Talk:Toyota concept vehicles (1935–1969)

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Sliding canopy

I've got myself into an edit war over whether the Publica Sports concept car is a coupe, a 1-door coupe or a no-door coupe. I'm quite sure it's not a 1-door coupe. Calling it a no-door coupe seems wrong but I can't find a technical argument against it. Can somebody else comment on what they think should be in the infobox body_style field. Thanks. Stepho talk 05:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus was to move the articles to parentheses version without comma. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:DATERANGE, the FULL four-digit years should be written out in any given date range on Wikipedia (with the exception of one-year periods which can be written either way: 1923–1924 or 1923–24). The above moves should be made to fit within Wikipedia's guidelines. See the similar requested move for the "History of the United States" pages, the "History of New York City" pages, the "List of Florida/North Carolina/Texas hurricanes" pages, the "List of California ballot propositions" pages, and the "Pride of Performance Awards" pages.

Also, should the titles stick with the commas? The only reason I used commas is because I wasn't sure if it needed to be changed. WP:NCSPLITLIST has both the comma format and the parentheses format as acceptable; however, the preferred format is apparently with a colon. Should I change the requested move to "Toyota concept vehicles: 1935–1969", etc? Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question any reason for the comma and not parenthesis? --Gonnym (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, wonder that, which is why I haven't voted in the rest of these MOS:DATERANGE RM's. But, based on other articles I've seen, these really do seem like they should be at Toyota concept vehicles (1935–1969), etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment - @Gonnym:, @IJBall:: The only reason I used commas is because I wasn't sure if it needed to be changed. WP:NCSPLITLIST has both the comma format and the parentheses format as acceptable; however, the preferred format is apparently with a colon. Should I change the requested move to "Toyota concept vehicles: 1935–1969", etc? Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm not sure. I'm not used to seeing colons but it does indeed say that. Also, if this is a List article, it should probably be "List of Toyota concept vehicles ()" --Gonnym (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthesis would be my choice (in spite of my original choice years ago) because it matches how we separate generations in automobile articles. Comma is an acceptable second choice. I would not choose colon because it doesn't really match anything else in the automobile project. Stepho talk 22:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personaly, I might have used "of", as in Toyota concept vehicles of 1935–69 / Toyota concept vehicles of 1935–1969. The date ranges are not really disambiguators here; they seem like merely a way to organize a large topic into smaller ones. But since there seems to be a relevant guideline, perhaps a colon should be used. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. As the original creator and principle maintainer of these articles, I have no trouble about going to full 4 digit years. Stepho talk 23:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment There is a clear consensus to use 4 digit years, but it would be useful to further examine the issue of comma disambiguation. See also WP:PARENDIS which suggests to me that either are acceptable, with parentheses the standard usage if there is no good reason to use a different type of disambiguation. I don't personally have a strong opinion on the issue. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see nothing wrong with these titles as they are. They are just as WP:PRECISE and more WP:CONCISE than the proposed ones. Ignore WP:DATERANGE per WP:IAR; WP:CRITERIA takes precedence over the style guide. --В²C ☎ 16:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to parentheses version per Gonnym. i.e. Toyota concept vehicles, 1935–69 → Toyota concept vehicles (1935–1969) etc. — Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to parentheses version as per Gonnym and Amakuru. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:28, 4 October 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.