text:
Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 3

Archives

 * Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 1
 * Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 2

For the page history of any text before this time stamp please see the Archives Philip Baird Shearer 17:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Require minimum number of edits for page move permission
In response to frequent page move vandalism (willy on wheels), i would like to turn on the Wikimedia software feature to require a minimum number of edits before an user can make page moves. This should greatly reduce the page move vandalism. I took the liberty of making a proposal Requested moves/Min edit count, which can be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Min edit count. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:10, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Shouldn't this go on the metapedia, or list as an improvement in the bugzilla? WP:VP (tech) would be helpful too. Dunc|☺ 16:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If i understand correctly, the feature is already included. The only thing to do is to change the limit from 0 to 100 or so. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Added something to the RM page
I think it is necessary to refer potential RM proposers to conventions, and have set up a section called "Policies and Guidelines to be considered" that so far lists a link to Naming conventions (as much as I disagree with a certain first one). If there is a better name y'all can think of for the subsection, or any other conventions that should be linked, feel free to add them. —68.207.207.127 18:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Wikipedia is playing with me...logging in problems. —ExplorerCDT 18:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

STRAW POLL on where votes for "Requested Moves" should be placed
This vote will be open for one week +24 hours after the first vote is cast.

ARGUMENTS for the voting options

 * Arguments for all voting to take place on the talk:page of the article to be moved
 * To help with navigation a link back from WP:RM to the talk:page of the article to be moved will be provided.
 * Discussion is in the appropriate place (discussions are moved there eventually, adding an extra job)
 * Preserves the history of the discussions which are currently lost on the move
 * Less chance of a copy error either deliberately or accidently when the votes are moved
 * Saves people who have already voted on the talk:page having to vote again on RM page
 * Increases the chances that people with that article on their watchlist will notice the vote as well as getting visitors from this page
 * Prevents this page from becoming bloated
 * Lessening the chances of "naming convention disputers" from spamming every discussion with the same argument
 * Prevents instruction creep, allowing the process to end when it suits the individual case
 * Helps to stop a mass of petty nominations taking up lots of room

 * Arguments for secondary voting to take place on the Requested moves page.

 * First: A Statement of Principles
 * Requested moves (hereafter referred to as "RM") is a highly visible page with considerable traffic, including visited by Wikipedians versed across the spectrum of humanities, sciences, and the arts willing to contribute their knowledge, talents and worldviews to any discussion they desire. However, RM offers the finality and officiality in making decisions about the fate of articles on Wikipedia on par with Votes for deletion (a.k.a. VfD).  I believe that the proposal to move discussion and voting to individual talk pages will be disasterous, becoming unmanagable, and could open the door to further parochialize official Wikipedia functions that are currently centralized (like the VfD discussions).  People, both psychologically and sociologically, like buying or getting what they want in one place...this is seen throughout history by the creation of towns and urban centers, to the agoras (central markets) of Ancient Greece, the Bazaars of the Middle East, and culminating today with the one-stop-shopping offered at places like Wal-Mart.  This is the same with Wikipedia's official pages (like RM and VfD), where the fate of many articles are decided, offer the variety of Wikipedia users to participate over many discussions all located in one place.  Because of the centrality of these pages, they are heavily trafficked by the wide variety of Wikipedians.  If discussions were held on talk pages, those who constitute the traffic of RM and VfD would most likely not jump from talk page to talk page to engage in articles at the frequency they would if the discussions were held in once centralized location.  If a Wikipedian started to jump from talk page to talk page in the hopes of keeping up with RM discussions, the time-consuming nature of this navigation would gradually breed frustration that would inevitably lead to a Wikipedian who previously took part in RM discussions fervently to start spend his or her time elsewhere more wisely, perhaps lessening his/her RM participation to the point where he/she would be an infrequent contributor or simply cease contributing to RM in total.  By hosting the final discussions and voting concerning a requested move on an article's talk page, instead of one centralized location (as is the status quo), I believe that this will promote isolationism, a lack of inclusivity, and foster the growth of Wikipedia into something other than the friendly collaborative community it was intended to be.  I sincerely feel that by implementing a change to talk page voting is not in the spirit of Wikipedia — where many people of many nations and many talents come together to create a collective collection of civilization's progress and success.

