Talk:General Motors A platform (RWD)

On 12 May 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from GM A platform (1925) to General Motors A platform (1925). The result of the discussion was moved.

A or Y?[edit]

A more recent article, GM Y platform, contradicts this one, stating that the 1961-63 cars were Y-bodies. Neither article states references. Can the authors of this article (or anyone else) prove this article right and the other wrong? Respectfully, SamBlob 11:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pontiac GTO picture[edit]

The picture of a ‘65 Pontiac GTO is not of a 1965 model GTO. The vehicle pictured is a 1969 model, identifiable by the lack of a vent window. I have corrected the caption under the thumbnail, however the title of the picture remains '65 Pontiac GTO Coupe (Orange Julep '10).jpg Stanislao Avogadro (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GM A platform (1936). 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uDs98hE2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autolife.umd.umich.edu%2FDesign%2FMitchell%2Fmitchellinterview.htm to http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Design/Mitchell/mitchellinterview.htm

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) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 May 2021[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. While not explicitly supported here, there seems to be consensus for changing the disambiguator to "FWD" and "RWD" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#GM platform disambiguations (permalink), so one may change the disambiguator boldly, likely without issue. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:PRECISE, "General Motors" is the official name of the automotive company which unambiguously identifies it as such while "GM" is a commonplace, but unofficial, abbreviation that could mean anything for someone unfamiliar with cars or not in North America. Per the Manual of Style, we should not use acronyms where multiple entities use those abbreviations; "GM" is not in fact a redirect to General Motors but rather a disambiguation page. Think of it like this: assuming that GM B platform becomes Today's Featured Article one day, people not into cars will be stumped as to what precisely it's referring to, while "General Motors B platform" gives the information that it's at least something to do with cars. It's also IMO slightly more professional to use the full form of the name rather than an abbreviation, and is consistent with other articles such as General Motors companion make program and General Motors streetcar conspiracy. Note to all: this is a discussion regarding a naming convention in general and not just the pages listed. In that light I have placed a notice on the automotive conventions talkpage leading people here for greater input. Thank you! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: GM C platform (1936) is a redirect and so is ineligible to be a current title in a move request. This proposal has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 00:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural neutral - Two points: One, there are 57 articles following the existing naming convention; that should be indicated so the scope of the change is clear. This talk page may not be the best venue for such a wide-ranging discussion.
Two, there was a recent discussion at WT:CARS supporting restoring the disambiguation-by-drive-wheels convention (e.g. GM A platform (RWD)) instead of the by-year that they are now. If the above renaming is supported, this should be factored in so it can be done at the same time to minimize work. --Sable232 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough on both counts, thank you. I was not involved in the change for the latter, but I will take that into account. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Stepho-wrs: I cannot help viewing the introduction of the word PLATFORM in the name of this article as absurd. It simply confuses the issue to please a particular editor. Hard on everyone else ! Eddaido (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Car platforms are a thing, hence the title, and is less ambiguous in that respect than "body". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Eddaido, your unending fixation on the term "platform" is thoroughly unproductive. If you don't have an opinion on the move discussion at hand, please refrain from derailing it with this. --Sable232 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Eddaido, this discussion is about renaming "GM XXX" to "General Motors XXX". The use of "platform" in the name is a different discussion which you are already having at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#GM platform disambiguations. Stepho talk 22:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I've thought about this and the move rationale is logical. For what it's worth, checking the prefix index for GM and for General Motors shows a mix of both, but about twice as many for the former. That aside, I don't think the longer titles would be terribly unwieldy, and no reader would be surprised to find the articles titled that way. This situation would be different than, say, GM New Look bus or GM High Feature engine because those two titles are already clear enough that they involve vehicles, and in the case of the former, "GM" is the actual branding on the bus. --Sable232 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As state above, "GM" is assuming that the user knows this is a car article and assumes a little too much informality. However, within the article I would use "General Motors" in the introduction and then shift to "GM" for the sake of brevity. Stepho talk 22:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, including renaming GM A platform (1925) → General Motors A platform (RWD) and GM A platform (1982) → General Motors A platform (FWD). Perhaps this discussion should be reformatted to reflect this additional change? Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also include GM C platform (1925) → General Motors C platform (RWD) and GM C platform (1985) → General Motors C platform (FWD) Mr.choppers | ✎
  Normally I would agree with doing both renames together. But the 'platform' part is under discussion elsewhere and might need to be reverted. Therefore, it is best to just do the 'GM' part now. Stepho talk 00:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  ~~From what I've seen it's just one editor griping about the use of "platform" for some reason and not really a "discussion" per se.~~ Nevermind, I looked at it again. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Neither proposal has anything to do with the use of the term "platform", so I don't see how one should be held off but not the other. --Sable232 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2021 (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.