Jump to content

Talk:Mazda3

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

Axela

[edit]

I didn't like the "more "performance-oriented"" implication, it does little to respect the Mazdaspeed3's performance.

I think that the class of Axela is "compact - near luxury car". Am i wrong? Kaygtr 16:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mazda3 is a compact, but it's not anywhere to being a near-luxury car. --ApolloBoy 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Beause the MS3 is viewed by Mazda as a separate model, it should be listed on it's own (http://mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/display2010Mazda3.action?vehicleCode=MS3&directPath=ms3/home).

'Future models'

[edit]

As it says in the history - replaced the 'Future models' section with information based on official pics/information.

Arguably, 'Future models' was purely speculative content, although it did seem that it was at least an informed prediction.


'Mazdaspeed 3'

[edit]

Someone needs to redirect Mazdaspeed 3.

This needs to be redirected to Mazda3

[edit]

The vehicle is called Mazda3 in all English-speaking markets and all markets outside Japan, and Axela is only used in Japan. The article needs to be redirect to Mazda3.--Folksong 03:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2007)

[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 11:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Mazda Axela → Mazda3 — Axela is only used in Japan DeLarge 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

[edit]

Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit]
  1. Oppose. The WP Autos WikiProject favours using the home market name. A redirect to this page, which explains the names used in the opening paragraph, seems best to me. --DeLarge 00:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. There's a reason we use the original home market names. Because rebadging is a fairly common practice and rebadging doesn't happen uniformly. Keeping the original name is always the safest bet. --Pc13 10:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Per the above - DeLarge and Pc13 have already said all there is to say about the issue. PrinceGloria 12:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:

A bit OT, but the opening section could be better written, without the repetitions and sounding like a reply to somebody asking why the article is called like that. There are much better examples of lead sections for articles like that around. Also, the Mazdaspeed3 needs to be reintegrated into the article, there is far too less content to mandate a separate article, it is another bad example of trying to add gravitas to a model version. The article also suffers from numerous flaws concerning structure, style, NPOV etc. and could use the attention of an experienced and professional editor... PrinceGloria 12:44, 10 March 2007 (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.

Contested move request

[edit]

