text:
Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive. Precision and accuracy

Giving context to the title
I think that in naming an article the criterion should not only be that we should avoid a name that also has another meaning. I think it should also be such that if you see the title isolatedly, for example in Recent Changes, that, as much as possible without making the name too long, it should give an idea what the article is about.

In the case of name of a band, album, book, movie it would be very helpful to put "(band)", etc. at the end of the article name, for those who do not know that it is a band, etc.

In the case of a flight one may guess that it is about a crash, otherwise it would not be worth an article. Therefore, leaving out the word "crash" is strange, but not a problem. However "American Airlines flight 11" can better be renamed "American Airlines flight 11 (WTC attack)" or something like that. It is much more descriptive: almost everybody has heard about this attack but many people (at least outside the US) do not bother to remember flight numbers. --Patrick 11:40 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * I respectively disagree - names are used to distinguish one thing from another. Any more information goes in the article. "Use common names of persons and things" supersedes precision. Otherwise we would have London (England, Europe) and bios with 5 or 6 name parts instead of the most common two or three. See also disambiguation. In short, there is no reason to disambiguate a term unless there is a valid naming conflict with another encyclopedic term and there is a reasonable ambiguity between the topics. Mars for example. --mav 11:53, 23 January 2003 (UTC)

 * You did not comment on my last sentence: Almost everybody has heard about this attack but many people (at least outside the US) do not bother to remember flight numbers. --Patrick 12:16 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * That's why the first line of American Airlines flight 11 goes:
 * American Airlines flight 11 was one of four airplanes used in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack; it was crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.
 * I reckon that anyone searching for relevant terms should find the article because of the info in the article, or else will find it from the comprehensive page on the attack itself. --Martin 12:27, 23 January 2003 (UTC)

 * So far as the title actually having any meaning to anyone outside the US, Patrick is absolutely correct. I must have clicked on that article three or four times over a week or two after seeing it in Recent Changes (because I am interested in aeroplanes and airlines) before I finally learned to remember that it's just yet another one of the ubiquitous WTC articles and is thus best left to those who are interested in such things. Now I am no doubt the exception, and the opposite-way-round reasoning would apply to most people, but either way the present title is unhelpful and the (WTC attack) suffix would make it much more useful. As to whether that is sufficient reason to change it, or whether it is better to retain it as-is on some sort of aesthetic grounds, I don't offer an opinion. However, I gather that the article, is not about flight ... er whatever number it is, but about the WTC attack. Surely an entry ought to have a title that is meaningful? --Tannin 12:31 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * They are about the most famous flights by those names and they are meaningful. The argument about establishing context with the title is bogus - just because somebody doesn't know who Oscar Wilde is, doesn't mean that we should insert extra information in the the title. All that does is make it more difficult to link to and serves as a bad example to newcommers on how to name pages. Read our naming convention on simplicity. Context and such is established within the article. --mav 07:00, 24 January 2003 (UTC)

In summary
Adding context to article titles: eg American Airlines flight 11 (WTC attack) Keeping titles as common as possible (but no more) Summary added by Martin 22:17, 6 March 2003 (UTC)
 * +: makes more sense if you see a title in recent changed
 * +: more descriptive
 * Supported by Patrick, Tannin
 * +: Context can be given within the article
 * +: searches should pick up info from the body of an article, or from category pages
 * +: makes linking easier
 * +: makes our naming conventions clear
 * Supported by mav, Martin, Tannin

 * Yeah, yeah, I just contradicted myself. I guess it comes down to having the simplest possible title that is not misleading. It all depends on the particular example. Take Korean Air flight KAL-007. That one is not confusing, because it was major headline news in its own right. American Airlines flight 11, on the other hand, was just yet another part of the WTC attack, and should be named that way. --Tannin 11:48, 7 March 2003 (UTC)

Mobile phone
I've asked the same question on the talk page. Shouldn't the title be mobile telephone? --Cacophony 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * If you think Mobile phone should be renamed to Mobile telephone you can take that up at WP:RM - the procedure for renaming with approval is explained on that page. Note however:
 * There are approx. 25 times as many "google hits" for mobile phone as for mobile telephone;
 * These two expressions are synonyms, without ambiguity (so not really "naming conventions (precision)" matter);
 * You would need fairly good grounds to promote a page renaming against a clear google test result, as explained at naming conflict;
 * If you think this a matter of British vs. American English (I didn't think so, Americans would say "cellular phone" I believe) - in that case best also have a look at Manual of Style. --Francis Schonken 20:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Close, but IME(xperience), cell phone predominates, cellular telephone is ponderously formal and proportionately rare, and cellular phone and cell telephone would be clear but otherwise unthinkable mixes of formality and informality. --Jerzy•t 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization differences (and apparent contradiction)
I'm trying to sort out lame edit war at Iron maiden, and hoped to find the basis in this policy... and I found it less clear than desireable. The edit war in question revolves around the question where the iron maiden (torture device) should reside (see Talk:Iron maiden). Having closed that RM, I concluded that the band is the primary topic for "iron maiden" (despite the older meaning of the phrase). Thus, "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?" dictates that iron maiden should redirect to the band.

I thought that having different articles at titles with slight capitalization difference is frowned upon (with possible exception of acronyms, like Pin vs. PIN). "Special" naming conventions like WP:NCF and WP:NCTV already state something similar, e.g:

"When there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with an existing Wikipedia article, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is the primary topic for that name, title the film article like this: Film Title (film)."

However, this very page provides an opposite example: Red meat vs. Red Meat. I think that the latter title is inadequate, and that it should be moved to Red Meat (comic). But in general, I think this page should be clearer on the topic (should it?).

Thoughts? --Duja ► 07:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The conclusion obvious from the RM was that the band is the primary topic for Iron Maiden. I (continue to) disagree that it is the primary topic for iron maiden, which was not the subject of the RM anyway, and think this situation falls in the Red meat vs. red meat example. IMO, capitalization differences are fine for differentiating articles, especially since the article with the other capitalization can be easily handled with a hatnote. --JHunterJ 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I have no particular opinion on my own (I'm not lazy to use Shift key) what is best. The common practice (as enshrined in WP:NCP and WP:NCTV) is to not differentiate on capitalization only, but it's not universal, as Red M/meat and Iron M/maiden demonstrate; however, those are exceptions rather than the rule. Another difference between the two is that the primary topic in red meat case is the meat, so the "lazy typist" will arrive there immediately by typing "red meat". However, the "lazy typist" (which is the band's fan likely to be< >;) ) would arrive to the torture device in the band's case. There are actually two aspects to consider: internal linking (which is less of a problem, at least in iron maiden case, as any sane editor will title-case the wikilink to the band) and searching (which is the problem at hand, with "lazy typist" readers). --Duja ► 12:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I also have no aversion to the shift key. In this case, though, the failure of Iron maiden (torture device) to be moved to Iron maiden should have resulted in the retention of Iron maiden (torture device), Iron Maiden, and Iron maiden as a redirect to Iron maiden (disambiguation) -- at which point, the dab page should have been moved over the redirect, or a different discussion about whether this should continue to be an exception to the WP:NCP/WP:NCTV guidelines should have been held. I like Iron Maiden (I have a few of their albums) and don't have much affinity for iron maidens (never owned any), but the primary topic of "iron maiden" should be the device (IMO of course). Similar musical confrontations, without the benefit of being able to distinguish by caps: Muse vs. Muse (band), Madonna vs. Madonna (entertainer), although the fans were sure that the band or entertainer was the primary topic. --JHunterJ 16:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Some other examples of titles where capitalization has been decided to be insufficient disambiguation are Lethal Injection (album) and Death Certificate (album). The former was recently moved from Lethal Injection, citing the latter as precedent. --GTBacchus(talk) 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Many typers mistakenly use the wrong case or type all in one case or another. Because of this, titles differentiated only by case should be disambiguated. In a two-word title, a case change means there is only one letter of differentiation — easy to make a mistake. If there are other variables such as periods/full-stops, these can fall outside of any guideline. —   AjaxSmack     22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts
WP:NC(P) links here, and WP:NC (P) links to the naming conventions for people. Clearly we need more precision in our shortcuts. How should we straighten this out? --Dekimasu よ! 09:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * All the links have been fixed, and the shortcut redirected, and a dablink placed at Naming conventions (people). --jc37 10:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito
An RFC on content related to this convention has been opened, comments are welcome. -- MBisanz  talk 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"By topic" secn and its sole subsecn, "Philosophy"
The text of the secn & subsecn has been around "forever" essentially unchanged. If philosophy epitomizes the problems that all topic areas (not topics!) share, let's tweak the text and retitle the headings. If not, surely we have done the corresponding job elsewhere, sometime in the last 5 years, and we should move this text to that place, or to the place that for philosophy corresponds to that myriad of other places, and provide lks to all those places. --Jerzy•t 21:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think this section should go - there is nothing special about the way philosophical articles are handled in this regard. --Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OED vs. American Heritage Dictionary
I propose listing the Oxford English Dictionary before the American Heritage Dictionary, as it is widely considered far more authoritative. Not sure, but I think Merriam-Webster should be second while we're at it... --Wulf (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts over precision section
The section "Conflicts over precision" doesn't make any sense to me. Can someone who knows what it's trying to say rewrite it to make it clearer? Or perhaps we can just delete it? --Kotniski (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wording
Can we try to get this wording right? We have now: In this case, try to avoid confusion, per the general principle: When a reader enters this term and clicks "Go", what article are they most likely expecting to view as a result? If there is a reasonable chance a reader might have been looking for another meaning, use an appropriate disambiguation technique: But this is not quite logical; this general principle as stated would bear on the choice of primary topic (if any), not on the decision to disambiguate. The relevant principle here is rather that any meaning (article topic) that a reader might reasonably be looking for (not just the most likely one) should be made accessible. So I would propose the following more pertinent wording (or something similar): In this case, try to avoid confusion, per the general principle: When readers enter this term and click "Go", what article might they reasonably be expecting to view as a result? If there is more than one meaning that they might be looking for, use an appropriate disambiguation technique: Objections? --Kotniski (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Users usually don't look for more than one meaning at the same time. So, no, less clear and not an improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * That isn't my point. The point is that we're concerned here with the different meanings that different users might be looking for, not at all with which meaning is most likely being searched for. --Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * If different spellings USUALLY have different meanings (see section title), each spelling USUALLY comes with the meaning most readers might be looking for. The guidance is only about covering for (slight) misspellings or alternate spellings that USUALLY (should/would) mean something different - and to which degree we cover that. Not every (less common) misspelling is covered with a hatnote in another article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, I see what you're getting at now. I"ve added a "however" to make it clear. --Kotniski (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Why? No "however" needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Because there's a contrast or change of topic. If you say "Do A per principle X. Do B." then it reads as if B is part of what we do in accordance with principle X. But here, as we've established, "B" isn't anything to do with the principle we're quoting - it's a quite separate aspect of the topic; the other side of the coin, even. --Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * "Do A per principle X. If Y, do B." is valid English. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm not saying it's bad English, but the way it's written is confusing, since regardless of the "if", it looks as if the second part is a continuation of the first. I think I see what needs to be done - move the "principle" to the very first sentence of the paragraph, before the examples. --Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Why? No, doesn't make sense. I think you're trying to read something that isn't there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I'll show you what I mean on the page. It certainly makes more sense than what we have at the moment. --Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

