![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this article titled Saab. It's an abbreviation and all the letters should be uppercase. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is the next 'instalment' - this is the best information I can find on the aircraft manufacturer's name (now Saab AB) http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/coms2/reportdesc_BUSINESS_C752C4130 I hope this helps Ballista 10:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ref. comment and edit by EMT147: Ah, interesting you should mention it - it has bothered me from time to time. While I believe that the 'claim' is becoming less valid with time, they may still be legitimate in that the heritage of the design department is probably still influenced by the jet history. Ballista 19:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
mmmm Godzilla eh? I believe that 9.5 and possibly 9.3 owe a lot to the Saab design dept, rather than being GM rebadging. Certainly, many of the other models seen in the US seem to be rebadge jobs but do not grace UK shores, so I've no experience of them. Ballista 03:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the suspension, body shape, interior et.c. is changed. They do use the same chassis. // Liftarn
The corporate name is Saab AB, where AB is an abbreviation for Aktiebolag. Just like the corporate name of a major Saab shareholder is BAE Systems plc, where plc is totally analogous to AB. The consensus is to keep the title of the article simple but write the full corporate name on the first line and on the infobox.
If you doubt what I'm saying see page 8 the SAAB annual report: [1]
Please be sure of your facts before blindly reverting and leaving edit summaries such as "When will people know that "Saab" isn't an abbreviation?" Many thanks Mark83 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's even explained fully in the first paragraph!! Mark83 10:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made an attempt to make the formatting of the company's name consistent, both across the Saab aircraft articles on Wikipedia, and with Saab's website. Having checked Manual of Style (trademarks)discussionand further discussion on that page, I found no definitve guideline on how "SAAB/Saab" should be written. It seems to be left to a case-by-case decision. As such, I have been bold, and made the decision to adopt the practice of the Saab's English language website, [www.saabgroup.com www.saabgroup.com]. This is referenced in the main text in the Lead paragraph, "Saab AB is the format found at www.saabgroup.com. SAAB is the Logo, not the current name." Also, the company name is genrally spelled as "Saab", not "SAAB", throughout the site. In addition, this is the pattern followed by the Swedish Wiki page at sv:Saab AB. Users who still feel this is incorrect are encouraged to contact Saab AB and inform them that their site is wrong. Once Saab AB had corrected their site, then we can change it here.
I don't expect my actions to solve the issue, but it should reduce confusion by following the company's own practice, and that of the Swedish Wiki. Note also that the Swedish Wiki page is a "Saab AB", and the Auto company is at " sv:SAAB", and is also followed by some of the other Wikis. It might be worth considering here too. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 19:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I find the current division between the articles for the aircraft and car/lorry manufacturers confusing. Surely, since the automotive division was originally part of SAAB, this should be mentioned here, rather than pointing to the other article in the preface line and making no further mention of car manufacturing? This creates the impression that they are and always were two separate organisations. -- TraceyR ( talk) 06:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about this one but should the Lawsuit about GMA Corp and Saab Barracuda LLC be mentioned? The profile page for Google does not mention every lawsuit the company is facing, nor should this one. In my mind it is not what Wikipedia is for. Also I am having difficulties finding any unbiased info about the lawsuit in question, so it does not seem like a major event. I suggest removing the lawsuit-part. Armcav ( talk) 12:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to [[[Saab Group]], and place the disambiguation page at Saab. This seems to be the most supported option. Cúchullain t/ c 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Saab AB → Saab – Per the company's own website at http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/, the company's name is not "Saab AB", and "Saab" or SAAB" is used most often on the company's website. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 18:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC) BilCat ( talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
*Support.
WP:NCCORP states we shouldn't use corporate suffix in articles titles.
Zarcadia (
talk) 09:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
*Move to
Saab (aerospace),
Saab (defence) or
Saab (defense). The automobile division is overwhelmingly primary topic for
Saab, but this article shouldn't be at
Saab AB as per
WP:NCCORP stating that we shouldn't use corporate suffix in articles titles.