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion directly above, there is no way that this request can be considered uncontroversial. --Stemonitis 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says what is the "home market"? I'd think we should go by most common market name. If it's true that it's known as the 3 in the entire world except Japan, I'd favor using the Mazda 3 name. Friday (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WikiProject convention has not changed, hence I see no reason for moving. PrinceGloria 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a relevant link? The closest I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Proposed naming convention which doesn't seem very active. Unless there's a reason not to, we should probably use the most common name for the car. Friday (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not it's an official convention, the reasoning behind the second oppose vote above makes sense to me. Dekimasuよ! 03:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but do we consider a "home market" being the some country where the automaker is from? This is problematic- some cars are made only for foreign markets. What is an "original name"? Surely nobody is suggesting that if a model is renamed, the article must always retain the first name that was used? Given the circumstances, it makes sense to me to use the name that is most common in the world market. If the name "Axela" is used only in Japan and the English-speaking world calls it the 3, I'd say the article should be called Mazda 3 as well. Friday (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Plain ans simple! The name that was first used in the "home" market should be used as the title for the article, this eliminates all the kerfuffle concerning which name is more "popular" and all, and is more or less in line with Wikipedia's conventions (in most cases, the original name of the subject is preferred as article's title). Of course where the automaker is based does not necessairly have to determine the "home market" for a vehicle. For example, for the Nissan Altima the home market would be the USA / North America (not that it is sold anywhere else in the world under a different name, FWIK), as it was designed with the North American market in mind and launched there first. I can't think of a better example off the cuff, but if you can name a problem case, I will gladly explain it to you using that example. PrinceGloria 08:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is there a reasonable way to determine what is the home market for a common vehicle sold in many places? Absent a clear notion of where the home market is, I'm in favor of using the name that is most common in English-speaking markets. This is the English Wikipedia, after all. Friday (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think it's a rather silly and arbitrary standard to use. I'm still in favor of using the name that is most common in English-speaking markets. Friday (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an owner of a 2006 Mazda 3 I have never even heard of the Axela until now... This is not an appropriate name for the car that is marketed and sold in North America as the Mazda3 (with no mention of the japanese name.) What is the main purpose of the name? Something with which to identify the car of course... so if most people have no clue what an Axela is then why on earth would we be forced to use this name on this site if it will not aid in identifying the car we are searching for? I understand you have some sort of loose convention that suggests the name addopted in the "home market" be used across the site to simplify things but should it not also consider the greater good? I.E., how many people will recognize one name versus the other? An interesting point to note is that all your external links on this page direct you to sites that refer to this car as the Mazda3 (again no mention at all of the Axela) and in fact when looking at the page the only mention I see are the ones you are insisting on keeping... I fail to grasp the logic of this decision... Is not the point of this whole website the ability to update as needed witout arbitrary rules that govern the site (similar to what an actual encyclopedia would enforce...)???198.103.53.5 14:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There do seem to be a couple people still in favor of using the "Axela" name but it looks to me like support for this position is waning. The name 3 is worldwide, "Axela" is only Japan. On the Japanese Wikipedia, I'd probably support using Axela. But here? I don't see why. Friday (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and renamed. I realize not everyone agrees, but this is in line with our general standard of using the name by which something is most commonly known. Friday (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think this is the right decision! 198.103.53.5 14:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this was moved back with no discussion. What's the deal? Friday (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original move was made without reaching a compromise in the discussion. Your move was against the agreed-upon standard, and as such should not be made without first revising the standard. You can raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. PrinceGloria 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for some evidence of this standard before, and none was forthcoming. But, regardless, we should reach agreement on this article on this talk page. Reading the discussion above, to me the people wanting to use the most common name for this have the strength of the best argument on their side. Do you have some reason for not wanting to use the most common name? Mazda3 is worldwide- Mazda Axela is used only in Japan. Wikipedia is not intended to be written from a Japanese perspective- our audience is worldwide. Friday (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I'm always happy to look for compromise, but I can't really understand what you mean by this in this case. The article can only have one "real name"- the rest are redirects. So, given the choice of picking one "real name", I don't see how compromise is possible. Friday (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People looking for "Mazda 3" get to the right page anyway. The encyclopedia is to provide an impartial view - this vehicle IS the Mazda Axela, marketed as Mazda 3 in other countries. If anything, this article will broaden the view of people that were not aware of the fact that the car was not originally named "Mazda 3".
The standard for using the "country of origin" as the article name was adopted by the WikiProject Automobiles long ago, after some very contentious debates. For example, should the Opel Astra article be named "Opel Astra", "Vauxhall Astra", "Holden Astra", "Saturn Astra" or "General Motors Astra"? There are always good arguments for any name, but many of them require adopting "fuzzy" criteria - for example, how do you determine which name is more popular? And if you go by sales numbers under a given nameplate, it will be hard to gather data for those. The "market of origin name" is a clear-cut solution - it is easy to establish and there is little to debate.