 * Second: Point/Counterpoint (addressing the points enumerated above in order).
 * Requested moves is an appropriate page that many people have on their watchlist, and visit often for interesting debate and to learn new things.
 * The history of the discussions after a decision has been reached and implemented should be archived, histories of talk pages should be merged and organized. This I do agree.  However, previous problems resulting in the loss of histories &c.  have mostly been due to lazy admins who didn't do the full job.  This can be alleviated by better instructing admins that archiving and merging histories is very important.
 * Human error in copying can be fixed easily when an error is discovered because the history keeps a record every action on an article or page.
 * A few minutes to vote again on the official page will not kill someone. Besides, talk pages are usually not visited by those outside a talk page discussion just simply because there are nearly 500,000 articles and corresponding talk pages on Wikipedia.  It is simply more efficient and user-friendly to have the discussions centralized in one place.
 * The template placed on the talk page notifying people of a proposal for a move satisfies that concern. The addition of the template, and the discussion leading up to the "requested move" should suffice in directing talk page participants as both are passed along to participants via the watchlist function.  If interested parties don't see the template or relevant discussion, it is their loss.
 * There is no worry about bloating this page, as only a few requested moves are proposed at any time. Unlike the Votes for Deletion proposals that often number in the hundreds, Requested moves has only had (at most) 30 simultaneous proposals.
 * Naming convention disputers do not spam the page any more than naming convention authoritarians.
 * I do not know what "instruction creep" is. If I'm reading this correctly, I do not think talk page discussions offer the finality of decision, as the discussion could become endless given the doggedness of participants.  Time limits are just a fact of life...discussions and voting end when they are scheduled to end.  Much to the chagrin of Democrats in the 2000 U.S. presidential race...you can't keep voting forever just because you don't win.  Official pages add more authority in dictating and enforcing time limits.
 * No nomination (or question) is petty if made (or asked) in good faith. If bad faith is shown, admins can easily put a stop to a discussion if abuse becomes a problem.
 * Respectfully submitted, —ExplorerCDT 23:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Arguments for any other options
 * to be added by any other person who adds an additional voting option.

VOTING
Please sign with only #~ Feel free to add more voting options Please add comments in the Discussion section not in the Votes or Arguments sections. This vote will be open until 18:39 (UTC), 1 March 2005

Votes for all voting to take place on the talk:page of the article to be moved

 * 1) Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 119 18:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) john k 19:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutralitytalk 22:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) violet/riga (t) 22:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Jonathunder 23:51, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
 * 7) Timrollpickering 10:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) ALoan (Talk) 16:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) (with a link from WP:RM, of course)
 * 9) Oberiko 16:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Alai 17:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) Assuming there's a link from this space.  (I infer that's implied in the proposal, though it could have done with being made explicit.)
 * 11) And return this page to its original purpose - a place to ask for technical assistance in performing a simple page move.  This should not be a page to debate naming conventions in general. -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * 12) Johan Magnus 18:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Rje 17:18, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC).
 * 14) Fredrik | talk 21:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) --SqueakBox 00:09, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Linked from RM, naturally.  A.D.H. (t&m) 00:13, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) --Pmeisel 00:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Sounds better to me.--Sketchee 02:09, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) ral315 23:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Trödel| talk  14:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Votes for secondary voting if needed to take place on the Requested moves page

 * 1) ExplorerCDT 18:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Guettarda 19:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --SPUI (talk) 19:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Improv 16:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Etaonish  15:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Jayjg (talk)  16:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Wyss 22:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Sean Curtin 23:43, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for retaining the current rules

 * 1) Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DISCUSSION (comments, other suggestions and arguments)

 * If there are more than two options then Approval voting may be used.

-- Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where should we advertise this straw poll to involve as many people as possible?
 * Requests for comment --Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not do so right on the top of the Requested moves and the Wikipedia_talk:Requested moves page? Also, I think we should ask the head cheese, Jimbo Wales and his upper echelon honchos where else they would want us to advertise this. —ExplorerCDT 23:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the straw poll should be for 7 days, like a VfD. I don't want to split up my argument, and I think you should write an introductory statement to compliment your bullet points. Personally, I think we should have done the full forensic style like we were talking about for the Rutgers rugby debate. I'll ask around about contacting Jimbo and his minions. —ExplorerCDT 03:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are more arguments on this issue on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 2

The points in the ARGUMENTS section gathered together with counter points by violet/riga (t)

 * Discussion is in the appropriate place (discussions are moved there eventually, adding an extra job)
 * Requested moves is an appropriate page that many people have on their watchlist, and visit often for interesting debate and to learn new things.
 * The relevant talk page is the most appropriate place for discussions - RM is an appropriate page to link to those discussions.

 * Preserves the history of the discussions which are currently lost on the move
 * The history of the discussions after a decision has been reached and implemented should be archived, histories of talk pages should be merged and organized. This I do agree. However, previous problems resulting in the loss of histories &c. have mostly been due to lazy admins who didn't do the full job. This can be alleviated by better instructing admins that archiving and merging histories is very important.
 * I think you'll find that maintaining the edit history is not possible if the discussion takes place here.