←Please don't, you're just edit-warring over something that isn't there. Use talk page if you must. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Something that isn't there? What do you mean? Of course it's there. I"m not trying to edit war, I thought we were having a civilized discussion; please WP:AGF. --Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Then stop it. Take a step back. Read it a few times. What you're doing doesn't make sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, I"ve read it. Why do you keep reverting? Surely you can see the problem? There are two topics in this paragraph: (a) how to name articles; (b) how to apply disambiguation techniques. The "principle" as you want it stated relates to (a), not to (b). Everything I've tried to do in order to make that clear, you've rejected. What solution do you suggest? --Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Really, there is no problem. At least you've not been able to demonstrate that there is, as far as I can see. So, no, surely no solution in search of a problem is needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I keep describing the problem. Believe me, I read it, I'm an intelligent speaker of English, and I misunderstood it. If that's the case, then I presume that others will do likewise. So we should make it clearer somehow. --Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, don't "assume", maybe just admit a minor misreading on your part, instead of extrapolating your error to everyone. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Please don't separate "another" (second sentence) from what it is referring to ("most likely meaning" in first sentence), by putting the examples in between. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * And what problem do you have with putting "however" in between? It may be unnecessary, but does it do any harm? It certainly does good for people who read it as I did. --Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, it does harm in that it seems to suggest that A and B are mutually exclusive options, which is not the case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * And please stop the presumption "people who read it as I did", well they don't as far as I can tell. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * All right, since you're so insistent, let's leave it for now.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete the last two sections
Any remaining objections to deleting the last two sections of this page, namely "Conflicts over precision" and "By topic/Philosophy", as suggested above under and ? --Kotniski (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

