Jump to content

Talk:Mazda6

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

Untitled

[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for time!

Atenza

[edit]

Isn't this car called the Mazda Atenza in Japan? Is this worth noting? -SpeechFreedom (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC) ---> Yes, this car is called the Mazda Atenza in Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhin (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited

[edit]

It is very obvious in this article that only the American awards are noted. Therefore, I've included a British gong.

I also got rid of some of the 7 competitors listed. It now has an American rival, a budget rival, a European rival and a prestige rival. I removed the MKXlink aswell - rather irrelavent apart from the platform.

Gran Turismo

[edit]
  • Forgive me, but is there really a need to have a link to the cars in a video game on this page? The fact that it is in Gran Turismo in different forms doesn't seem like a useful piece of information for an automobile page. I checked the Ford Mustang page, and it doesn't list anything, and both of these cars are built in the AutoAlliance International facility. Figgie123 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

This should probably have stayed using the most common name, Mazda 6, versus the Atenza name, used only in one country. Friday (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Only Japan uses Mazda Atenza while this is the english version of wikipedia, I think we should move the page back to Mazda 6 opinions? Sox23 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the edit summary, it was renamed per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Proposed naming convention, but that's not a real guideline yet, and I don't see where it supports such a rename. Even if this were a guideline and it said we should use the home market name, I'd still disagree in this case since this very common car has a single name by which it's very widely known. There's no way a country-specific name should take precedence over a name commonly used throughout the world, in my opinion. Friday (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the naming is going to stay, then quite a bit has to be re-edited as this article is written from the perspective of Mazda6. North wiki 02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page back to Mazda 6 Sox23 04:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But... the revision history of Mazda Atenza...

06:07, 11 March 2008 OSX (Talk | contribs) m (moved Mazda 6 to Mazda Atenza over redirect: as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Proposed naming convention) (undo)

I am not agree with him. And I agree that Sox23 said, Atenza name used only in Jpn. -- 202.28.25.71 (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The model name outside of Japan is "Mazda6" as one word only not "Mazda 6" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.173.152 (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

[edit]

How can I go to the talk page of Mazda6? It looks this is the talk page of Atenza. North wiki 02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platform of 2nd Gen

[edit]

From the specification of Euro version, it looks like it is more closely related to a Ford Fusion, i.e. still based on the CD-3 developed by Mazda, rather than the EUCD of Ford Europe. North wiki 02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Merge

[edit]

The Mazdaspeed6 should be merged to this article, its only one variant of this car and it its now quite shortly article anyway

Absolutely. The proliferation of stubby articles on performance variants of regular cars is rather worrying. PrinceGloria (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This vehicle is a completely different model than the Mazda6 here in N.A. (and other parts of the world). The Mazdaspeed6 shares many common parts (as do the Chevy Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire), but they are different models aimed at different markets and are completely separate models. Mazdaspeed6 should remain its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.5.153 (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think more important than whether this is marketed as a different model is whether the automotive press treats it as a different model. And they do. Friday (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its same model as Mazda6 only different engine... maybe in USA its different model but not in Europe or rest in the world ... more powerful engine does not make it different car, its only the name its same car...and what automotive press do y ou mean? all press I have read says its Mazda 6 top version , with some more power --Typ932 T·C 18:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's like saying the WRX is a totally different car to the normal Subaru, yes it has a turbo and tuning etc. but it is really just a variation within the same platform. Mazdaspeed6 is the same, a variation within the same platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullo exclamation mark (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all so very wrong, it is a different car because the stiffened the frame up more then 50% harder than a reg mazda6, it is a high compression turbo AWD model and the AWD alone makes this car a very different model and class of car then a FWD mazda6, and in europe for your info it is the same car as here in N.A. 2.3L-turbo-AWD-High compression.... shut up now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.236.49 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Just because it was built based on the Mazda 6 platform, doesn't mean it is not a separate vehicle. That logic gives greater importance to the source of parts and body design than the production, marketing and use of the vehicle, which is far more relevant to the distinguishing of models. To say that the Mazdaspeed 6 is a variant of the 6 is to say that the first motorcycles, fire engines, bulldozers and tanks were just "model variants" of bicycles and work trucks, the platforms from which they were built. If it's rebuilt, marketed and sold in full production as a different car with a different name for a different purpose, it's a different car. - (Note, The standard Subaru WRX is officially a version of the Impreza, while the WRX STI is officially a different car.)

It is a completely different vehicle, aimed at different markets, with very different capabilities and engineering than the Mazda 6. Turbocharger, 4-wheel drive system and frame stiffening etc. are found nowhere else in Mazda's lineup during the model years of this car.

Both Mazda and all major automotive press consider this to be a separate vehicle. Officially.

Also - Where did the rest of this article go? It was very long and well written. I believe it is being considered for merging due to its brevity, and that restoration is a better alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbeder (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Thailand?

[edit]

assembly: Rayong, Thailand (for Thailand)

What I know is Mazda 6 is not available in Thailand if who want the 6 are not import it from outside Thailand. --Love Krittaya (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission (Second generation)

[edit]

Transmission(s) 5-speed automatic 6-speed automatic (mated with V6 for NA market only) 5-speed manual 6-speed manual

6-speed automatic is not only for NA market but also JP market

https://ssl.mazda.co.jp/purchase/estimate/atenza-sedan In japan, you can choose the Atenza with 4WD and 6AT. The transmission is mated with I4 2.5L engine.

