User talk:Ddgonzal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, I'm ddgonzal, from Seattle USA. My hobby is all things Datsun 1200. I guess that makes me an eccentric!

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello Ddgonzal, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf melmac 23:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Datsun[edit]

Hi, I am one of the contributors to the Datsun page, and I have recently (happily) noted that you have contributed to this page, however I found some problems in your contributions, with referencing problems and issues with paragraphs as per Manual of Style. I have amended where I considered it necessary, however I have had some problems with the "John B. Rae book, page 47 ISBN 0-07-05112-8" , since I could not find neither the name nor the ISBN on the internet.

Hi Reuv, I have the book right here. Double-checking...Yes, it says "ISBN 0-674-47255-1", not the ISBN you mentioned. Both the Datsun article and Nissan article are listing the correct ISBN. Where did you see the other ISBN? I will update it if it is one of my contributions. Ddgonzal 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Another point refers to the production dates (May 2001 until October 2002) of the Datsun pick-up, can these be referenced with a reliable source?

Good point. There was a reference to the dates, but I had not labeled it as a reference (the URL for the web page). Sorry about that. The reference page shows the production dates (in Japanese). I used the REF tag this time, but I suspect I need some kind of Web reference tag instead? - Ddgonzal 18:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... I removed your reference to the external image by a wikipedia-external-image-link, which I however still have some doubts on.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the external image standard. What are you having doubts about? - Ddgonzal 18:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I also linked the in text reference 'for more information see....' with the wiki standard {{see|Nissan}}.


Please note that I have also adjusted the Datsun in the American Market since the split made left the second section with 3 short paragraphs and no means of continuation, while the title ==== Downplayed Use of Nissan Name in America? ==== for me hinted too much of sensationalism.

Agreed. You made a good rewrite. I didn't want to remove that text since I had not written most of it, so instead I countered it with a different perspective. The part I had problems with was this:
"Researchers suggest that the reason Nissan was branded as Datsun in the American market involves Japan and the Second World War. Corporate choice favoured “Datsun”, so as to distance the parent factory Nissan’s association by Americans with Japanese military manufacture."
I am pretty sure this is an old wives tale. What researchers? - Ddgonzal 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the changed infobox header I reverted it back to the previous one, since I see no reason for specifying in the title that Datsun was just a brand and not a company in itself. I make reference to Toyota's Lexus Brand page and to Nissan's own Infiniti division for similar use. The sections added 'not applicable' ought to be left out so as not to appear at all in the infobox.

I think we ought to keep on editing and expanding this article, especially the rebirth section and possibly work could be done on expanding the 'American market' section into a Non-Japanese market section (i.e. global) with divisions per continent (Europe, America...). Please feel free contact me on my talk page for any queries or ideas on the improvement of this article. Reuv 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Thanks for your original images! Are you familiar with Wikimedia Commons? I suggest you might like to check it out, log in, and upload your free licenced images there. Images on Commons can be put in Wikipedia articles the exact same way as if they were uploaded here, and have the additional benifits of being able to be used on other projects such as Wikipedias in other languages and can be displayed in galleries. For example, check out Commons:Category:Datsun vehicles and the various sub-categories. Commons has a fair number of images, but could use many more. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan page move[edit]

Could you please tell me where consensus was reached to move the Nissan article to Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.? In future do not move pages unless you are aware of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Nissan is and was a redirect page, not an article. I actually moved the article it was redirected to, and I was instructed to fix double-redirects. Now "Nissan" still redirects to the same article as before (but the article has a different name) so I'm not sure what kind of problem that causes. If I had waited for discussion and consensus there would have been a lot of broken links... sorry if I misunderstood. --Ddgonzal 08:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Titles should be simple, they do not have to be the full company name. Nissan Motors was much easier for anyone to find and search for then Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.. See Honda as a perfect example of a Simple Title. The company's full name can be placed in the article. The359 09:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nissan Diesel is also a simple title for the "Nissan Diesel Motor Co., Ltd." The359 09:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm just notifying you that I'm going to change the name in articles back to "Nissan" or "Nissan Motors", it's far more readable. I'm not going to undo every edit you've made, just some of the ones where the rename isn't appropriate. Mistakes are fine, everyone makes them and they offer opportunities to learn. James086Talk | Email 13:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are funny. This proposal had been out for months, and the consensus was for rename (with no voiced opposition). "Nissan Motors" is not the name of the company, they never called themselves that. "Nissan" would be more appropriate, as would "Nissan Motor Company". Any Objections to just naming the article "Nissan"? --Ddgonzal 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus where? The only place I see mention of the article title is a suggestion to change it to Nissan Motors or Nissan Motor Co. In fact, you were the only one to suggest "Nissan Motor Co., Ltd." No one in the discussion agreed on a title. Also, it should be noted that that discussion took place when the page was named "Nissan". It was then changed to Nissan Motors.
However, the actual name of the company is irrelevant. Read the method of style for titles of persons or companies. Nissan names more sense, but there are multiple things under the Nissan name, hence it was moved to Nissan Motors. The359 19:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the actual name of the company is irrelevant -- I would like to think the Nissan Motor Company would disagree.

Does anyone object to moving the article to "Nissan Motor Company"?

"Nissan Motors" is just plain wrong. That is not a name they ever called themselves. If the Ford article was called "Ford Motors" it would be silly (though "Ford Motor Company" might be correct). Although someone might say it is "irrelevant, we are encyclopedia!". I'm sure you don't really feel that way.

Consensus was not a problem beforehand, no one disagreed until now. But I have not heard a single specific reason why the move was a bad idea, instead you simply undid the change without even discussing it, which I find very disheartening.

There is an example in Naming Conventions of "JPMorgan Chase & Co" as being correct. In the case of Nissan, there are many Nissan Group companies, and to identify the auto manufacturing company it seemed best to use the full name that the company commonly uses. Not "Nissan Motors" which is some kind of weird made-up name. I find it somewhate disrepectful to make up a name for a company, even if it is easier to say or write. --Ddgonzal 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nissan's opinion is irrelevent as well. Read this policy. "Nissan Motor Co., Ltd." is also not commonly used. Since Nissan is taken for a disambiguation page, something else common is used in it's place: Nissan Motors.
  • Consensus was never reached, and you have never provided proof that any consensus was reached. The discussion on Talk:Nissan Motors was made at a time when the page was Nissan, and the page was therefore moved to Nissan Motors. "No one disagreed" is not consensus if three other people offered their own different opinions. It was YOU who moved a page without discussion. We simply undid what you had done.
  • "Nissan Motor Company" is quoted on [1]. It makes far better sense then "Nissan Motor Co., Ltd." It doesn't matter if one is not "official", we are not here to use official titles for the pages (the correct title can be used in the article, as is already done). However, even a move to Nissan Motor Company SHOULD BE DISCUSSED FIRST, AND CONSENSUS REACHED. If you want to change the page title, open a new discussion on the talk page, and reach an AGREEMENT with other editors. That means other editors have to approve your idea and that there are not others legitimately arguing for an alternative title. The359 22:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we think the move was a bad idea is because the name "Nissan Motor Co., Ltd" is hard to remember and read and the relevant naming convention says that it should be simple and only contain the legal titles if necessary. I have no objections to "Nissan Motor Company" though it should be discussed on Talk:Nissan Motors before the move is made. James086Talk | Email 23:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ddgonzal&oldid=1047525828"