They're on their way, then... (I'll comment them out for now, in case anyone wants to salvage anything from them.) --Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge
It is proposed to merge this page (and a number of others) with WP:Naming conventions. Please discuss at WT:Naming conventions. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the proposed merged text is now in place at WP:Naming conventions. Do people feel the content of this page is now sufficiently well covered there that we can replace this page with a redirect to the appropriate section of that policy?--Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the absence of objections, then, I'm doing this. (The capitalization thing discussed below is also mentioned at WP:Naming conventions (capitalization).)--Kotniski (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should we allow article titles that differ only by capitalisation?
There are currently at least two requested move discussions (1, 2) where the issue of whether article titles should differ only by capitalisation has been discussed. WP:CAPS is unclear on the issue stating only that is possible but offering no advice as to whether it should be done. WP:PRECISION gives the example of Red Meat and Red meat but this was added without discussion in 2006 and although it's exsitance for that long gives it some credence it is notable that a disucssion in 2007 reached no obvious consensus over whether this example should be included or the wider issue. Given the lack of clear policy and the differing views in the requested moves I feel it is time to guage consensus again (or indeed for the first time). As far as I can see there are four options: Dpmuk (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Always allow article titles that differ only by capitilisation (e.g. Nervous breakdown and Nervous Breakdown could be seprate articles as could WASP and Wasp).
 * 2) Disallow articles titles that differ only by capitilisation of the first letter of words (e.g. Nervous breakdown and Nervous Breakdown should not be different articles) but allow it when there are greater differences (e.g. WASP and Wasp).
 * 3) Always disallow article titles that differ only by capitilisation (Nervous breakdown and Nervous Breakdown should not be seperate articles nor should WASP and Wasp).
 * 4) Treat each instance on a case by case basis.
 * My personal preference is for 2. I think readers are likely to search for terms by capitalising each initial letter even when it is not a proper noun - possibly bacause they are ignorant of wikipedias naming convention.  Consquently I think it would be confusing to have seperate articles at Nervous breakdown and Nervous Breakdown.  I think it's unlikely that users would delibrately search using all caps unless searching for an acronym.  If they did so accidently (e.g. caps lock on) it should be immediately obvious what they've done wrong (unlike in the first case) as the article title will be in all caps.  Therefore I see no problem with Wasp and WASP being seperate articles. Dpmuk (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I favor something close to #1 (with the understanding that there will be exceptions). I agree that some users unfamiliar with our naming conventions seeking the generic term will capitalize the first letter of each word and arrive at an unintended article. But under your preferred option, users familiar and unfamiliar with our naming conventions seeking the proper noun will capitalize the first letter of each word and arrive at an unintended article.  In either circumstance, a hatnote will point the reader in the right direction (so we needn't worry about that), but I believe that it makes more sense to avoid unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation and reinforce the fact that we capitalize the first letter of the second and subsequent words only for proper nouns (thereby assisting readers/potential editors in familiarizing themselves with our naming conventions).  —David Levy 14:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with David, so #1 - hatnotes are sufficient to show readers the way, while the differentiation is a bonus to those who do know (or guess) our conventions. It's a win-draw situation. (Though exceptions might be made in extreme cases, like the Streets of London vs. Streets Of London one I saw I think at WP:PRECISION.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I support #1, per my comments at Talk:Nervous Breakdown (Album). In essence, readers who search for general terms by capitalizing the first letter of each word have searched incorrectly, as they are in fact conducting a search for proper nouns (or acronyms, if they're searching in all caps). If this causes them to arrive at an unintended article, hatnotes will direct them to the proper one, which is the purpose of hatnotes to begin with. Conversely, readers who capitalize their proper nouns correctly when searching will arrive at the intended article on the first try. If we disallow differentiation by capitalization, we may provide some convenience to readers who do not use capitalization properly in their searches, but at the same time we would be inconveniencing those who do, because those who enter their proper nouns correctly in the search box would never reach the intended article on the first try (as in the Nervous Breakdown example). We would be conveniencing users who don't understand how WP's naming conventions work and inconveniencing those who do. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say #1 is the best option at this point. If there are things that differ only in capitalization but certainly won't be confused–e.g., some well-known proper nouns and common nouns with titles that don't otherwise differ–we don't need to force anything upon them. Of course, #4 should be exercised when needed; flexibility is always a plus. Dekimasu よ! 12:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer #1. More links are kept simple, more readers can reach their desired articles via the Go box, and hatnotes and dab pages can get the rest to their destinations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * #1, and use hatnotes liberally in this instance. This comes up occasionally with academic journals:  The subject is classical philology, and the journal is Classical Philology.  Note that I don't say that editors must use capitalization as the primary means of disambiguation:  I have no problem with the journal article residing at Classical Philology (journal).  But I'm firmly in favor of editors having the option.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer (#2) since it is more logical, considering alot of people treat some terms with capitalized lettering, from the articles I've cleaned up. And the audience of WikiPedia is not solely experienced editors, who know about capitalization. But make it non-binding, a guideline or a recommendation, so that in very clear cases of very popular note, capitalization by initial letter can be used to discriminate. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, some readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia's naming conventions seeking the generic term will capitalize the first letter of each word. But most readers seeking proper nouns (particularly those that are similar to generic terms) will act in kind, regardless of whether they're familiar with our naming conventions.  Meanwhile, the non-capitalized variant will be typed by readers who are familiar with our naming conventions and many readers who are not.
 * Therefore, disambiguation via capitalization usually helps more readers reach the intended articles more easily. It also conveys our naming conventions to newcomers, thereby assisting them in finding future articles and reducing the likelihood that they'll make the sort of editing mistake that you find yourself cleaning up.  (Having the capitalized variant routinely lead to the generic term encourages such errors.)
 * I agree, of course, that any preferred setup will have exceptions and should not be deemed inviolable. —David Levy 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I strongly favor #1 and agree with most of the above comments favoring this option. There is no technical requirement to disambiguate article titles themselves unless they would be otherwise identical under WP naming conventions, and a difference in case means they are not identical. Use of hatnotes to avoid possible reader confusion is preferable in these cases, as it makes searching for and linking to the correct name easier in most cases. (Of course, as with everything on WP, there will be exceptions, so #4 will come into play in rare cases.) Station1 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * There is no technical requirement ... Maybe not, but there is a strong Usability argument. Wikipedia is not provided for "those familiar with our naming conventions", but for every Web user.
 * If I search on Google, Yahoo etc, I might type "michael jackson" because it's quicker and I know from experience that capitalization makes no difference.
 * If I type "basset hound" or "LINEAR MOTOR" in Wikipedia's Go box, I reach Basset Hound or Linear motor without difficulty.
 * Users in general are not going to be concerned about Wikipedia naming conventions. (How many will know that something like WP:CANINESARETHEEXCEPTION turns Basset hound into Basset Hound?). A user who has discovered Basset Hound may a minute later type in "Red Meat" or "Nervous Breakdown" and land in the wrong place.
 * If I type "winchester cathedral" I reach the article describing that ancient building, with a hatnote leading me to the song of the same name. There is no way to distinguish the two lexically.  Why should "Red Meat (song)" be treated differently from "Winchester Cathedral (song)" ?
 * So I would prefer #2 or #3 with occasional use of #4. Sussexonian (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 * All reasonable points. In order:
 * 1. I agree WP is not solely for "those familiar with our naming conventions" and didn't use that phrase or mean to imply it is. Certainly the use of two otherwise identical titles, one capitalized and one not, might cause confusion for some portion of our readers. The question is how best to deal with that issue, whether through use of disambiguating hatnotes or by manipulating the article title of one or the other topic. In my opinion, hatnotes are less obtrusive because they do not force everyone to go to the not-best title, while pointing the minority to where they need to go.
 * 2. You know from experience that capitalization makes no difference on Google or Yahoo. Similarly, most people know through experience that it does make a difference on WP. WP is not quite as ubiquitous as Google but it must be getting close. You use it 2 or 3 times and you get a sense of how it works.
 * 3. If you type "basset hound" you reach Basset Hound without difficulty, but if you type "Nervous Breakdown" knowing it's the name of an album, you get there with unnecessary difficulty, having to go through mental breakdown.
 * 4. You make a good argument for getting rid of WP:CANINESARETHEEXCEPTION if it existed.
 * 5. Upper and lower case are distinguished lexically all the time. Most dictionaries will list the lower case first, then upper case. Since WP obviously isn't alphabetical, we can get the same result via hatnotes, rather than artificially changing the name of the topic to something less correct and less intuitive. The example of "Winchester Cathedral (song)" is unavoidable, but only because "Winchester Cathedral" the church is also always capitalized as a proper name. Station1 (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I was going to make similar points, but I think Station1 made them more clearly than I could have. Well said. The fact that we are technically able to differentiate article titles by capitalization means that we are able to make our titles more correct and more intuitive. We have simple methods (dab pages & hatnotes) to guide readers to whatever similarly-titled article it is that they may be after. Making titles less correct and less intuitive merely to (as I see it) dumb down the search process is rather illogical, and results in situations like Nervous Breakdown where we have 6 different titles to deal with just 2 articles...whose actual titles aren't even identical (Nervous Breakdown vs. Mental breakdown). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 * An added complication to consider is what to do with dab pages: one capitalisation may have a primary usage and another capitalisation have none, while the two variants share a dab page. Does a primary usage with a different capitalisation get picked out for special treatment as here, or not? PamD (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, this is more an issue for MOS:DAB than an article naming issue, and I think relatively minor. Under current guidelines there, I would say the answer is no special top-line treatment for the example you cite because the dab page doesn't have "(disambiguation)" as part of its title; therefore people get there not only from the hatnote on the other-capitalized page (the rationale for linking back the primary topic first), but also directly by typing in or linking to the 'correct' capitalization. Station1 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I do not believe for one minute that any significant proportion of the Wikipedia audience carefully types in a phrase with capital or lower-case initials knowing that's where they will find a required topic. Only hardened editors of Wikifanatics are going to do that.  How many users do you expect will ever type in "Nervous Breakdown" seeking the (not very notable) band or song? As against how many will type the same string seeking the psychological topic? It will make Wikipedia look very imbalanced if the encyclopedia appears to give prominence to an unknown band/song over an everyday phrase. Sussexonian (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, your opinion on the notability of the album/band is immaterial. FWIW, Black Flag are a very notable band covered in a multitude of secondary sources. Does the article need improvement? Yes, but your dismissal of the topic based on your own lack of knowledge of it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Also note that if we choose to allow disambiguation by capitalization, readers who type either "Nervous breakdown" or "nervous breakdown" in the search box would still arrive at the psychological topic (Mental breakdown) on the first try, as both are redirects. On the other hand, readers who type in "Nervous Breakdown" (proper noun) will arrive at the album article, which we assume is what they are looking for since they bothered to capitalize both words in their search. Disallowing disambiguation by capitalization, thereby forcing all variations of "nervous breakdown" to redirect to Mental breakdown, provides no added convenience to readers who are unfamiliar with caps in our article titles, and inconveniences those who are familiar with it. Hardly a logical alternative. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 * It looks like consensus is going to be for number one (see my proposal below). If that is chosen then I think common sense still needs to apply.  There are likely to be times when one subject is so much the primary topic that the least confusion is likely to be caused by both capitalisations pointing to the same article and then having hat notes (unfortunately I can't find a good example but I'm thinking here when one article is ten times more popular than the other).  However I don't feel the need to include this in the guidelines as it can be a normal editorial decision. Dpmuk (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
It seems pretty clear to me that consensus is for option number one. Therefore I propose a change to Naming conventions (capitalization) as this seems the most logical place for it. I suggest the following new paragraph, where changes are in italics:

"It is possible to create two non-redirect pages with the same name but different capitalization and this is an acceptable method of disambiguation. If this arises, a disambiguation link should always be placed at the top of both pages, linking either to a dedicated disambiguation page or to the other article."

I think that is all the changes that are needed to guidelines as it makes it clear that is allowable as well as technically possible, something that is not currently obvious. Further it does not mandate it because, as per my comments above, I am certain there will be cases where it wouldn't be sensible to disambiguate by capitalisation - these can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Dpmuk (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would say "hatnote" instead of "disambiguation link"; the two pages might be articles and link to each other (distinguish), might be articles and link to a single, shared disambiguation page, might be articles and link to separate disambiguation pages also differing by caps, might be separate articles and link to separate disambiguation pages that differ by more than just caps, might be an article and a disambiguation page (and the dab page wouldn't need a hatnote), or might be two disambiguation pages (this case should probably result in a merge, IMO). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and close this RfC and make the change mentioned above. If any contributor feels my closure was in error please feel free to revert. Dpmuk (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


text:
Talk:List of Danish writers

Untitled
"Bodil Ibsen"? There was an outstanding 20th-century Danish actress named Bodil Ipsen, but she hardly qualifies for inclusion here. S.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:List of Danish writers


text:
Proton Holdings

Proton Holdings Berhad, commonly known as Proton (stylised PROTON), is a Malaysian multinational automotive company. Proton was established on May 7, 1983, as Malaysia's sole national budget car company until the advent of Perodua in 1993. The company is headquartered in Shah Alam, Selangor, and operates additional facilities in Proton City, Perak.

