, Dennis Bratland, Nihiltres, Cloverleaf II, Bkonrad, Margin1522, Trystan, Bkonrad, and Swpb - I have moved the debate about whether hatnotes are appropriate for vehicle model of different manufacturers to the WP:Hatnote talk page should you wish to continue the discussion. NealeFamily (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NealeFamily, thanks for suggesting to your fellow editors that more general meta conversation aimed at clarifying guidelines—regarding the use of hatnotes to disambiguate and increase ease of discovery for readers of other articles across the wiki where multiple manufacturers have made use of the same model name—might do well to carry on at "Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote" and thanks for initiating a relevant thread there. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to ongoing discussion as to choice of template and phrasing

[edit]

Personally, I can live with what's now in place:

For other makes with the same model name, see Caravan (disambiguation) § Automobile models.

... but would prefer to see it truncated to ...

For other makes with the same model name, see Caravan § Automobile models.

... for the sake of its more compact appearance.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: an effort is underway to remove the Dodge Caravan article

[edit]

An effort is underway to remove the Dodge Caravan article[7] and replace it with a redirect to Chrysler minivans (and then merge that[8] into Chrysler minivans (S)). This seems relevant here as it could make the preceding discussion irrelevant if it proceeds. A centralized discussion regarding the blanking of multiple established minivan articles is ongoing at User_talk:NeilN#Possible problem spanning multiple vehicle articles in addition to some individually related talkpage entries. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nissan_Caravan&oldid=1208360626"