I admit I haven't been actively involved in the Project for some time, so I am not sure where the standard is displayed now, but I am sure it is still in indisputed use. I will ask in the talk page for it to be more prominently displayed, and possibly added to WP:NAME.PrinceGloria 17:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand Wikipedia naming standards. Cary Grant was REALLY named "Archibald Leach", but the article is under "Cary Grant" because he's more commonly known by this name. I'm not talking about rebadging here- I know this can be a tricky question in some cases, but in this case the answer seems obvious to me. The car is known worldwide as the Mazda 3. It's known only in one particular country as Axela. There's no reason I can see why Japan should be "special" in this case- we should use the most common name even though it's not the same name they use in Japan. I don't agree that using the country of origin name is a good thing in this case. Do you disagree? Friday (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons listed above, we needed to adopt a uniform standard. For every car, its "home market" is special. If we start applying the standard at will, it stops being a standard. I really don't see what's the bother. PrinceGloria 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try to make a standard if you want- I don't care much about that. I care about this article today. Do you have a reason why this article is better off using the Japan-only name than the worldwide name? I think it should be put back, but I won't do it if you're just going to revert again. Friday (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the standard needs to be put down just because you don't like what Mazda called the car. We need to be pragmatic here. PrinceGloria 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm done taking you seriously if you're going to say things like that. Will you revert again if I move it back? Friday (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will, as long as the standard is standing. If you convince folks at WP:CAR to change it, you will be free to rename the article according to the new standard. PrinceGloria 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to hear an argument that makes sense that would keep this from being called Mazda3... Who cares if the Opel is sold by 5 different car manufacturers and you want to use the home market as the title to avoid having 5 of the same article all under different names (or subjectively choosing one of the 5 manufacturers to title the page.) Here we are actually talking about the name of a car, and which is the more commonly used name. Not which is more popular, but which one speaks to more people. A Mazda in Japan is still a Mazda in the US or Canada... But a Mazda Axela is nothing in the US or Canada... Only the most enthusiastic Mazda owners are even aware of this title, a title I was ignorant too until finding this site. If the purpose, as you mention above, is to educate people then having a reference within the Mazda3 article to the Axela would do the trick in my mind, but what is the rational for doing it the other way around?? Also - before you come preaching a standard I would suggest you find the link... If even you cannot find the link how would you expect the rest of us to find it?? I think the solution is simple... In this case... Mazda3 is the name all markets use besides 1, be it the home market or not, and is also the name used in all english speaking markets (and this is the english Wikki site...)198.103.53.5 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anonymous User,
  1. I cordially invite you to register - this makes participating in various Wikipedia activities much easier ans adds credibility to your opinions!
  2. What link?
Kind regards, PrinceGloria 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation to join... I hope this adds to my credibility somehow in your opinion... If you cared to look at the IP address I left it is the same as above, and the other messages I have already posted in this area. I appreciate you asking me to join, but I would also appreciate a response to my post above. If you re-read what I wrote I think it is pretty obvious which link I am speaking of... unless of course this mysterious standard to which you keep referring is not linked and as such does not exist? I look forward to your undoubtedly witty response. Again I request a name change to Mazda3 as agreed upon above before you decided to change it back without further discussion.Chris1069 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for what it is worth, I checked out your profile and fail to see how your name adds anymore credibility than me signing with my IP address?? If anything I would almost think the opposite was true... but none the less I will use this account from now on to appease the ...... Chris1069 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you registered, welcome aboard and all that, but I agree- we should not consider an IP to have automatically less credibility than anyone else. For what it's worth I agree that Mazda 3 is the better name to use, simply because it's more widely known under this name. Unless there's some other relevant standard to follow (I still haven't seen it), we should do what we normally do- use the most common name. Friday (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the welcome! I think what you say makes sense! I agree that IF there is a standard in place that stipulates that we MUST use the home market name then there is little to discuss... the fact that this standard has still not been referenced since Summer leads me to believe that there is no such standard. I would even guess that they may have been developing one and couldn't agree so it was dropped... Unless it is referenced in the next couple weeks I would suggest we revert back to Mazda3 again as mentioned many times now it is the most common name and speaks to the larger audience (and no we don't need to prove this! In this case there are not 5 different names used in various markets there are 2. 1 name for the home market, and 1 name for the rest...) All I ask is that PrinceGloria takes a minute to think about the logic in their replies before continuing this argument. Chris1069 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standards on Wikipedia are almost never things that must be done. Standards are guidelines. If there is a standard, and there's a good reason to do things differently in an individual case, it's perfectly OK to make exceptions. Friday (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to discuss the standards, please continue to do so in the WikiProject Automobiles talk page. Thank you! PrinceGloria 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Thank you for registering, Chris. Wikipedia experience tells us to be a bit more careful about IP users. Logging in is a way of showing both your serious treatment of Wikipedia and your identity. PrinceGloria 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce Length of Mazdaspeed 3 section