Proton began manufacturing rebadged versions of Mitsubishi Motors (MMC) products in the 1980s and 1990s. Proton produced its first indigenously designed, non-badge-engineered car in 2000 with a Mitsubishi engine. It elevated Malaysia as the 11th country in the world with the capability to design cars from the ground up. Since the 2000s, Proton has produced a mix of locally engineered and badge-engineered vehicles.

Proton was founded under majority ownership by HICOM, with a minority stake being held by Mitsubishi Group members. By 2005, Mitsubishi had divested its stake in Proton to Khazanah Nasional. In 2012, Proton was fully acquired by DRB-HICOM. Proton was the owner of Lotus Cars from 1996 to 2017. In May 2017, DRB-HICOM announced plans to sell a 49.9% stake in Proton and a 51% stake in Lotus to Chinese company Geely. The deal was signed in June 2017, and Lotus has ceased to be a unit of Proton.

As of 2023, Proton has an overseas presence in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Brunei, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. CKD plants are located in Pakistan, Kenya, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Etymology
Proton is a Malay backronym for Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional (National Automobile Enterprise).

1980s
The concept of a national car was conceived in 1979 by then-Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, now Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, with the goal of enhancing the Malaysian automotive industry. The National Car Project was approved by the Cabinet in 1982, leading to the equity investment of Proton on May 7, 1983, with Mitsubishi Corporation for the future of the company. At its creation, it was wholly owned by the government of Malaysia through Khazanah Nasional. It was headed by its founder, Dr. Mahathir. Proton approached Mitsubishi Motors between 1983 and 1984 and brokered a joint venture between both companies for the production of the first Malaysian car. The result of the collaboration was the Proton Saga, which launched on July 9, 1985.

The Proton Saga was based on the second-generation 1983 Mitsubishi Lancer Fiore 4-door saloon, powered by a 1.3-liter Mitsubishi Orion 4G13 engine. The first Proton Saga to roll off the production line in Shah Alam is preserved in the National Museum (Muzium Negara) as a symbol of the beginning of the Malaysian automotive industry. Sales of the new Saga outstripped supply, and Proton struggled to meet the growing demand, but by mid-1986, it had captured a 64% majority domestic market share in the below 1600cc segment. Later in October 1987, a hatchback variant called the Proton Saga Aeroback was launched and had a more powerful 1.5L Mitsubishi 4G15 engine and a redesigned rear-end. Exports to Ireland began in 1988, and by March 1989, Proton had entered the United Kingdom car market with the Saga saloon and hatchback duo, where the Malaysian company set the record for the "Fastest Selling Make of New Car Ever to Enter the United Kingdom."

Proton's sales declined during the late 1980s as a result of the worldwide economic recession, and the lack of technical expertise in Proton's management. Kenji Iwabuchi, a former Mitsubishi Motors executive, was appointed as the managing director of Proton in 1988.

1990s
On 15 August 1992, the Proton Saga Iswara was launched. It shares the older Mitsubishi platform used in the original Proton Saga, but its exterior and interior styling are unique to Proton. The Saga Iswara was widely used as taxicabs in Malaysia during the 1990s and 2000s, and many continue in service.

On 21 May 1993 the Proton Wira was introduced. It is based on the fourth-generation 1991 Mitsubishi Lancer and was sold in a four-door saloon guise at launch. The Proton Wira Aeroback, a five-door hatchback variant featuring a Proton-designed rear-end joined the range in 1993. By 1996, the Wira saloon and hatchback shared six different engines, all of which were sourced from Mitsubishi Motors. The engines included the 4G13 1.3L and 4G15 1.5L carried over from the Proton Saga, the newer 4G92 1.6L, 4G93 SOHC and DOHC 1.8L and the 4D68 2.0L diesel. The Wira was the first Proton car to be produced in right-hand drive (RHD) and left-hand drive (LHD) configurations, and remains the only Proton car to have been available with a diesel engine.

Proton launched the three-door Proton Satria hatchback in 1994 and the two-door Proton Putra coupé in 1996, both of which are based on the Wira platform and powered by the same range of Mitsubishi engines offered in the Wira, except for the 2.0L diesel. The Proton Wira, Proton Satria and Proton Putra were exported and marketed across the European Union and Middle East during the 1990s. The Proton Perdana, a premium D-segment saloon, was launched in 1995. It is based on the seventh generation Mitsubishi Eterna, introduced in 1992, and was fitted with Mitsubishi's 4G63 2.0-litre straight-four engine. It was also offered with the superior 6A12 DOHC 2.0-liter V6 engine after 1999. The Perdana remains the only D-segment, V6-powered car to be commercially produced by Proton. A Citroën AX-based 1.1-litre five-door supermini called the Proton Tiara debuted in 1996. It was the result of a joint venture between Proton and PSA Peugeot Citroën, a collaboration which was later abandoned after the death of Proton's then CEO, Tan Sri Yahaya Ahmad in 1997.

On 30 October 1996, Proton acquired an 80% stake in the British company, Lotus Group International Limited, valued at £51 million. The controlling interest was purchased from A.C.B.N. Holdings S.A. of Luxembourg, a company controlled by Italian businessman Romano Artioli, then also the owner of Bugatti. By 2003, Proton's stake in Lotus was increased to 100%. Lotus has been involved in the development of suspension and handling elements of all Proton cars launched since 1996. The Proton Satria GTi, widely regarded as the best Malaysian car ever produced, owes much of its success to Lotus' contributions.

2000s
The Proton Waja, the company's first indigenously designed model, was launched in August 2000. However, it still had a Mitsubishi 4G18 engine at launch as Proton's first in-house CamPro engine was unavailable. The Waja marked the end of Proton's extensive reliance on other car manufacturers for vehicle platforms and components. However, the model was only a moderate seller, being significantly outsold by Proton's own much older and slightly smaller Proton Wira. The Waja also marked the start of a decline in the local market-leading Proton marque which led to Perodua, the second Malaysian vehicle manufacturer, eventually capturing Proton's sales crown in 2006. In 2002, Proton introduced the Arena, a ute based on the Proton Wira platform and thus far the only Proton model to enjoy significantly more popularity in its export markets (specifically Australia) than domestically. The Proton Gen-2, a hatchback model, was launched in late 2004. It was the first Proton vehicle equipped with the new CamPro engine.

The RM1.8 billion (US$580 million) Proton Tanjung Malim manufacturing plant in the Malaysian state of Perak commenced operation in November 2003. The new plant had been projected to open in August 1998, but it was deferred due to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. However, it was revived in 2001 and completed in late 2003 instead. The new 1,280 acre plant was also developed as part of the Proton City project, which would span 4,000 acres of land in Tanjung Malim and consist of residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and recreational areas. The plant has an annual production capacity of 150,000 vehicles, but could be expanded to 1 million units in the future. The Proton Tanjung Malim plant complements the original Proton plant in operation since 1985, located in Shah Alam, Selangor. Despite a combined production capacity of around 350,000 units, both plants are underutilised with just 52,235 and 114,645 units produced at the Tanjung Malim and Shah Alam plants in 2011 respectively.

On 7 July 2004, Proton purchased a 57.57% stake in MV Agusta S.p.A. of Italy, valued at €70 million. Proton failed to reverse the misfortunes of MV Agusta and sold the marque to Gevi S.p.A. in December 2005 for €1, with Gevi assuming the €139.44 million debt carried over from MV Agusta.

The latter half of the 2000s marked Proton's comeback in the domestic market, with its vehicle sales growing a total of about 37 percent from 2006 to 2011, significantly above total passenger car sales growth of about 10 percent. The comeback was spearheaded by the Proton Persona saloon launched in August 2007, the long-overdue replacement for the best-selling but ageing Proton Wira saloon. The Persona was based on an extended version of the 2004 Proton GEN•2 hatchback platform and shared most of its components and external appearance. The Persona successfully sold 19,840 units in the first three months following its launch.

The second generation Proton Saga was launched on 18 January 2008. Previously, the first generation Proton Saga had been Proton's first and most successful model, having had a long 23-year lifespan, the longest of all Proton models to date. The new Saga proved to be a successful model Proton with over 23,000 bookings two weeks into its launch. It has consistently ranked as Proton's best-selling vehicle domestically, while placing 3rd overall in 2008, and 2nd between 2009 and 2012, beaten only by its archrival, the Perodua Myvi in overall vehicle sales. Proton further widened its model base when it introduced the Exora, Malaysia's first indigenous 7-seater MPV in April 2009. The Exora was based on Proton's next generation P2 platform and helped satisfy the growing demand for a budget 7-seater in the domestic market, which had been monopolised by the Nissan Grand Livina and the smaller Toyota Avanza. For several years, it consistently positioned in the Top 10 best-selling vehicles in Malaysia.