Allenwml (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Allenwml[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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 support for move, and per our well-settled common names guideline. I have considered the opposition and find it wanting. The article should be at the name far more commonly used, known, and likely to be searched by English language speakers. The opposition argument using Mazda6 verses Mazda 6 to show neither is the common name actually lends support for the move as the common name, rather than argues against the move as it was offered. The two forms of the same name with a spacing difference combine to show an even larger disparity between some form of Mazda followed by 6, as compared with Mazda followed by Atenza. We use the "Principle of least astonishment" when we think about Wikipedia title disambiguation. A person searching for Mazda6, Mazda 6 (or any close variant) will not be surprised by finding themselves at the one over the other, but they certainly will be astonished when finding themselves at Mazda Atenza.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Atenza → Mazda6 — Per WP:COMMONNAME and per Talk:Mazda3#Requested move. The car is available worldwide and well-known as "Mazda6", according to the article, the current name "Mazda Atenza" was only used in Japan. Aubergine (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. Aubergine (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. These names originate from a naming convention adopted by WikiProject Automobiles which, in my humble opinion, directly conflicts in many cases with our common name policy. The convention is documented here. Specifically, it says: "Article titles shall bear the name used in the original market by the original manufacturer or marketer, regardless of sales." As I've said before, I don't think a local consensus between the contributors of a WikiProject can override a Wikipedia-wide established and accepted policy. Jafeluv (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - contrary to what Jafeluv says, the move would not really be to a more common name. "Mazda6" returns 3,200K Google hits, while "Mazda 6" gives 3,240K. The "Mazda6" spelling is favoured by the manufacturer, but WP:NAME tends not to conform with marketing and branding tactics, but rather keep with the name used in common parlance.
    To substantiate my point, EuroNCAP, Car & Driver and JD Power are among the media using the "Mazda 6" spelling, and you can Google many more instances of that. The situation is the same in print media. Moreover, many English-language media would refer to the model as "Mazda Mazda6" or "Mazda MAZDA6". Furthermore, this Edmunds article uses "Mazda 6", "Mazda6" and "Mazda MAZDA6" spelling in various places! So, all in all, "Mazda6" can hardly be argued to be the "most common name". There are many names used for the car, and the move from "Mazda Atenza" wouldn't really be in the spirit of WP:NAME. Having said which, I would argue the general WP:NAME wording have little application in the case of car models, as in many other exceptions regulated by more specific rules, such as fauna and flora or geographical names. The convention adopted by the WikiProject has been serving very well to cut through the plethora of different marketing and branding tactics adopted by automakers, and even in cases such as this it has not generated by much controversies for two years running, as can be evidenced by this talk page.
    Obviously, the WikiProject can be accused of laziness and indecision for not submitting the convention to be included in WP:NAME as part of official guidelines, yet I would like to inform the closing admin a discussion on that has just started within the WikiProject and will obviously take some time. I treat this move request, as the Mazda Axela one, as it reeks of fait accompli tactic to both influence the discussion and circumvent the convention before it becomes official.
    I do not see any benefit in changing the name, and as a non-American and non-native English speaker I do perceive this as a, probably good-faith for all intents and purposes, as a manifestation of Systemic Bias. I do not think all articles need to be called what some US Americans would call them, and do believe it is stretching of the good-faith rules of WP:NAME, which obviously were designed for more general purposes and did not forsee such complicated cases as car names.
    I do hope my comments will not be disregarded by the closing admin as with the Mazda Axela case. I am ready to expand, discuss and further substantiate my case should need be. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said before, it makes no sense to count "Mazda6" and "Mazda 6", there have the same visual recognition and the same pronunciation. The average reader will make the connection between the two immediately, which is less likely for "Atenza" given it's use is restricted to a small geographic area. That they have such recognition is exactly why "Mazda6" and "Mazda 6" are mistaken, both convey the required information in an unambiguous way,
I resent the accusation that I am stretching "the good-faith rules", the accusation of "systematic bias". In an English-language encyclopedia, I simply cannot support a name that has no recognition in the English-speaking world when an alternative that is well-known exists. By extension, I cannot support a mislabeled convention that promotes the same. I doubt I am alone in those sentiments, so your convention is by no means guaranteed to become official. Not that it's relevant, but I'm not American either, so what the American name is not especially important to me; the English-language name is, though. Finally, I doubt your comments were disregarded (speak to the closing admin if you think they were). As the sole dissenting voice, they just didn't match the consensus reached on the page. Aubergine (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PrinceGloria, you were talking about this convention nearly two years ago. If it's not ready by now, do you really expect people to hang around waiting for it? Give it up, already. See the above discussions about naming. Your claims of bias are ridiculous. This is the English Wikipedia. This car has a name common to the entire English-speaking world. No amount of emotion-laden pleading can change this. Friday (talk) 19:12, 17 July 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.

Photo

[edit]

A photo of the newer version should be put up top with the old one. It's kind of misleading otherwise. Or maybe someone can get a photo of them side by side? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I switched to a photo of the new model. It was better lit. And the first generation is early in the article anyway. I think this is a better way to present the the content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utter Shamelessness

[edit]

This article reads like a damn car commercial. It's obvious Mazda had its technical people put up this article. Mazda, you are shameless sell-outs, you'll even compromise education and knowledge just to make a buck. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactive6 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mazda6. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mazda6. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mazda6. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change this phrasing?

[edit]

"The second-generation Mazda6 is based on the modified first-generation Mazda6 chassis which Ford also still uses as their CD3 platform"

I suggest changing the "Ford also still uses as their CD3 platform" to "Ford continued using the CD3 platform"

The Ford Fusion hasn't used the CD3 platform since 2013. 70.109.187.104 (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mazda6&oldid=1208892268"