|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nissan Pao article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Automobiles||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|This article contains a translation of 日産・パオ from ja.wikipedia.|
・日産パオの記事に対する開示規約。 Wikipedia GFDL OK 条件1、公的機関投稿条件。 「GFDLによる使用」のみ容認。 条件2、(イ)原作本人のみ原文使用、投稿可。 条件2、(ロ)該当事項に必要なる 追記、加筆に至っては奨励容認。 又は同原作本人容認の元による転載可。 条件3、利己的無断２次使用は不許可。
ダブルチャージクラブ ＠首謀者、eｋ-10stとやま 参照URL
The original concerning Nissan and the pao is an offer from my Brog article. The retouch request and the correction edit are hoped for if necessary because the original is Japanese. The use permission by GFDL has been put out and see reference URL, please.
･Indication rule to article on Nissan pao. 1 and public organization contribution condition of Wikipedia GFDL OK condition. Only "Use with GFDL" is allowed. Only condition 2(I) and the original person in question can use the original, and contribute. It needing becomes condition 2(Ro) and a pertinent matter. It allows it the encouragement as for the postscript and the retouch.
Or, it can be a reprint by the origin of this original person in question allowance. Use of condition 3 the second without permission self-regard is not permitted.
Double charge club @ mastermind and ek-10st Toyama ・Here referring ahead.
--ek-10st Toyama 18:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)ek-10stとやま
Nissan Pao Se Ededit
The original writer's responsibility edit. The original edition translation was reviewed. --ek-10st Toyama 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)ek-10stとやま
Rework Nov 22, 2007
I redid this article, as good as I could, in the manner I treated the Nissan Be-1 some months ago in order to make it more readable. Unfortunately there were some details in the options list I had to delete, as it was impossible (for me) to make head or tail out of them ("Bakery soft headed business"??). Also, www.carfolio.com lists the Pao as having rear drum brakes, not discs, as originally stated in the first paragraph. --328cia (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 44th anniversary of JFK´s assassination :-((
In this edit, Mr.choppers changes
- Be-1, Pao, Figaro, and S-Cargo were attempts to create cars with designs as desirable as those of personal electronics products from companies such as Matsushita and Sony.
- The Be-1, Pao, Figaro, and S-Cargo were attempts to create cars with designs as desirable as those of personal electronics products from companies such as Panasonic and Sony.
with the edit summary:
- Matsushita? I don't think so.
The The is needed, of course. No problem there.
This is about two cars and a van marketed within Japan over twenty years ago. At that time, Matsushita used two brand names in Japan: National and Panasonic, for electrical and electronic appliances respectively. (Yes, in this distant past, electrical goods didn't have complex circuit boards.) Panasonic was not a company. Matsushita became Panasonic (in Japan, anyway) as recently as October 2008 (source).
- Well, I believe that Panasonic is the brand which had the styling cachet that Nissan was gunning for with the pike cars, no matter who the mother company is. Here is a NYT article which also prefers mentioning Panasonic. And please accept my apologies if I came across as snarky or rude in the edit summary. I will include the NY Times article as a reference. Best, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since Panasonic is the name that the public was aware of, may I suggest using 'brands' instead of 'companies', like the following:
- That's well intended but I don't think it works. Or anyway I don't consider products as coming from brands; instead, they have brands. If we say that these came from brands, people are likely to find "brand" a bizarre would-be synonym for "company", and either mentally rephrase or actually edit accordingly, and we'd be back where we started. If you don't want Matsushita, try:
- -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sound's like an acceptable rewording to me. 00:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, no, not snarky or rude at all. For my part, I should apologize for having only supplied a Japanese-language source. Try this one, which is just as authoritative, has more detail, and is in English. ¶ the NYT is one of the better US newspapers and its copyediting is probably better than most, but it's no New Yorker. The writer is misinformed, and the misinformation got into print. There's nothing particularly unusual about this, particularly when the brand name is/was shorter and more palatable than the company name: you'll see plenty of confident assertions in English that Konica made this or that design decision in the 1970s or 80s when (in Japan, anyway) there was no Konica aside from products (the company was Konishiroku). ¶ As an aside, I remember people confidently writing in a certain message forum five or so years ago about how Panasonic in Japan was doing this or that: clearly they hadn't read the small print on the products they possessed, but I couldn't politely correct them with "Matsushita" because the nannyware employed by the message forum refused any message that mentioned "Matsushita". (Really. Because of the brown stuff in "Matsushita". Idiotic, yes, but the idiocy wasn't mine.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)