2010s

On August 6, 2008, the Proton Saga and Proton Persona were seen doing road tests at the Greater Noida Expressway, hinting at the potential to export Proton automobiles to India. However, negotiations for Proton to establish an Indian branch did not materialize.

In December 2008, Proton resumed product collaboration with Mitsubishi Motors. Under the agreement, Proton gained the rights to rebadge the 2007 Mitsubishi Lancer to be sold exclusively in the Malaysian market. The result of the collaboration was the Proton Inspira, which launched on 10 November 2010. It also marked a return to closer ties between Proton and Mitsubishi, the Japanese company which was instrumental in Proton's foundation in the 1980s. Proton showcased the EMAS concept hybrid city cars at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show. They were designed by Italdesign Giugiaro and related to the Lotus Ethos, a similar concept car from Proton's British subsidiary.

The turbocharged inline-four petrol engine from Proton was revealed at the 2010 Kuala Lumpur International Motor Show. Officially known as the 1.6L CamPro CFE, it is capable of producing power and torque figures of 138 bhp (103 kW) at 5,000 rpm and 205 N·m at 2,000–4,000 rpm respectively, comparable to a 2.0L naturally aspirated engine, while achieving better fuel efficiency and reduced greenhouse emissions.

In January 2012, Proton was acquired by DRB-HICOM, a Malaysian conglomerate in a transaction between Khazanah Nasional and DRB-HICOM which totalled RM1.2 billion. The Proton Prevé, the company's latest saloon car was unveiled on 16 April 2012. It became the first Proton car, and to an extent, the first Malaysian car to be awarded the full 5-star safety rating in the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) of Australia and New Zealand. In December 2012, Proton acquired all of Petronas' E01 engine technologies in addition to associated technology patents at a cost of RM 63 million. The deal encompassed a family of naturally aspirated and turbocharged 1.8, 2.0 and 2.2-litre engines to complement Proton's own CamPro 1.3L N/A, 1.6L N/A and 1.6L turbo engines.

On 17 August 2013, Proton launched the Suprima S, the hatchback complement to the Prevé saloon. It became the second 5-star ANCAP rated Proton and the first to offer extensive standard safety features in its domestic market. On 11 December 2013, the second generation Proton Perdana was finally unveiled after a three-year gap in the nameplate's production. The new Perdana is a badge engineered eighth generation Honda Accord and is for exclusive sale to Malaysian civil servants and government officials.

The Proton Iriz was unveiled on 25 September 2014 as the company's first B-segment 5-door hatchback. The new Iriz competes directly against the Perodua Myvi in its domestic market.

On 18 January 2016, Proton unveiled their all-new four-cylinder GDI/TGDI and three-cylinder VVT engines. The new engines, of which there are six in total, are being developed in collaboration with Ricardo and Lotus Engineering, and are slated to enter production by late 2017.

Proton unveiled their new logo in February 2016, and appointed a new CEO and Deputy CEO in April. The government had also granted Proton a RM 1.5 billion soft loan in mid 2016. The loan came with a number of conditions, including a mandatory tie-up with a foreign automobile company in the near future. Several companies have expressed interest, including Suzuki, Škoda, Groupe PSA, Renault and Geely. This culminated with the entry of China's Zhejiang Geely Holding Group in June 2017, after the Chinese carmaker acquired 49.9% equity in Proton from DRB-HICOM.

Proton introduced four new models in 2016. The new Perdana launched on 14 June, followed by the new Persona on 23 August, the new Saga on 28 September, and the new Ertiga on 24 November. The launch of four new Proton models within the span of six months was unprecedented in the company's history. Masazumi Ogawa was recruited as the director of quality control in Proton.

On 24 May 2017, parent company DRB-HICOM announced plans to sell a 49.9% stake in Proton to Zhejiang Geely Automobile Holdings. Eventually, DRB-HICOM also sold 51% controlling-stake in Lotus to Geely, and the remaining 49% stake to Etika Automotive. The definitive agreement was in July 2017. Proton had owned Lotus since 1996, and largely struggled to turn the fortunes of the sports car maker around. Nonetheless, in late 2016, Lotus announced their first operating profit in over 40 years. Their presence in Proton is said to not affect Japanese auto manufacturers due to being in the market for a very long time. Still, many of Proton's cars benefitted from the Lotus relationship, with the Satria GTi specifically mentioned by car reviewers as possessing good handling traits. Subsequent Proton some models received "Lotus Tuned" input.

Proton recruited Yoshiya Inamori as the vice president of manufacturing, who had previously been involved with Proton back in the 80s when it was founded during his time in Mitsubishi from April 1982 until July 2017.

On 29 September 2017, DRB-HICOM announced changes to the board of Proton Holdings Berhad. Following the signing of a Definitive Agreement with China's Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Limited on 23 June 2017, the Chinese carmaker acquired 49.9% equity in Proton. The announcement on 29 September saw a new board of directors put in place in Proton Holdings, Proton Edar (the local distribution arm) and Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd (PONSB).

Three nominees from Geely Holding joined the boards; Daniel Donghui Li, the Executive VP and CFO of Geely Holding; Dr Nathan Yuning, the Executive VP of International Business of Geely Holding, and Feng Qing Feng, the Group VP and CTO at HK-listed Geely Auto. DRB-HICOM are represented by Dato' Sri Syed Faisal Albar, who chairs the boards, and Amalanathan Thomas and Shaharul Farez Hassan. Both are part of the senior management team at DRB-HICOM. On the same day, Dr Li Chunrong joins PONSB as CEO. Dr Li is the third foreigner to head Proton. Between 1993 and 1997, the early years of Proton, two different Japanese nominees of their partners, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, led the carmaker.

On April 29, 2024, Proton announced the opening of a R&D centre at the Geely Automobile Research Institute at Hangzhou Bay in collaboration with Geely.

Current models
Current model line up, with calendar year of introduction or most recent facelift:

 * Proton Saga (1985–present; A-segment sedan)
 * Proton Persona (1993–present; B-segment sedan)
 * Proton Iriz (2014–present; B-segment hatchback)
 * Proton X70 (2018–present; C-segment SUV)
 * Proton X50 (2020–present; B-segment SUV)
 * Proton X90 (2023–present; D-segment SUV)
 * Proton S70 (2023–present; C-segment sedan)

Former models
Former model line up, with calendar year of introduction or most recent facelift:

 * Proton Wira (1993–2009; C-segment sedan)
 * Proton Satria (1994–2005; C-segment hatchback)
 * Proton Perdana (first generation) (1995–2010; D-segment sedan)
 * Proton Tiara (1996–2000; A-segment hatchback)
 * Proton Putra (1996–2001; C-segment coupe)
 * Proton Waja (2000–2011; C-segment sedan)
 * Proton Juara (2001–2004; A-segment microvan/MPV)
 * Proton Arena (2002–2009; C-segment coupe utility)
 * Proton GEN•2 (2004–2012; C-segment hatchback)
 * Proton Savvy (2005–2011; A-segment hatchback)
 * Proton Satria Neo (2006–2015; B-segment hatchback)
 * Proton Exora (2009–2023; C-segment MPV)
 * Proton Inspira (2010–2015; C-segment sedan)
 * Proton Prevé (2012–2018; C-Segment sedan)
 * Proton Suprima S (2013–2019; C-segment hatchback)
 * Proton Perdana (second generation) (2013–2020; D-segment sedan)
 * Proton Ertiga (2016–2019; B-segment mini-MPV)

Logo and branding
The Proton logo in 1983 was a dark blue shield which encompassed a yellow crescent positioned below a yellow fourteen-pointed star, in reference to the Malaysian flag and coat of arms. However, this emblem was only used for Proton cars which were sold domestically. Proton cars exported to other markets received different badge designs. In 2000, the new Proton logo was used on the Proton Waja which launched in that year. It featured a stylised yellow tiger head on a green roundel embossed upon a dark blue shield, with the Proton name in yellow capital letters in Frutiger font. The standard text representation of the Proton name was also changed from the lowercase italic text "proton" to the uppercase "PROTON".

All Proton cars manufactured after 2000 carried the new badge, both in the domestic and export markets. Then its colour was changed into two-tone, silver and black, which was in use since 2008 with the introduction of the second generation Proton Saga.

