Talk:Mazda Axela

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cars Portal This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

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)

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

Contents 1 'Future models' 2 'Mazdaspeed 3' 3 This needs to be redirected to Mazda3 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 4.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 4.2 Discussion 5 Contested move request 6 Reduce Length of Mazdaspeed 3 section 7 Body style

[edit] 'Future models'

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.

[edit] 'Mazdaspeed 3'

Someone needs to redirect Mazdaspeed 3.

[edit] This needs to be redirected to Mazda3

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)

[edit] Requested move

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)

[edit] Contested move request

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)

• Mazda Axela → Mazda3 — Worldwide name —14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)H^t/c

Given the discussion directly above, there is no way that this request can be considered uncontroversial. --Stemonitis 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• The WikiProject convention has not changed, hence I see no reason for moving. PrinceGloria 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

• The home market is the market where the vehicle went on sale first. PrinceGloria 01:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Reduce Length of Mazdaspeed 3 section

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. --— Typ932^{T | C}  11:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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 --— Typ932^{T | C}  11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Body style

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)