Talk:Saab AB

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Don't the new 9-3 and 9-5 ride on an Opel platform? - Emt147 Burninate! 04:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born from jets 

message: 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: 
:"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)
thread_title: Saab AB vs. Saab

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Saab aircraft and cars 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Company pages and Lawsuits 

message: 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)
thread_title: Split?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bribery and corruption