In June 2016, a new Proton logo was introduced during the launch of 2016 Proton Perdana, which is only a Malayan tiger head with a circle surrounding in three-dimensional style. The new logo is now used on all Proton latest models, including the 2017 Proton Iriz facelift and 2017 Proton Exora Enhanced.

Two years after (i.e., September 2019) Proton's global strategic partnership with Geely in 2017, Proton Holdings unveiled a brand new logo and ‘Inspiring Connections’ tagline to outline its ambition to be a global, modern automotive brand. Starting with the Proton X70, and excluding the 2019 Exora, the rear badge was replaced by lettering spelling out 'Proton'.

Domestic sales
The first Proton, the Saga saloon launched in July 1985 amid positive reception, but poor sales due to Proton's inability to meet the high demand. However, Proton later captured a 47% Malaysian market share in the following year, with 24,148 cars sold. The company's market share later grew to 65% in 1987; 85% in the Under 1,600cc segment. Proton maintained a majority market share in the following years, which peaked in 1993 at 74% with over 94,100 units sold. Car sales in Malaysia plunged from 404,000 units in 1997 to 163,851 in 1998 due to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Proton's revenue and profits were severely affected, but a majority market share was still maintained into the early 2000s.

In the mid-2000s, Proton's revenues and sales declined sharply. In 2006, Proton's market share was 32%, down from 40% in 2005. Proton lost its majority domestic market share for the first time in 20 years to Perodua, the second Malaysian car manufacturer. Factors which contributed to the fall of Proton included the revision of the National Automotive Policy (NAP), Proton's newer indigenously designed models (i.e., the Proton Waja, Gen-2 and Savvy) which were poorly designed and manufactured compared to the former Mitsubishi-based models and stronger competitors, specifically Perodua with their best-selling Myvi which launched in 2005. Proton's total sales volume and its market share failed to recover to its pre-2002 figures and Perodua remained the domestic market leader from 2006 onwards.

Sales of Proton cars grew at a stable rate in the latter half of the 2000s and in the early 2010s. The company briefly regained the top-spot from Perodua in June 2009, after the introduction of the Proton Exora MPV. Proton also matched Perodua's market share in the first quarter of 2011. Factors which contributed to the rise of Proton were well-designed cars which catered to the needs of the domestic market (i.e., the Proton Persona, second generation Saga and Exora) in addition to better management of the company under the then managing director, Syed Zainal Abidin. However, despite the improvements made between 2007 and 2012 in addition to improved overall sales, Proton's Malaysian market share continued to decrease. In 2011, the company had a 26.4% (158,657 units) share which plummeted further to 22.5% (141,121 units) in 2012. In comparison, Perodua retained a majority market share of 30.1% (189,137 units) in 2012, with Toyota maintaining its third place at a 16.8% share with 105,151 units sold.

Proton's decline in market share stabilised in 2013. In the first half of that year, Proton sold 64,782 cars, representing 20.7% of the market share, a decline of 1.8% over its full-year 2012 share. However, by the end of 2013, Proton had managed to raise its market share to 21.2% with a total of 138,753 units sold. Nonetheless, Proton's market share has still declined by an overall 1.3% between 2012 and 2013. In July 2013, Proton sold around 16,600 cars, which accounted for 25% in market share during that specific month, the company's highest ever in 2013. Perodua on the other hand sold around 19,200 or 2,600 more cars than Proton in July 2013. The rise in Proton's sales were attributed to the launch of the Proton Saga SV, a cheaper variant of the second best-selling car in Malaysia.

Another factor which continues to play a significant role in the sales of Proton cars is the National Automotive Policy (NAP), enforced by the Malaysian government in the interests of Proton, Perodua, Naza and foreign brands with manufacturing plants in Malaysia. Under the NAP, imported vehicles are subjected to varying degrees of import and excise duties depending on the vehicle's origin of manufacture and engine displacement, with excise duty imposed at 60 to 105 percent being the highest component in the duty structure. Vehicles imported from members of the Association of South East Asian Nations, such as Thailand and Indonesia, are subject to the least import duties, whereas those from Europe suffer the worst. However, imported hybrid vehicles and cars purchased in duty-free Langkawi are exempted from the import and excise duties. The NAP ensures the survival of Proton and other Malaysian-made vehicles under a biased playing field in the Malaysian market. Nonetheless, the import duties of the NAP have been progressively revised and reduced in line with the eventual liberation of the market, but excise duties, the larger component of tariffs, continues to be high and opaquely applied, with non-tariff barriers effectively reducing the rate for Malaysian made vehicles.

In March 2013, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Malaysia) announced that vehicles manufactured in Australia and Japan will face a gradual reduction of import duties in stages to zero by 2016. Proton however responded positively to the announcement, citing their recent positive developments such as the 5-star ANCAP safety recognition of the Proton Prevé as part of its commitment to progress.

Export markets
Proton relies primarily on its domestic market for the majority of its sales and revenues. Nonetheless, small volumes of Proton cars are also exported to various other countries in Asia, in addition to the United Kingdom and Australia. The company held a far larger global sales network in the 1990s, spanning all six continents and over 70 countries, but intends to regain a global foothold with 500,000 annual sales by 2018.

On 24 January 2020, Proton announced that their goal is to export 4,000 vehicles by the end of the year or export 6,000 vehicles if they were offered government incentives.

History
Proton first ventured into export markets in December 1986, a year and a half after the launch of the company's first car, the Saga. It was only sold in right-hand drive markets like New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Singapore because left-hand drive variants were not produced. Proton attempted to enter the American market in November 1988, but failed to meet strict US automotive regulations. However, the Proton Wira, which launched in 1993 became the company's first car to be produced in both left and right-hand drive configurations, paving the way for Proton's entry into Continental Europe in October 1994 and other markets in the Middle East and Latin America. The company's global sales network peaked between 1994 and the early 2000s, but has since dwindled to around 25 countries as of the 2010s. Proton has commissioned CKD plants in Iran, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and China.

Proton began importing cars to the right-hand drive UK market from March 1989, and reached its 12-month sales target of 5,000 cars after just six months. The Proton brand was initially a huge success in the UK, but sales were declining sharply by 2010 and the brand was withdrawn in 2014.

Proton's presence in Singapore was handled by Cycle & Carriage from 1989 to September 2002 due to failures to make a turn around. It made a comeback in 2003 with Proton establishing a direct branch.

In the Philippines, Proton was formerly represented by Proton Pilipinas Corp from 1992 with an assembly plant in Alaminos, Pangasinan that manufactured the Proton Wira.

Proton exported 164,153 cars between December 1986 and December 1997. The United Kingdom is by far the company's most successful export market in terms of cumulative sales volume, and at one point Proton set the record for Fastest Selling Make of New Car Ever to Enter the United Kingdom. In 1992, the Saga was ranked among the Top 20 best-selling cars in the UK, outselling its primary competitors from Hyundai and SEAT. 100,000 Protons were sold in the UK by 1997.

Additionally, a 1999 survey by the United Kingdom Consumers' Association ranked Proton as among the most reliable and recommended in Britain. The response from 27,000 members of the association revealed that Proton was ranked third in terms of fewer breakdowns, faults and other mechanical problems, placing Proton behind Honda and Mazda, and ahead of Toyota and Ford. Furthermore, 80% of the surveyed Consumers' Association members said they would recommend Proton cars to friends and family, compared to 90% for Subaru, 79% for Toyota, 78% for Honda and Mitsubishi, 63% for Hyundai and 47% for Rover respectively. The 1999 award is Proton's second consecutive, having received similar appraisal in 1998.

However, sales in the UK have since collapsed, with just 208 Protons sold in 2012. Proton cars were once popular in Singapore, at one time the company's second-largest export destination despite its relatively small market size. Sales were also modest in Germany and Belgium during the late 90s, prior to Proton's withdrawal from Continental Europe. Kuwait was once a top Middle Eastern export destination for Proton cars in the late 90s and early 2000s, with an average market share of 8% or 1,000 units sold each year, ten times greater than any other Gulf Cooperation Council state. The Kuwaiti dealer, Bahrah Trading Company had focused on the niche fleet market, selling Proton Wiras to fast food delivery services and taxi operators.

By the first half of the 2010s, the Chinese market had become the largest contributor to Proton's export revenues. Although Proton cars sold in China carried different names and badges under the local Youngman EuropeStar brand, Proton nonetheless received royalties for the use of their platforms and Campro engines. Proton's six-year contract with Youngman expired in 2012, but the Zhejiang-based company continued to unofficially produce Proton's cars and engines up until early 2015. In February 2015, Proton announced that they would revive their joint venture with Fujian-based Goldstar, and would not renew their contract with Youngman.

