This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
VF is the "base" vehicle here, planned to be sold in the US under another name, with minor cosmetic differences.
Should things get too unwieldy or the models prove sufficiently distinct I can see the need for two separate articles but not now.
They should be merged IMO. -Oosh (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
No stop trolling. Impala is front-wheel drive. CTS and STS are rear-drive Sigma platform-based. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
These trolls are unbelievable. Take a VF/SS for a drive. You'll realize what a great handling, sophisticated, well built, roomy car the zeta 2 based VF/SS is and what an incredibly foolish thing it is to compare the mass market aimed Impala with it. There is no comparison. Here's a NY review that will dispel any confusion: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Provocateur (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 August 2014
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
– Although having the model code (e.g. VF) in between the make and model is acceptable usage, it is confusing especially for international readers who would find this unique-to-Australia convention thoroughly odd. It is equally as common in the media to have the format as VF Holden Commodore or Holden Commodore VF. International readers may understand the model to be marketed/badged as the "VF Commodore", when in reality it is just "Commodore". As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Disambiguation, parentheses should be used after the make and model to contain the generational identifier (VE, VF, etc). AFAIK, the only other batch of automobile articles that have their page titles similarly formatted are the Australian Ford Falcon, which I will nominate separately if this proposal succeeds.
Support, for the reasons you have given. KytabuTalk 07:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Support, for the reasons you have given. Also, consistency makes it easier for the readers to find articles based on their knowledge of other articles they have read (ie make, model, model code). Stepho talk 07:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
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.
It seems User:V7867 is using this move discussion to pursue his own agenda of changing all references of Manufacturer Generation Model in Australian motor racing articles to Manufacturer Model Generation. He recently created a consensus discussion on the issue, then closed it himself, in his own favour after just seven days with only three contributors in favour of himself. Can we get this sort of behavior stopped? The changing of article titles to Manufacturer Model (Generation) in the above move was limited only to article titles, and changes beyond that were not within the scope of this discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Now that the Holden Commodore & Ford Falcon page names have been "internationalized", has any consideration been given to the existing naming of the various Chrylser Valiant pages, eg Chrysler VC Valiant? Has any consideration been given to the hundreds of entries in various Australian motoring and motor sport pages which currently use the “Holden VF Commodore” format style in the actual page text? How do we now describe a Ford XB Falcon GT Hardtop? Is it a Ford Falcon (XB) GT Hardtop or a Ford Falcon GT (XB) Hardtop or a Ford Falcon GT Hardtop (XB)? GTHO (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that the Chrysler Valiant pages should be changed, with the goal of conformity, as should the format on motoring pages (which would take a while, I know). Ford Falcon XB GT Hardtop would suffice...no need for parentheses in my eyes (like how the Altima is listed as "Nissan Altima L33" on the V8s season articles). Manufacturer-model-model code-specification level makes more sense than any other order. KytabuTalk 11:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
As the old page names are redirects, this is not a problem. If you wish for "Holden VF Commodore" to become "Holden Commodore (VF)", you could request a bot to do this as it is an easy task. I also support the moving of any possible Chrysler articles using the old format. As for the Ford XB Falcon GT Hardtop, I'd personally use Ford Falcom (XB) GT hardtop or possibly Ford Falcom GT hardtop (XB). But whatever you choose is not of great consequence as long as the intended information is conveyed clearly. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Depending on context it should not be neccessary to write a phrase like Ford Falcom GT hardtop (XB) at all. Within the Ford Falcon (XB) article Falcon GT would be sufficient. --Falcadore (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Ford XY Falcon GT page should be moved to Ford Falcon (XY) GT to fall in line with the changes in designation. I did relocate it, but edit was reverted.Space alligator (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, but you can't do a cut and paste move. It will need to be nominated and then moved by an admin, see WP:MOVE. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You didn't move or relocate it. You created a whole new article and copied the content. Don't do that again, it's wrong as it damages of the edit history of the article. --Falcadore (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It should perhaps be noted that only the article titles have changed. Article contents should remain as they are. --Falcadore (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I have corrected some, but it will take time to complete the task. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
May I ask what you mean by corrected? --Falcadore (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)