[edit]

I am proposiing the Mazdaspeed3 section be reduced to just one or two sentences. Just a terse description of the MS3 and then just the link to the actual MS3 page. Ray (talk)

better to merge MPS3 to this article. --— Typ932T | C  11:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this Alexa article is already too long, adding in the MS3 will make it even worse. Ray (talk)
This is article could be make shorter by removing speculations and adding engines to table. I dont see the point to have one version in its own page --— Typ932T | C  11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct the engine should be added to tables, the speculations and unsupported opinion statements should be removed but even then the article will be long. The MS3 article itself is nearing too long. I think the two cars are different enough to warrant separate pages. Ray (talk)
I lean toward separate pages too. Maybe if length is a concern here, some of the performance info could go away? Performance info is definitely relevant to Mazdaspeed3 because it's marketed as a performance car. The plain-old 3 is marketed just as a basic small car, so 0-60 times for the various engines may be overly detailed. Normally I'd not even suggest a separate article for what is essential an option package, however is MS3 is marketed as a model distinct from the 3, and it's been getting lots of coverage by automative press, separate from their coverage of the regular mazda3. Friday (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typ932 why did you think ading back in the show the Mazdaspeed 3 was intrduced at back in? It is in the Mazdaspeed 3 page already. Ray (talk)

Body style

[edit]