Proton cars were also exported to several countries in Latin America, most notably Chile. Exports to Chile commenced in 1994, and almost 3,000 Protons were sold prior to the company's departure in 1998. However, Proton later expressed intentions of returning to Chile following the ratification of the Malaysia-Chile Free Trade Agreement in 2012. In July 2015, Proton signed a distributor agreement with Andes Motor, and the first official shipment of 50 left-hand drive Prevé units commenced on 1 March 2016. The Chilean launch of the Proton Prevé took place in May 2016, and formally marked Proton's return to Chile after an 18-year absence.

Proton announced that they closed Proton Motor Pars, established in August 2011, since it was dormant and no longer in the company's interest to revive it in any way.

On July 12, 2018, Proton resumes exports to the Middle East beginning with 440 units of Proton Gen•2 and 15 units of first-generation Proton Persona in Jordan to be distributed to Iraq as well as neighboring countries.

On 21 March 2019, Proton has announced that a plant will be built in Pakistan in collaboration with Alhaj Automotive. Proton has already booked CBU versions of Proton X70 in Pakistan. The orders for CKD versions of X70 are also being booked by Proton in Pakistan which are expected to be delivered in Q3 of 2021 after the completion of the local assembly plant there. The Proton Saga is also expected to be launched in Pakistan in January 2021.

On 21 August 2020, it was announced that the Proton Saga will be exported to Kenya, most built under CKDs shipped to Simba Corp.

It was announced on 13 November 2020 that Proton vehicles will be sold in Nepal by Jagadamba Motors. The company will formally launch retail operations by January 2021. Proton previously had a presence in Nepal.

On 28 April 2022, an agreement was signed for Proton to re-enter the South African auto market. On 31 May 2022, Proton announced shipments of Proton X50s, X70s and Sagas in an effort to resume a presence in South Africa with CMH Group as the official distributor. In 2015, Proton left South Africa due to bad market conditions.

Proton announced in May 2023 that they have entered Mozambique in partnership with local automobile distributor Entreposto.

Future
The United Kingdom has been a key export market for Proton since the late 1980s. However, by the late 2000s, British Proton sales had declined considerably as a result of ageing models and depleting stock. In 2013, Proton Cars UK had attempted to relaunch the brand with four all-new models. However, the relaunch was instead postponed indefinitely in view of more stringent European Union emissions and safety regulations.

Proton is currently developing a range of all-new petrol engines in collaboration with Ricardo and Lotus Engineering. The engines will feature more advanced technology such as direct injection, cylinder deactivation and stop-start idling, and will meet the highest Euro 6c emissions regulations. On 18 January 2016, Proton fired up a prototype in a live broadcast from Ricardo's facility in Shoreham, England. Mass production of the all-new Proton engines will commence in late 2017.

Additionally, Proton has announced their partnership with LG Electronics in the development of autonomous safety technology. In September 2014, Proton previewed an Iriz prototype with LG's Advanced Drive Assistance System (ADAS). With the LG ADAS implementation, new autonomous safety features like Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB), Forward Collision Warning (FCW), Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC), Cross Traffic Assist (CTA), Lane Departure Warning (LDW), Traffic Sign Recognition (TSR) and High Beam Assist (HBA) can be incorporated into Proton's future offerings. The inclusion of autonomous safety features has become a necessary prerequisite for a full 5-Star Euro NCAP and ANCAP rating.

On 3 December 2014, Proton announced plans to construct a new car factory in Bangladesh. A deal was made public on 6 February 2015 between Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta to help the latter develop the way for their own national car. There are allegations that President Jokowi Widodo is appointing Abdullah Mahmud Hendropriyono as the representative of PT Adiperkasa Citra Lestari, who was known to be associated with ex-President Megawati Soekarnoputri.

According to Steven Xu of Proton's International Sales, the company is still in the process of establishing more distributors to increase its presence in Indonesia as of 10 April 2019.

On 24 April 2019, Proton announced that they'll relaunch again in Australia since sales have declined in 2015 after the company established its presence in 1995.

According to Li Churong, the company will expand its presence in the ASEAN countries, such as Brunei, Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand. The company announced on 16 June 2021 that its Indonesian and Thai operations will resume in the near future with plans to be the third biggest automobile manufacturer in the ASEAN region. It was reported that Proton's Thai operations could resume by 2022. But in February 2023, it's reported that Indonesian and Thai operations have yet to resume, including Fiji.

The presence of a Proton X50 being driven in India for road tests indicate the possible presence of a future Proton branch in India.

Mitsubishi
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) and Mitsubishi Corporation (MC) were instrumental in the foundation of Proton. The large majority of vehicle platforms, engines, parts and technical expertise were once sourced from Mitsubishi Motors. Additionally, the managing director of Proton between 1988 and 1993 was Kenji Iwabuchi, a former Mitsubishi Motors executive. Proton's staff were also trained by Mitsubishi in Japan as part of a bilateral agreement. Management of Proton was gradually assumed by Malaysians in the 1990s. All Proton cars launched between 1985 and 2000 with the exception of the Proton Tiara were based on Mitsubishi vehicles. Proton began producing indigenously designed models after 2000, but resumed product collaboration with MMC in 2008. The result of the renewed collaboration is the Proton Inspira, a rebadged 2007 Mitsubishi Lancer for sale exclusively in the Malaysian market. It marked a return to closer ties between Proton and MMC.

MMC and MC held a minority 30% joint stake in Proton, while a majority 70% stake was held by the Heavy Industries Corporation of Malaysia (HICOM). The Mitsubishi joint stake was later reduced to 15.86%, or 7.93% each for MMC and MC respectively until it was fully sold to Khazanah Nasional in January 2005. Mitsubishi Motors, Japan's sole unprofitable carmaker of that period sold its 7.93% Proton stake earlier in March 2004 in an effort to reduce its ¥1.14 trillion (US$11 billion) debt. The sale of Mitsubishi's joint stake in Proton marked the end of its 22-year investment in Proton.

Citroën
In 1994, French car manufacturer Citroën announced plans for the production of diesel-powered cars in Malaysia under a joint venture with Proton. Proton's then CEO, Tan Sri Yahaya Ahmad also advocated an alliance with PSA Peugeot Citroën for the purpose of technology transfer. Negotiations continued until 1995, but materialised in 1996 with the launch of the Proton Tiara. It was based on the Citroën AX and powered by a 1.1L Citroën I4 petrol engine, in contrast to the plans for a diesel option. The joint venture between Proton and Citroën stagnated after the death of Yahaya Ahmad in a helicopter crash the following year. The Proton Tiara failed to compete against its rivals from Perodua and production ended in 2000, four years after its launch.

Youngman
Proton entered the People's Republic of China in 2007 under a strategic joint venture with China Youngman Automobile Group Co., Ltd. The agreement involved a minimum of 30,000 Proton Gen-2 CBU units which were rebadged in China under Youngman's Europestar marque. In 2008, the Proton Persona became the second model to be sold under the Europestar brand. The Gen-2 and Persona were known as the RCR (short for RaCeR or Racing) and Jing Yue between 2007 and late 2009, but both cars were facelifted and renamed as the L3 5-door and L3 4-door (or L3 Sedan) for the 2010 model year respectively. Both models received unique parts and facelifts from Youngman between 2007 and 2013. The most recent facelifts of the Europestar L3 GT 5-door (Proton Gen-2) and Europestar L3 GT 4-door (Proton Persona) offer new front bumpers, unique grilles and mirror-mounted turn signals on the exterior, in addition to a redesigned climate control cluster and leather upholstery on the interior. Youngman has also introduced less expensive variants of their L3 hatchback and saloon models, powered by the 1.5-litre Mitsubishi 4G15M engine.

Youngman unveiled the Europestar L5 hatchback and saloon models at the 2011 Shanghai Motorshow. The exterior design and interior equipment are indigenous to Youngman, but both cars are based on an extended Proton GEN-2 platform (2,670mm, 70mm longer than the original) and powered by Proton's CamPro CPS 1.6-litre engine. The Europestar T5 was previewed on 23 April 2012, a SUV designed by Lotus and Youngman and based on the Proton Gen-2 platform. It was scheduled for a late 2012 launch but it was never put into production.

Between mid-2009 and February 2015, Youngman Lotus had reported total production figures of 196,234 rebadged CKD GEN-2 and Persona units, of which 189,872 were reportedly sold. 0.2em However, by mid-2015, the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) stopped reporting Youngman Lotus sales numbers because they were "way off" from registration numbers. Youngman Lotus had ceased production and sales altogether by mid-2015. In February 2015, Proton announced that they would revive their joint venture with Fujian-based Goldstar, and would not renew their contract with Youngman.

Honda

On 29 October 2012, Proton entered a collaboration with Honda Motor Company, Ltd. Both companies have agreed to explore collaboration opportunities in the areas of technology enhancement, new product line up and the sharing of vehicle platforms and facilities.

