Jump to content

Talk:Isuzu Amigo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move (2009-04-24)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Sitewide policy certainly does override a single WikiProject's naming convention, no matter how many editors are in the WikiProject. -- Aervanath (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Wouldn't the Wikipedia policy at WP:NC override a individual projects convention? If the car is more known as the Isuzu Amigo, then why shouldn't it be called that? No other article has to follow such an odd guideline. Imagine the mess that would happen if, for example, video games and animes from Japanese companies had to do the same thing? We would have "The Legend of Zelda: Triforce of the Gods" instead of "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" for example. TJ Spyke 04:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No in this case it does not. The fact that cars are sold under multiple names depending on the market, original market name is always used except in the rare cases of Lexus (until recently), Infiniti and Acura (U.S./"Western"-only luxury cars are sold in Japan as Toyotas, Nissans and Hondas, respectively). WP:AUTOS has argued long and hard over the naming convention, but original market name simply is the easiest to execute and is the best solution in all cases except for the three mentioned above. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think a project guideline over-rides a site-wide policy? If a car is called one name in its home country and sells poorly there but has a different name in over 100 other countries and a huge seller in most of them, why should the article on it be at the name of the car in its original country (as an example)? TJ Spyke 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is to say the MU in Japan sold poorly? What ever happened to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? In this case WP:AUTOS, we are almost unanimous in agreeing that original market name should be used. Often in some markets a particular name for a car is changed after a certain number of generations, but the original name is retained in some export markets for reason of continuance. By using the original name, it is a lot less messy. Also, this overcomes U.S. bias that is almost always apparent if "most popular" market is used. In Europe and Australasia the car was badged "Frontera", and this is what I know the car as. Because sales figures are not always easily obtained, original market name simply eliminates dispute.
I personally do not see the point in arguing with a policy accepted by a WikiProject with nearly 220 "official" members. If very little objection is raised by a group of people with great knowledge about cars, then you would have to think it is a sound naming convention. Don't you agree? OSX (talk • contributions) 02:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Requested move (2009-05-02)

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isuzu Amigo → Isuzu MU — per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions, "Article titles shall bear the name used in the original market by the original manufacturer or marketer, regardless of sales. So a car designed in Japan primarily for the United States market would bear the name used in Japan." Since the Isuzu MU is a Japanese car, the "Isuzu MU" name should be used in-line with all other articles. — OSX (talk • contributions) 23:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
It's bad etiquette to request a move so soon after a failed move attempt. And the closing admin made it clear that a project's opinion does NOT over-ride Wikipedia guidelines. You requested a move for the same reason despite it failing a week ago, hence bad-faith nomination. Just to make it clear, I also Oppose the move because it goes against WP:COMMONNAME (but stand by the Speedy Close). TJ Spyke 02:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am sorry but just because Aervanath is an admin that does not give him/her any additional weighting in the vote. WP:Common name does not apply in this case as I explained above. Since no consensus was reached, I have re-nominated this article so the outcome could be fair. I think it would be bad etiquette to veto such a request. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Particularly regarding the comment "I personally do not see the point in arguing with a policy accepted by a WikiProject with nearly 220 "official" members. " from the original RM, I have to say that WikiProjects must not be walled gardens. Your Project can not and must not write articles for the 220 of you, but for the many thousands (millions?) of people who read Wikipedia. That's really the point of site-wide policies and guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME. There's nothing about maintaining the encyclopedia to invoke WP:IAR either. Just your own Project, which as I said, just isn't good enough. Nosleep break my slumber 13:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I do not agree with the accusation of bad faith against the nominator. This appears to be a legitimate effort to get discussion going about an issue not fully resolved. It's been discussed at some length; see here and here. It's difficult to say with confidence that the present convention is a result of strong consensus, for it appears to be more a result of the emphatic preference of one or two significant contributors to the project. I don't mean to suggest bad faith, for I see none. But if this issue is settled at all, it's settled on unstable ground. It's hard to imagine clear consensus arising, for there are sound arguments to be made both in favour of most common name and of home market name. That being the case, and considering also the clash between project preference for home-market name and Wikipedia-wide preference for most common name, it's a little problematic to point to the present convention and say "That's the way it is, case closed". It's also well to heed SFoskett's disclaimer at the dawn of the conventions in question. I also do not agree with the accusation of "bad etiquette". If there is a guideline or standard prescribing minimum wait times before re-nomming a discussion that went nowhere, whoever is aware of it will please provide a link. Discussions sometimes fizzle before a productive conclusion is reached; relisting or otherwise officially reopening the discussion is perfectly legitimate. It's done every day. Let's please try to back away from an accusatory tone and see if we can figure out a good solution to the article name question as it applies to this and other car articles. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it was closed, not relisted. The nom did not complain that the closer made a bad close and did not request to reopen, instead this is a new request. There is a policy page somewhere (I remember seeing it) about excessive renomination speed, regardless of what the previous result was, if the request is the same, unless the previous request was withdrawn (which this wasn't) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that there is unlikely to be any policy, as WP:RM operates by convenience rather than by policy (as opposed to WP:AfD for example - see Wikipedia:Deletion policy). There has been discussion that any time there is no consensus you can expect it to be brought up again, and discussion requesting to not bring things up immediately. I am guessing that I tend to speedy close more move requests than anyone else recently, but often it is by request. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isuzu_Amigo&oldid=1201843164"