Zarcadia (
talk) 10:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is really about 2 separate companies, and a major division of another company. The first is SAAB/Saab/Saab AB (1937-1968), the division was under Saab-Scania (1968-1995), and finally Saab AB/Saab Group after 1995. Would creating a separate article about the first company at Saab AB make sense, or is it better to keep all the history together on one page? There are precedences on WP for both options. There are still a lot of links pointing to Saab that refer to Saab AB or Saab Group, but I'll wait on a decision on splitting to clean up those links. - BilCat ( talk) 09:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about instances of corruption involved in sales of Gripen jets over at Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen#Neutrality regarding bribery, crashes, etc., please participate. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this article titled Saab. It's an abbreviation and all the letters should be uppercase. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is the next 'instalment' - this is the best information I can find on the aircraft manufacturer's name (now Saab AB) http://wrightreports.ecnext.com/coms2/reportdesc_BUSINESS_C752C4130 I hope this helps Ballista 10:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ref. comment and edit by EMT147: Ah, interesting you should mention it - it has bothered me from time to time. While I believe that the 'claim' is becoming less valid with time, they may still be legitimate in that the heritage of the design department is probably still influenced by the jet history. Ballista 19:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
mmmm Godzilla eh? I believe that 9.5 and possibly 9.3 owe a lot to the Saab design dept, rather than being GM rebadging. Certainly, many of the other models seen in the US seem to be rebadge jobs but do not grace UK shores, so I've no experience of them. Ballista 03:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the suspension, body shape, interior et.c. is changed. They do use the same chassis. // Liftarn
The corporate name is Saab AB, where AB is an abbreviation for Aktiebolag. Just like the corporate name of a major Saab shareholder is BAE Systems plc, where plc is totally analogous to AB. The consensus is to keep the title of the article simple but write the full corporate name on the first line and on the infobox.
If you doubt what I'm saying see page 8 the SAAB annual report: [1]
Please be sure of your facts before blindly reverting and leaving edit summaries such as "When will people know that "Saab" isn't an abbreviation?" Many thanks Mark83 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's even explained fully in the first paragraph!! Mark83 10:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made an attempt to make the formatting of the company's name consistent, both across the Saab aircraft articles on Wikipedia, and with Saab's website. Having checked Manual of Style (trademarks)discussionand further discussion on that page, I found no definitve guideline on how "SAAB/Saab" should be written. It seems to be left to a case-by-case decision. As such, I have been bold, and made the decision to adopt the practice of the Saab's English language website, [www.saabgroup.com www.saabgroup.com]. This is referenced in the main text in the Lead paragraph, "Saab AB is the format found at www.saabgroup.com. SAAB is the Logo, not the current name." Also, the company name is genrally spelled as "Saab", not "SAAB", throughout the site. In addition, this is the pattern followed by the Swedish Wiki page at sv:Saab AB. Users who still feel this is incorrect are encouraged to contact Saab AB and inform them that their site is wrong. Once Saab AB had corrected their site, then we can change it here.
I don't expect my actions to solve the issue, but it should reduce confusion by following the company's own practice, and that of the Swedish Wiki. Note also that the Swedish Wiki page is a "Saab AB", and the Auto company is at " sv:SAAB", and is also followed by some of the other Wikis. It might be worth considering here too. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 19:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I find the current division between the articles for the aircraft and car/lorry manufacturers confusing. Surely, since the automotive division was originally part of SAAB, this should be mentioned here, rather than pointing to the other article in the preface line and making no further mention of car manufacturing? This creates the impression that they are and always were two separate organisations. -- TraceyR ( talk) 06:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about this one but should the Lawsuit about GMA Corp and Saab Barracuda LLC be mentioned? The profile page for Google does not mention every lawsuit the company is facing, nor should this one. In my mind it is not what Wikipedia is for. Also I am having difficulties finding any unbiased info about the lawsuit in question, so it does not seem like a major event. I suggest removing the lawsuit-part. Armcav ( talk) 12:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to [[[Saab Group]], and place the disambiguation page at Saab. This seems to be the most supported option. Cúchullain t/ c 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Saab AB → Saab – Per the company's own website at http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/, the company's name is not "Saab AB", and "Saab" or SAAB" is used most often on the company's website. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 18:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC) BilCat ( talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
*Support.
WP:NCCORP states we shouldn't use corporate suffix in articles titles.
Zarcadia (
talk) 09:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
*Move to
Saab (aerospace),
Saab (defence) or
Saab (defense). The automobile division is overwhelmingly primary topic for
Saab, but this article shouldn't be at
Saab AB as per
WP:NCCORP stating that we shouldn't use corporate suffix in articles titles.
Zarcadia (
talk) 10:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is really about 2 separate companies, and a major division of another company. The first is SAAB/Saab/Saab AB (1937-1968), the division was under Saab-Scania (1968-1995), and finally Saab AB/Saab Group after 1995. Would creating a separate article about the first company at Saab AB make sense, or is it better to keep all the history together on one page? There are precedences on WP for both options. There are still a lot of links pointing to Saab that refer to Saab AB or Saab Group, but I'll wait on a decision on splitting to clean up those links. - BilCat ( talk) 09:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about instances of corruption involved in sales of Gripen jets over at Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen#Neutrality regarding bribery, crashes, etc., please participate. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)