I added "wagon" to the body style. This has come up over at Mazdaspeed3 also (which is available only in the wagon version, not the sedan.) In the sources I've seen, they still widely use the term station wagon to describe this, despite the automaker's own marketing departments shying away from this term in recent years. I think we should use standard terminology, not marketing-speak. Anyway, my edit was reverted without comment, so I'll ask here: should we say this car is available as a wagon, or not? Calling it a hatchback is also correct, but is less specific. Friday (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The body style is hatchback. Only in North American marketing was it referred to as a wagon or something of that kind. This is strictly a hatchback. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you miss my point. The manufacturer does not call this a wagon anywhere I've ever seen. Who does call it a wagon is the automotive press. Yes, this wagon has a hatch in the back, but calling it a "hatchback wagon" is more descriptive than simply "hatchback". I'm not suggesting we don't call it a hatchback. Most wagons these days are hatchbacks, but they're still wagons also. Friday (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples include [1], [2], [3], [4]. I don't care much what the maker calls it, but I thought it was pretty clear that the automative press still uses the term "wagon" to describe a sedan-like car with extended rear cargo area. Friday (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found at least as many examples referring to the body style as "hatchback" concerning North American English-language online publications alone. Examples: [5], [6], [7], [8]. I've found the first two googling for "Mazda3 wagon"! Anyhoo, only some American publications somehow perceive this car as a wagon, which might stem from the fact that Mazda tried to push the Protege5 as a somewhat-wagon in the US... Nowhere else in the world did I hear of similar confusion. Not to mention a three-light body does not a wagon make - is the very similar Kia Cee'd hatchback a wagon? I don't think so, especially that a wagon version thereof exists on its own.
I really don't think there is anything wrong with the manufacturer calling this hatchback a hatchback. And, among sources of questionable reliability, the manufacturer's own statement trumps the POV of a reviewer IMHO. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. And creating the nonexistent "hatchback wagon" body style for the sake of this article is hardly along Wikipedia guidelines...
Yes, as I tried to make clear, this car is commonly called a hatchback and a wagon. A wagon these days is almost always a type of hatchback. Would you prefer "estate car"? The station wagon article says that term is used in Britain. I didn't intend to create some new class of car with "hatchback wagon"- notice where the links go. Would "hatchback/wagon" be more clear? Are you insisting we pick one term or the other? I don't get why.. surely we can use both? Friday (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly because the car IS a hatchback. Really, why would you insist on pushing this wagon nonsense... PrinceGloria (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I still don't get it. I've never tried to claim the car is not a hatchback. I don't understand most of your reasoning here, honestly. I suppose we can see if anyone else chimes in. Friday (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to me the car IS a hatchback, nothing less, nothing more. Except for some North American publications, which I've been aware of, I've never heard anybody claiming it is also a wagon, and I don't think it is justified to push it in an encyclopedia. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can find sources using either term. Kelly Blue Book calls it a hatchback and so does Car and Driver. Those are better examples of the automotive press than carprices.com or yahoo, though I won't contest edmunds.com. If you google you will probably find many sources using one term or the other. There does not seem to be any clear line separating the two types, but hatchbacks are the smaller of the two. I call my 3 a hatchback, having previously driven a station wagon, which had much more voluminous cargo space (and drove like a tank). Another way to tell is that if you look at examples of hatchbacks, their window over the cargo area is very small (or non-existent), and there is very little separation between the C and D pillars (or there may not be a D pillar at all). By contrast, if you look at examples of wagons, the cargo area window is lengthier with considerable separation between the C and D pillars. In this respect, the Mazda3 has more in common with a hatchback, though it is perhaps a larger car than some historical examples of the type. Consider the VW Golf Variant, the station wagon version of the popular hatchback. 66.152.245.18 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ford Escort Mk3 5 door hatchback 1980 - 1986
1989 Pontiac Safari.
That's why I tried to use both terms- both can be found in common usage. The size, to me, is not an issue here- we already cover that with the non-controversial description "compact". Friday (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, out of 150+ countries in which the Axela is sold, only in one or two the confusion exists, stemming mostly from lack of wagon experience in North American media (now anything is billed a wagon randomly based on the fact that actual wagons got extinct in North America) and Mazda's convulted Protege5 marketing. I really don't perceive this as a good reason to change the car's classification in Wikipedia. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not confusion- it's just that the term "wagon" is still commonly used to describe a certain body style of car. See [9] for example. This has nothing to do with Mazda's marketing- I'm looking at terms the automotive press uses. Friday (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In one or two countries only. Moreover, many terms are used "commonly" to describe things, people and phenomena, but it's not that they gain encyclopedicity overnight. I guess if we could find a secondary source that would state that Mazda3's 5-door body style is referred to as "wagon" in North American media, we could put that info somewhere in the body of the article. I would keep it away from the infobox, which should give clear guidance, not be a dump for all kinds of everything (much as it often is, unfortunately). Regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article station wagon covers the places that use this term, versus the term "estate car". They're different terms for the same thing. Not sure why you're talking about secondary sources. Friday (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because we should refrain from OR. As concerns the station wagon article, this time I am not sure why would that be relevan. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5-door Mazda3/Axela is a hatchback. Naming it a "hatchback wagon" is an [W:OR|original research], as established classification does not include such body style (this is propably your own inventment) and thus should be removed. Netrat (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a hatchback, but as you can see above, there was a dispute. "Hatchback/wagon" was a compromise indicating either term is usable. Note the slash -- we're not calling it a "hatchback wagon". If you have evidence of an "established classification" I would like to see it; maybe it would alleviate User:Friday's concerns. 66.152.245.18 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It must be a regional thing. Apparently the term "wagon" is used mainly in north america, from what I can tell. For what it's worth, other similar cars likes the WRX are also called "wagon" in that article. I have no particular objection to just using whatever term is most common, I just thought that when more than one applied, we should list them both. Friday (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 AU Changes

[edit]

Does the 2008 changes section belong in this article. The changes are about the trim levels offered in Australia. IS this article just supposed to cover the US & Canadian model or is it supposed to cover all the English language market models? --Ray (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is supposed to cover the Mazda Axela as a whole, and discussing minor trim details or equipment levels for particular market is actually irrelevant in an encyclopedia. We could discuss them only if notable (i.e. a notable market first, where notable is defined by actual notability, not adding "notably" at the beginning of the sentence :D PrinceGloria (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thne I will go ahead and get ride of that section. --Ray (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Design Flaw Omission

