Talk:Mazda MX-5 (NA)

Requested move 27 August 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

– Obscure WP:JARGON which lacks recognisability to anybody who isn't a Mazda mechanic or a diehard petrolhead. Simply stating the generation is immediately clear to all English speakers, per WP:PLAINENGLISH. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mazda MX-5 (NA) → Mazda MX-5 (first generation)
 * Mazda MX-5 (NB) → Mazda MX-5 (second generation)
 * Mazda MX-5 (NC) → Mazda MX-5 (third generation)
 * Mazda MX-5 (ND) → Mazda MX-5 (fourth generation)


 * Oppose. We discussed this issue years ago and settled with the chassis code, and we're sticking with this format. - Areaseven (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I promise you that the vast majority of people will process "Mazda MX-5 (NA)" as meaning either "Mazda MX-5 (North America)", "Mazda MX-5 (Not Available)", or possibly "Mazda MX-5 (Naturally Aspirated)". Chassis codes lack recognisability and therefore do not conform with WP:COMMONNAME. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikiprojects generally set things like naming conventions, which can override generic principles like WP:COMMONNAME. Just to pick three examples - if you look at Jaguar XJ, BMW 3 Series, and Lexus LS, you'll see all of them follow the  Model Name (Generation-code)  convention as with these MX-5 articles. You're pushing string uphill if you think you'll change any of that here. No point having one car wiki article go against the convention of all the others. Best to abandon here and take your (very reasonable) argument to WikiProject Automobiles 10mmsocket (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first sentences of the articles explained the title clearly enough. It has the benefits to "educate" people that didn't know about model codes, not confusing them. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose - The Mazda MX-5 (nth Generation) terms can still be used as redirects as that may help with searching, but I think definitely where available and widely used by reliable sources model codes are a good means of disambiguation. A7V2 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Source for automatic performance figures
Currently, this articles states "The NA with an automatic transmission reached 97 km/h (60 mph) in 9.9 seconds and had a top speed of 181 km/h (112 mph)." The source for this statement is this link. Examining the source, the figures apparently are obtained from a proprietary simulation software called " ProfessCars". I'd like to call into question the reliability of this source and the current presentation. I don't believe the results of a third-party simulation should be presented as definitive performance figures. The current article text implies that the auto-equipped NA "reached" the stated 0-60 time and "had" a top speed of 181 km/h, which completely belies the fact that these figures are sourced from a third-party simulation using an unclear methodology. At the very least the source of these figures should be explained in the article text, although my preference would be to remove this source and figures entirely. Thoughts? Prova MO  (talk)  19:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Add a Table for identifying different years?
I am a casual fan of the early Miatas, having owned a distinctive one of the second model year (IIRC). I was, then, a "connoisseur" of the various models, noting the exterior changes (move from thin ball-joint gimbals for side mirrors to ones with an aerodynamic fairing over it, increases in HP, etc). It would be interesting to see these simple differentiators compactly captured in a small table. DulcetTone (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to add such a table. Be aware that this table has to allow for differences between markets (what was on a US car may or may not be on a Japanese, European or Australian car even in the same year). It must also have references backing it up - including each major market. Also be aware that in most non-American markets a 1992 car means mid-1992 to mid-1993 while in America a 1992 car means mid-1991 to mid-1992. As you can see, it gets complicated real quick.  Stepho  talk 22:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)