 * Less chance of a copy error either deliberately or accidently when the votes are moved
 * Human error in copying can be fixed easily when an error is discovered because the history keeps a record every action on an article or page.
 * Yes, but that adds to the work when with the other system it wouldn't be necessary

 * Saves people who have already voted on the talk:page having to vote again on RM page
 * A few minutes to vote again on the official page will not kill someone. Besides, talk pages are usually not visited by those outside a talk page discussion just simply because there are nearly 500,000 articles and corresponding talk pages on Wikipedia. It is simply more efficient and user-friendly to have the discussions centralized in one place.
 * It is extra work, and having links to those talk pages gives you the centralisation.

 * Increases the chances that people with that article on their watchlist will notice the vote as well as getting visitors from this page
 * The template placed on the talk page notifying people of a proposal for a move satisfies that concern. The addition of the template, and the discussion leading up to the "requested move" should suffice in directing talk page participants as both are passed along to participants via the watchlist function. If interested parties don't see the template or relevant discussion, it is their loss.
 * Discussion is in the appropriate place (discussions are moved there eventually, adding an extra job)

 * Prevents [RM]] page from becoming bloated
 * There is no worry about bloating [RM] page, as only a few requested moves are proposed at any time. Unlike the Votes for Deletion proposals that often number in the hundreds, Requested moves has only had (at most) 30 simultaneous proposals.
 * But it does grow and become bloated when there are large discussions
 * "WARNING: This page is 160 kilobytes long." – I think that is proof enough of the problem

 * Lessening the chances of "naming convention disputers" from spamming every discussion with the same argument
 * Naming convention disputers do not spam the page any more than naming convention authoritarians.
 * Both are bad things.

 * Prevents instruction creep, allowing the process to end when it suits the individual case
 * do not know what "instruction creep" is. If I'm reading this correctly, I do not think talk page discussions offer the finality of decision, as the discussion could become endless given the doggedness of participants. Time limits are just a fact of life...discussions and voting end when they are scheduled to end. Much to the chagrin of Democrats in the 2000 U.S. presidential race...you can't keep voting forever just because you don't win. Official pages add more authority in dictating and enforcing time limits.
 * They add no further authority as this is just another page, not something run by people with higher powers. In fact, it could be argued that the people that want to just discuss moves may not be the best people to do it - it should be the "experts" that are editing the article.

 * Helps to stop a mass of petty nominations taking up lots of room
 * No nomination (or question) is petty if made (or asked) in good faith. If bad faith is shown, admins can easily put a stop to a discussion if abuse becomes a problem.
 * If we have to deal with move requests in a beaurocratic way then we may end up with such problems.

 * submitted by violet/riga(t)
 * Respectfully submitted, —ExplorerCDT 23:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and respectfully countered by violet/riga (t) 21:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Explorer (I think) wrote "RM offers the finality and officiality in making decisions about the fate of articles on Wikipedia on par with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (a.k.a. VfD)." This is exactly why this page, in its current form, is a bad idea. A move is not equivalent to a VfD, nor should it be. A page move is more like a content change than it is like a deletion - anyone can make a page move without discussion if they want to, and I know I've moved dozens of pages without ever bringing anyone else into it. This page was originally designed, as far as I am aware, so that non-sysops would have a central place to go to ask sysops to move pages for them that they couldn't move themselves. Now, potentially controversial moves should have discussion, and I think using this page as a place to list ongoing discussions (or incipient discussions) about controversial or potentially controversial page moves, is a good idea. But I don't see why the discussion shouldn't go on on the article's talk page. I agree with Violetriga that the best people to discuss whether to move a page are the people interested in that specific subject, not some general body of people who happen to watch this page.

That said, there have been many times when I have suggested page moves on talk pages, and then never gotten a response. Normally, I forget about the suggestion for about a year in such instances, and finally remember and just move it, without anybody having said anything. This page is a useful corrective to that, and at least provides some input into potentially controversial moves. So I think that listing articles here is a good idea. As I sit and write I'm feeling a bit torn about this. This page is very useful as a way of, uh, managing newish users who come on and decide they want to move dozens of pages at once. Telling them to go here, and then have people shoot them down, is a useful function. But if this is handled correctly, the talk pages are a only a click away. That is to say, I think this page should be more like Requests for Comment, and less like Votes for Deletion, ultimately. Although I'm a bit torn... john k 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think john has hit the nail on the head. The difference in models is that of Votes for deletion (VfD) and Requests for comments (RfC). As the page will not be deleted, whatever the outcome of a debate, it makes sense to treat a RM discussion like a RfC and place the comments on the talk page of the page under discussion to be moved. It makes handling RMs much more like an RfC than the more complicated VfD. Philip Baird Shearer 13:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IDEA! - how about including the discussion on the move of X → Y in the page Talk:X/Requested move and then transcluding it into WP:RM under the appropriate header, thusly. Similarly, transclusion could be used to display the discussion at the same time on the relevant talk page.