[edit]

Why is there no mention of the major design flaw in the Mazda 3 that allows a person to unlock the door without setting off the alarm by only hitting a certain spot with enough force? DruidODurham (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[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 moved by Tiptoety. Aubergine (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda Axela → Mazda3 — Per WP:COMMONNAME. The car is available worldwide and well-known as "Mazda3", according to the article, the current name "Mazda Axela" was only used in Japan. Would be happy with "Mazda 3" if that fits Wikipedia naming conventions better. Aubergine (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. Aubergine (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Titles. While this is not an official guideline or policy, it is currently being discussed to be proposed as such, having served Wikipedia well for many years now. As we're in the middle of the discussion, and the article's title did not generate any controversy for two years running (which is eternity for a car-related article), I don't think discussing the move now would serve any meaningful purpose. It might be an offshot of the discussion the WikiProject is currently having, and in view of that, it would be better to centralize the discussion there. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think a unilateral WikiProject declaration overrules the most fundamental of Wikipedia naming conventions. To be blunt, how many people have actually heard of an "Axela"? Aubergine (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment. Google hits:
    • "Mazda3" -"Mazda 3" 3,840,000
    • "Mazda 3" -"Mazda3" 3,950,000
    • "Mazda Axela" 464,000

I know the "Google test" isn't great, but this is overwhelming. Also Wikipedia article traffic statistics in June (by redirect)

    • "Mazda3" or "Mazda 3" 11,483
    • "Mazda Axela" or anything else 10,993

Derivatives of "Mazda3" are still higher despite the page title. Aubergine (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Google test is irrelevant, and the WikiProject convention might become a general convention soon, just like many other areas are regulated by specific conventions now, being parts of WP:NAME. As concerns people looking for "Mazda 3" rather than Axela, this is how the redirect system works and this is why the naming of the article doesn't make it ambigious for the reader. If you look for "Mazda 3", you'll get there anyway with no more hassle than somebody looking for a "Mazda Axela". Moreover, there article traffic stats aren't all that overwhelming in favor of "Mazda 3". Finally, is it "Mazda 3" or "Mazda3" - care to present a good case for either?
    Anyhow, does anybody really care It's a discussion between you and me for the time being, which further proves the issue does not require urgent change. This article is on the watchlists of many editors, so I guess if anybody really felt it's worth going over it again, they'd chip in. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think all of us editors who are watchlisting this page are also following the more general discussion and are waiting for those results. But if you're encouraging me to chip in, I'd say that I support using the common English name in this case and feel that if every other project is managing to figure out an article name under the general policy that this project should have no trouble following suit. IFCAR (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am obviously discouraging you from chipping in. The most active WikiProjects had issues naming articles using WP:NAME alone, which is why they devised their own guidelines, some of which already became parts of WP:NAME. Again, let's keep discussion centralized. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Yes, of course we should use the name "Mazda3". This is the name that this very common car uses in the entire English-speaking world. The only reason this move wasn't done before was a small number of very stubborn editors insisting that some misguided and never-completed Wikiproject guideline should overrule standard practice. Friday (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was waiting too, but given the challenge I too support the move on the same basis that I supported the common name in the Isuzu Trooper debate earlier. What a WikiProject says is no more or less important than the rest of the community's input, so the common name convention should not be overruled here. Hippo (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — and that is the point; i.e. if it's used in ALL English-speaking countries then fine. Otherwise, it should be the original market name because there's no other way to avoid endless arguments about Google hits and what really constitutes the "best-known" name. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Regarding the comment about Mazda 3 over Mazda3, I would surmize that most people are ignorant to the fact there is no space between Mazda and 3 and therefore type the name as "Mazda 3."--Flash176 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree entirely. It's difficult to use the common name argument to decide between two instances that are rendered the same in spoken English. I think one of the trademark conventions covers this, rather the common name guideline. You really need to consider "Mazda 3" and "Mazda3" as a whole compared to "Axela" for the purposes of the common name. Hippo (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. Jafeluv (talk) 08:20, 16 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.

