This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
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
Nice question - in the 'old days', it was SAAB, which was indeed, as you say, an acronym. However, it all changed at a point that I don't exactly remember, possibly when the big SAAB-SCANIA conglomerate broke up and the company became known officially as Saab Automobile, to distinguish it from the Aircraft manufacturing company. Sorry, I don't have references handy, as I'm away from home just now. Perhaps this should go in the article? It was an issue that had bothered me slightly.
Ballista07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
The company logo is still in all caps. I suspect most people just don't know that it's an abbreviation. Unless someone can provide a reference saying it's now "Saab," the article should be renamed. -
Emt147Burninate!23:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Ballista19:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)reply
The current Saab lineup consists of rebadged and tweaked Opels, Subarus, and GMC trucks. It's born from jets like I'm born from a Mothra and Godzilla love tryst. -
Emt147Burninate!19:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Ballista03:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Yes, but the suspension, body shape, interior et.c. is changed. They do use the same chassis. //
Liftarn
Saab AB vs. Saab
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]
"Saab AB, Corporate Identity No. 556036-0793, registered office in Linköping, has been listed on the O-list at the Stockholm Stock Exchange since 1998 and on the Attract 40 section of the O-list since 2005."
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
Mark8310:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
I disagree. The policy you quote states "in the article itself, the title sentence of the article should include the abbreviated legal status. For example: Generic Corp. Ltd. is largest provider of widgets in the world." And this is the case with:
Microsoft - lead sentence says Microsoft Corp
Boeing - lead sentence says The Boeing Company
ExxonMobil - lead sentence says Exxon Mobil Corporation
Siemens AG titled that way due to disambig and leads with "Siemens AG"
BMW - lead sentence says Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
Deutsche Bank - lead sentence says Deutsche Bank AG
Royal Dutch Shell - lead sentence says Royal Dutch Shell plc
That's fine. I missed that detail in there. In any event, renaming this article to include AB is against policy. Done here.. -
Fnlayson (
talk)
15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Saab aircraft and cars
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)reply
Not only that, but I'm not sure that this article on the aircraft is the primary topic for disambiguation. Is not the automobile manufacturer at least as notable? --
JeffBillman (
talk)
22:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Even though this is at least 6 months later I would like to see the
Saab moved to being a disambiguation page or better the automobile company take the spot. The car company is more notable and more likely to be searched for by English Wikipedia users.
Camelbinky (
talk)
15:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Isn't it confusing to have the articles Saab and Saab AB for two different companies? I do think the aircraft manufacturer are more notable by the fact that Saab automobile was a part of Saab and Saab automobile has gone into bankruptcy and doesn't even exist anymore. A compromise would be as, you also suggest, to let the disambiguation page to be placed on
Saab.--
Kruosio (
talk)
15:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Company pages and Lawsuits
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)reply
Since the reference is a primary source (a court document), I've removed it per your rationale. I'm not even sure such detailed into on "Saab Barracuda LLC" needs to be in this article, or even if it's notable enough for its own article on WP. It seems to be a minor activity of the corporation. -
BilCat (
talk)
08:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Cúchullaint/
c16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose disambiguation should be at the base location.
Saab Automobile, known as "Saab", is much more prominent in the world at large than the aviation firm. The car company will continue to be for years to come, even without new cars. --
70.24.245.16 (
talk)
10:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose.
Saab should be the disambiguation page having links to both
Saab AB and
Saab Automobile, most people think about cars when they think about Saab. And I think
Saab AB is OK, it's a natural disambiguation described
here. Parenthetical disambiguation, like
Saab (defence) should be used if natural disambiguation is not possible. An example of including the legal status suffix of a company is
Daimler AG whereas
Daimler is a disambiguation page. --
August90 (
talk)
13:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)reply
My primary problem with "Saab AB" is that it doesn't appear to be used on the company's website at all, so it's not apparent if that is still the company's legal name. "Saab Group" is used, and is the name of their website, so I'd recommend that as the alternate title per natural DABbing. I'm OK with
Saab as a DAB page too, but an admin would have to move it, hence the discussion to reach a consensus one way or another. -
BilCat (
talk)
18:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisting comment Several alternatives have been proposed. It's worth seeing if there's further consensus for any of them. --
BDD (
talk)
18:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Split?
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)reply