In November 2013, it was revealed that the PRM would be based on the North American eighth generation Honda Accord. The PRM will launch in two phases, the first in mid-December for sale exclusively to the Malaysian government and the second within the next two years for the Malaysian domestic market. Around 3,000 units of the PRM will be produced initially to replace the ageing Proton Perdana V6 fleet in use by the federal government. The result of the collaboration, the second generation Proton Perdana, was unveiled on 11 December 2013 at an official ceremony in Putrajaya.

Suzuki
Proton partnered with Suzuki and rebadged the Suzuki Ertiga. Under the June 2015 agreement, 25 of its 3S and 4S Suzuki dealership outlets have been converted into Proton Edar outlets and bearing both Proton and Suzuki logos.

Geely
PROTON Holdings parent company DRB-HICOM announced sold 49.9% stake in Proton to Zhejiang Geely Automobile Holdings. Following the entry of China's Geely as a shareholder of PROTON, PROTON Holdings secured the intellectual properties to the design, development, manufacture, sale, marketing and distribution of the Geely Boyue, Geely Binyue and Geely Haoyue for Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.

Proton announced the launch of the Proton's first sport utility vehicle which is based on Geely Boyue, with touches of local design elements introduced for the Malaysian market. The first batch of the locally named Proton X70 will be imported from China, with localisation plans afoot with the expansion of their Tanjong Malim plant.

With the incoming sales and tax exemption plans for EVs coming in by 2022, Proton announced a roadmap of hybrid, PHEV and BEV products for the future. While no specific electric model was mentioned, there is a possibility of the tech to be led by Geely's new powertrain brand, Leishen Hi-X.

1980s and 1990s
Proton has a significant historical presence in motorsports. In the late 1980s, an alliance consisting of Proton, Malaysian oil and gas company Petronas, Mitsubishi Motors of Japan and distributor of Proton cars, Edaran Otomobil Nasional (EON) led to the formation of the Petronas EON Racing Team (PERT). The team focused primarily on rallying and has been in motorsports as early as 1987. PERT won the 1989 Shell Malaysia Rally with Proton Saga rally cars which were prepared by Mitsubishi's Ralliart division, featuring powerful 150 bhp engines as part of its rally specifications. PERT won several other international rallies including the 1991 Rally of Thailand, 1993 Dubai International Rally and the Rallye Ng Philipinas in 1995, 1996 and 1997 respectively.

2000s
Proton's presence in international motorsports peaked when the Petronas EON Racing Team won the 2002 Production World Rally Championship with veteran Malaysian rally driver Karamjit Singh in a Proton PERT, a rebadged Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution. The Proton-Karamjit duo also won the 2001, 2002 and 2004 Asia-Pacific Rally Championship titles.

In 2003, the Proton Motorsports Division, also known as "Race.Rally.Research., R3", was established. R3 assumed the responsibility of Proton's motorsports endeavours, which had been held by Ralliart of Mitsubishi Motors. The first model to benefit from R3 engineering was the Proton Satria R3 which launched in late 2004 with a limited run of 150 units.

Asia-Pacific Rally Championship
Proton re-entered the Asia-Pacific Rally Championship (APRC) in 2010, an international rally championship organised by the FIA encompassing rounds in Asia and Oceania. Proton had previously participated in the APRC, but withdrew in 2005 due to financial problems. The company competes under the official team name of Proton Motorsports with former WRC drivers Chris Atkinson and Alister McRae from Australia and Scotland respectively in a pair of Proton Satria Neo S2000 rally cars. The new Satria Neo S2000 replaced the Proton PERT as Proton's premier rally car, and was prepared by British-based Mellors Elliot Motorsport (MEM) in accordance to FIA Super 2000 specifications. The cars cost over RM1 million each and are equipped with 280 bhp (271Nm) 2.0 litre engines paired to 4WD drivetrains. Despite facing technical problems and stiff competition from the superior Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution and Subaru Impreza rally cars, Proton drivers McRae and Atkinson placed 3rd and 5th respectively in the 2010 APRC season.

The following year, Malaysian rally veteran Karamjit Singh rejoined the APRC after a 6-year absence under the Proton R3 Cusco Rally Team in a Group N 2WD CUSCO Japan-tuned 1.6L CamPro 145 hp (170Nm) version of the Satria Neo. Japanese rally driver Akira Bamba also contested in the 2011 APRC season in another Satria Neo CUSCO. The 2011 season concluded with a one-two Proton Motorsports victory with drivers McRae and Atkinson in their Satria Neo S2000s. Karamjit placed 1st in the 2WD category and 7th overall in the championship, ahead of Bamba who placed 9th overall.

In the 2012 APRC season, Chris Atkinson left Proton Motorsports after two years of racing history with the team. Atkinson joined Indian Team MRF instead where he piloted a Škoda Fabia S2000 alongside Indian rally veteran Gaurav Gill. The vacant slot in Proton Motorsports was filled by Swedish racer Per-Gunnar Andersson who also raced for Proton in the Intercontinental Rally Challenge. Additionally, Proton R3 Cusco added a third driver, Malaysian Kenneth Koh, whereas Dreams India driver Sanjay Takle participated in another 2WD Satria Neo. The 2012 season ended with a Team MRF victory, with Atkinson and Gaurav placing first and fourth respectively in their S2000 Škodas. Proton Motorsports driver McRae clinched second, but Andersson placed a lowly seventh overall with the S2000 Satria Neos. Proton R3 Cusco racers Karamjit, Bamba and Kenneth placed fifth, sixth and eight respectively and Dreams India's Sanjay placed ninth overall.

Intercontinental Rally Challenge
Proton entered into the Intercontinental Rally Challenge 2009 with the Proton Satria Neo Super 2000. Their best result in IRC is Alister McRae finish 2nd place at 2009 Rally Scotland. Drivers in 2009 were Karamjit Singh, Guy Wilks, Bryan Bouffier and Alister McRae scoring 13 points. In 2010 Proton team had many retirements and did not score a single point. Drivers for 2010 were Alister McRae, Chris Atkinson, Niall McShea, Keith Cronin, Gilles Panizzi and privateer with factory support, Tom Cave. Best result of 2010 season was 22nd place of Gilles Panizzi at 2010 Rallye Sanremo, although it was the only finish of Proton Satria Neo S2000 in this season.

British Touring Car Championship
The British Touring Car Championship (BTCC) is a touring car racing series held each year in the United Kingdom. Proton participated in the BTCC between 2002 and 2004 as the Petronas Syntium Proton (Team PSP). The team in the 2002 and 2003 BTCC seasons was headed by Scottish and English drivers David Leslie and Phil Bennett respectively in two heavily modified BTC-T Proton Impian touring cars. They were succeeded by South African Shaun Watson-Smith and Malaysian Fariqe Hairuman in the 2004 season.

In 2011, UK-based Welch Motorsport contested the BTCC in a Proton Persona NGTC, driven by Daniel Welch. Welch Motorsport competes independently and is not tied to Proton, but indirectly supported by Proton UK The team made its debut in the second half of the 2011 BTCC season and scored a point in the final race at the Silverstone Circuit, placing 22nd overall in the tournament. In comparison, 2011 Drivers' Champion Matt Neal of Honda Racing Team scored 257 points.

Welch Motorsport's performance improved significantly in the 2012 BTCC season. Daniel Welch had his best race at Oulton Park, where he finished sixth in race one, and held off defending champion Matt Neal to claim fourth position in race two. Welch Motorsport placed 15th overall with 79 points in the 2012 season, with 2012 Drivers' Champion Gordon Shedden scoring 408 points in comparison.

Welch Motorsport expanded to a two-car team in the 2013 BTCC season. The Proton Persona NGTC returns in the hands of Daniel Welch, whereas the second car is a Super 2000 Mk 2 Ford Focus driven by David Nye.

Football
Proton and Norwich City F.C. signed a 3-year sponsorship deal in 2003, becoming the Canaries main sponsor for their home kit, whilst Proton-owned Lotus Cars would feature on the away kit. The deal, reportedly valued at a "seven-figure sum", was the largest sponsorship deal in the club's history. Proton's chief executive officer Tengku Mahaleel Ariff said the sponsorship deal would bring more awareness and recognition to the Proton brand, which it currently lacked.

In 2005, Proton opened a showroom at Norwich City's Carrow Road stadium, featuring products from Proton and Proton-owned brands. It was incorporated into the stadium's Jarrold Stand.

Awards and accolades

 * People's Choice, Automotive Category (Silver) – Putra Brands Awards 2017
 * People's Choice, Automotive Category (Silver) – Putra Brands Awards 2018

title: Proton Holdings