See Talk:Mazda Atenza#Requested move for a similar requested move. Aubergine (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, I can't seem to get my head around why this was moved to Mazda3 when the convention for the Automobiles Wikiproject clearly states that only the home market may be used for the original article? IMO I prefer the article being named Axela myself, but it IS set in stone, which is what counts. カラム 11:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because a Wikiproject guideline can't magically override standard procedure. As explained above, we use the most common name for things. This is a very common car in many parts of the world, and it's called by the same name in all English-speaking markets. Friday (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, after reading all that hullabaloo that went on, I'm glad calmer heads prevailed, and the English Wikipedia used the term that the entire English-speaking world uses. I never heard of Axela before, and the numerous links to English sources don't use that term, so it would have been unnecessarily confusing. Thank you Tiptoety and others! Nerfer (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mazdaspeed3 merge

[edit]

Someone put merge templates on, but I don't see much discussion here. I think it probably makes sense to keep them separate, since the cars are treated as separate models by the automotive press. Articles covering the speed3 are always concerned with performance, and they compare it to other sport compacts and budget performance cars. IMO it makes sense to devote a lot of mazdaspeed 3 to performance related features, while such specific coverage makes less sense here. Friday (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been six months and no one has supported the proposed merger. I'm going to remove the mergefrom and mergeto tags from the articles. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They arent treated as separate cars...I dont know what magzines you read.. these articles should be merged, its only one engine variant of Mazda3 --Typ932 T·C 20:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Is the Current Model Year

[edit]

I've been following the Mazda 3 rather closely for a year and a half now, and I was a bit surprised to see the first generation Mazda3 still headlining the top of the Wiki site. I would have expected the 2010 to start headlining the page. The 2010 Mazda3 started showing up around dealer lots as early as late February 2009, though most dealers didn't receive them until March and April. As for the present, people on Mazda3 forums have commented that most dealers have exhausted their supply of 2008 and 2009 Mazda3's in lieu of 2010's (noting the posts at http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef23a67.ef23a61/0 , http://mazda3revolution.com/forums , http://www.mazda3forums.com , http://www.mazdas247.com ). In terms of Mazda's manufacturing and marketing strategy, the 2010 Mazda3 is what is happening today, and the previous generation is "in the past," so to speak.

So, should the top of the page be reworked a little to orient itself around the 2010 model year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garfield3d (talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelbase of latest model increased

[edit]

Wheelbase increased in the latest model of the Mazda 3 from 2640 to 2700mm. source: http://www.mazda.co.uk/cars/mazda3-hatchback/specs-and-prices/ Old value is used in the specs in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.98.197 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weights of each gen?

[edit]

Only currently listed curb weight is for latest gen mazda3. What about the rest? All other dimensions like wheelbase are listed for each gen. Dazalc (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Year ranges in section headers

[edit]

Looking at vehicle pages, I see that year ranges in section headers for each vehicle generation are inconsistent between pages. The year ranges indicate either the model year range or the production year range. For example, "Second generation (BL; 2008-2013)" on this page indicates the production years for the Mazda3, for model years 2010-2013. Ford Mustang on the other hand lists year ranges in generation section headers which indicate the model year range for each generation, i.e. "Fifth generation (2005–2014)" (production years for this Mustang generation are 2004-2014). I think listing model years in generation section headers makes far more sense than production years. Production years is very confusing from a research point of view as it's not the primary criteria for determining vehicle generation. Model year range is the primary criteria. Is there an auto-specific style guideline for this or can I just go ahead & change it? Jmathis555 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mazda3. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mazda3. 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) 08:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mazda3&oldid=1203933328"