Talk:Saab AB

SAAB

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)

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. Ballista 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again - as promised, here is reference to the relevant history. The required sequence of changes is laid out at the following URL: http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/models/2001/pr4.html - I hope this helps disentangle the problem. Ballista 10:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that we're talking about the aircraft company - I'll go back to work! Ballista 10:50, 1 May 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)

Gotcha. I'll chalk it up to Swedish weirdness. :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Manual of Style (trademarks)discussion regarding issues such as GETRAG and SAAB, which are capitalized registered acronym trademarks, but are not strict acronyms. SAAB is a topic in that discussion currently. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Born from jets

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)

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. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:15, 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)

Don't the new 9-3 and 9-5 ride on an Opel platform? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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 Mark83 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's even explained fully in the first paragraph!! Mark83 10:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Saab vs SAAB, part 71

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)

WP:Naming conventions, Companies says corporate legal descriptors such as inc, plc and others should not be included in article names. This could also serve as a guide for text in the article to some extent. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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
• etc. etc. Mark83 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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. This is the equivalent of not including Inc. or LLC. The article Aktiebolag about AB explains that it is roughly the equivalent of Ltd, or PLC. Apteva (talk) 22:42, 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)

• 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)
  • See the bottom of the Saab website "© 2010 SAAB GROUP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.". This would suggest then, to move Saab (automobile) to Saab, and to move Saab AB to Saab Group. Apteva (talk) 02:04, 5 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • I'm happy with almost everything as long as Saab is as a disambiguation page. --August90 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Saab Group works for me, natural disambiguation, and a dab page at the simple name -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, I see one potential problem in Saab Group name. Saab AB uses that name quite little and media even less. "Group" is visible only in the website address and at © 2010 SAAB GROUP, otherwise they use only the name Saab. I'm not saying this article should be moved to Saab, I think we have a consensus about making it a disambiguation page. I just wanted to mention this potential problem before the article is moved. Personally, I'm happy with Saab Group but I'd be equally happy with e.g. Saab (defense). --August90 (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Why would you use Saab (defense), as it should be spelled Saab (defence) ? (or we could just avoid future arguments between people on how to spell defenz by not using that particular word for disambiguation) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've reconsidered my earlier statement The automobile division is overwhelmingly primary topic for Saab as page views for [2] and [3] are pretty even. Therefore I propose move Saab AB to Saab Group and redirect Saab to Saab (disambiguation). Zarcadia (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That works for me too. - BilCat (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I otherwise agree with you, Zarcadia, but what if we moved Saab (disambiguation) to Saab instead of that redirecting? --August90 (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Seeing as there's no PT then Saab (disambiguation) should be moved to Saab. Zarcadia (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

Bribery and corruption

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)