Talk:Mazda 929

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Copyright violation[edit]

http://www.mazda-929.info/history/ seems to violate the copyright of this article's authors. Conscious 11:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citation for designer of 1990 929[edit]

The reference doesn't substantiate the designer of the vehicle. Thoughts? 842U (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings[edit]

I feel it would make sense to reorganise the sections by replacing the bodystyle headings with series headings: i.e. LA2 + LA3 + LA4 + HB + HC + HD + HE. GTHO (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree. Please, if you have time, do it. That's what they do in the equivalent French and German wiki entries (maybe others) where there seems to be a bit more text. With a little bit of help, as necessary, from Google translate (not quite as dumb as it used to be, these days) ......but ONLY if you have LOTS of time available. Success Charles01 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, the current layout is not the most logical way to do it. Love the changes otherwise! Cheers, Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, the text is mostly located in the relevant Mazda Luce articles as the 929 was simply a rebadge used in most export markets. Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. The hardtop sedan and regular sedans have quite different styling, so it is good to show both to avoid confusion. Also, the HB series is based on two unrelated models, the Luce sedan and Cosmo coupe. Sedan and wagon could be combined in my opinion. Also, I don't believe it is standard usage to include an infobox in a disambiguation page, thoughts? OSX (talk • contributions) 23:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the infobox looks unecessary, and suggests that this is an article rather than a DAB. As for the bodystyles, I would suggest including all versions that are currently here (ie, two images and links for the HB) but organized chronologically rather than by bodystyle. I don't think we ought to remove anything (aside from perhaps the infobox). Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, changes have been implemented. I feel that some of the years may be suspect (being based on JDM Mazda Luce dates as opposed to the delayed export release dates). Also, I cannot work out when the HB coupe (Cosmo) was discontinued. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr C is correct in having spotted that I had overlooked the way that the more substantive English language entry (1) does exist (elsewhere) and (2) uses nomenclatures quite unfamiliar to those of us whose awareness of these cars is based on having grown up in Europe (which for Mazda 'n me includes the UK ... but that's another conversation). Actually I know perfectly well how the English language entries on the Mazdas are arranged and combined: merely forgotten it. I'm sure the marketing gurus at Mazda (and other Japanese automakers) had their reasons for giving their cars completely different names in different places, but it does make Wikipedia a complicated place for those checking out the entries affected. I wish I had a better answer. & Hrmph. Charles01 (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]