Talk:Aerocar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Aerocar. —Mets501 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting this page be moved to Aerocar, which is currently a redirect to this page. — Reinyday, 06:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are templates at WP:RM which are supposed to be added here to facilitate discussion. But this seems to me to be standard name of manufacturer plus name of model used in all car articles, and it does distinguish from other "aerocars". Remember also that initial capitalization of article names. Gene Nygaard 09:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The standard refers to how we normally address vehicles. For example, the Ford Explorer is usually called the Ford Explorer or the Explorer. However, the Aerocar is usually referred to as the Aerocar or the Taylor Aerocar. Similarly titled vehicle articles include Athmac (not Athmac Athmac), Alcyon (not Alcyon Alcyon), Alfi (not Alfi Alfi), Arimofa (not Ari-Motorfahrzeugbau Arimofa), Apperson (not Apperson Apperson), Amilcar (not Amilcar Amilcar), Amco (not American Motors Amco), Aurea (not Aurea Aurea) and those are just some of the A's. "Aerocar Aerocar" is awkward and is rarely used when linking to the article (people use a piped link reading [[Aerocar Aerocar|Aerocar]]). It does not need to distinguish itself from other "Aerocars" as there is a disambiguation link at the top of the page, just like at the top of thousands of other articles. I don't understand your final sentence, so I cannot address that point. — Reinyday, 11:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The last point refers to the fact that someone linking to aerocar (lowercase) and intending a generic meaning as used in flying car will go to the same place, and we cannot create an article name which distinguishes an initial lowercase aerocar from an initial uppercase Aerocar, because all our article names start with capital letters--initial capitialization is "turned on" in this Wikipedia (unlike Wiktionary, for example, where it was turned off a while ago). Gene Nygaard 12:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think "aerocar" (lowercase) is used as a generic meaning for flying car. I've never come across such a usage, but if you feel it is such, then simply add a link to the disambiguation page stating that aerocar is a generic term for flying car. — Reinyday, 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What it boils down to is that I think that Aerocar should redirect to flying car (which includes the disambiguation links to various proper names "Aerocar" and "Aero Car") rather than Aerocar Aerocar. Do you have any good reasons why Aerocar Aerocar should be the primary disambiguation instead? Gene Nygaard 13:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Flying car does not include most of the disambiguation links available at Aero Car, and would never include links to things such as the Whirlpool Aero Car, which is a cable car. Disambiguation should be left to disambiguation pages. Aerocar Aerocar isn't a disambiguation page, instead it is the most well known Aerocar. — Reinyday, 04:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Then Aerocar should redirect to Aero Car, or vice versa, with one disambiguation page, rather than to Aerocar Aerocar or flying car. I don't think there is any clear favorite for the likely intended meaning that would justify a primary disambiguation to the article here. Gene Nygaard 10:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think there is a "clear favorite for the likely intended meaning", which is why I requested the page move. I'm now going to wait and see what others think. Hopefully some other editors will chime in. — Reinyday, 11:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, Manufacturer Modelname is the usual standard for article titles on cars, but if they are both the same thing then we obviously need to do something different to avoid having ridiculous titles like this. If "Aerocar" usually refers to this thing, then the article should be at Aerocar. Recury 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The double name is pretty ridiculous. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.