Would that work? Would that achieve both results at the same time - i.e. keeping the talk on the relevant article's talk page and displaying it on WP:RM? (The transclusion teqchnique is used on other high-traffic pages, like WP:FAC, WP:VfD, WP:PR, mainly to avoid edit conflicts, but there is no reason it could not be used here to keep the talk in the "right" place).

Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I like that idea. Guettarda 17:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Works for me too. It seems technically a better model, and who knows, it might have the side-effect of getting us closer to a basis of page-naming related more to established naming conventions, and topic-related discussion.  Alai 23:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If it can be done, I'd support that. —ExplorerCDT 23:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * While a step in the right direction I don't think it's the correct solution. Page moves are not the same as deletion votes or FAC discussions because they can be done by anybody and usually are - there's nothing stopping somebody renaming an article without any discussion.  The cowhand article is a good example here - it was decided that it should be moved to cowboy and was done without coming anywhere near RM.  Discussion was held on the talk page (though with few contributors, which would be different if it was advertised here) and I moved it myself.  RM, in its current form, is looking like it's an optional bureaucracy which is usually avoided by simple page moves. violet/riga (t) 23:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Another option is to have RM as its original purpose (move assistance) and links to the discussions on current surveys - it might be nice to have a centralised page for large ongoing discussions. violet/riga (t) 00:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re transcluding: How would you intergrate a straw poll which has already started on a talk page so that people did not have to vote two times? This idea although a neat technical two window solution, does not encourage people who monitor RM to read what has already been written on the talk page of the page up for moving. It also does not address the issues of Lessening the chances of "naming convention disputers" from spamming every discussion with the same argument, or preventing instruction creep, allowing the process to end when it suits the individual case. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * voting to take place on the talk:page of the article to be moved Alai 17:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) Assuming there's a link from this space.  (I infer that's implied in the proposal, though it could have done with being made explicit.)
 * I thought that it was implicit. I've added it to make it explicit. If anyone who has already voted for this option objects then please remove it. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * voting to take place on the talk:page of the article to be moved And return this page to its original purpose - a place to ask for technical assistance in performing a simple page move. This should not be a page to debate naming conventions in general. -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * I would view this as the first step in returning the page to its original purpose. But I think it has to be one step at a time. That should be discussed once this vote is over. But without voting taking place on the article talk page, I don't think that a move back to just being a page for technical assistance will be possible. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edits to WP:RM
PLEASE NOTE: Requested Moves is not the proper place to request renaming image files, or categories. Those are two actions which a registered user can accomplish on his or her own. Further, Requested Moves is not the place to promote a political or personal agenda or illustrate a point (whether that point has merit or not).

==Policies and Guidelines to be considered==  * Naming conventions   * Proper names   * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

ExplorerCDT added the above content to the notices of the page (18:51, 21 Feb 2005, 18:47, 21 Feb 2005, 18:41, 21 Feb 2005, 18:33, 21 Feb 2005). While I do not object adding the content, I believe modifications to the notices portion of the page should have been discussed before adding, except for minor ones. — Instantnood 20:29 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

 * It was, read the f*****g archive you annoying little gnat. —ExplorerCDT 20:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT has made more modifications to the page. These modifications are not discussed before hand, and are obviously not consensus of any kind. (to compare) — Instantnood 21:50 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have a problem with my elucidating the procedures, explaining how to vote, or adding more links under "policies to be considered"? Or are you saying something to hear your own voice? —ExplorerCDT 21:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it is important to keep the lead section and instructions as short as possible: regulars will know what happens in practice, and these parts are there mainly there so first-time visitors know what the rest of the page (which is where the real action takes place) is all about and how they should use it.  Inevitably, there is a tendancy for these sorts of sections to expand until no-one reads them.  I've shortened the first few sections considerably, and I've also moved the TOC up higher to address the problem mentioned below.

 * I trust that this is not too controversial, but please feel free to throw bricks here. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually approve of that. Good job. —ExplorerCDT 16:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocks of Page Moves
I am growing more and more concerned about the trend in recommending large blocks of pages to be moved, as is the case with recent requests such as XXX of Macao → XXX of Macau and the entire series regarding PRC → China/Taiwan → ROC (and vice versa). The idea and precedent of moving blocks of pages raises the question of bulk movements in policy, or convention, using wikipedia as tool to gain a political or societal legitimacy through emphasizing a certain spelling, or phrase, or whathaveyou.

Another concern that I have been grappling with is that in many circumstances pages are named accordingly with regard to a unique historical circumstance (like the particular contemporaneous spelling of a battle as opposed to a modern spelling of the site), local custom vs. internationalized reference, or nuance, Tto force through a whole block of page move requests might push such individual page concerns by the wayside in a manner that would be dangerous to Wikipedia as a whole.

I think we should start to rein in the potential to abuse the precedent that is rapidly coming into being. Perhaps it may be essential to limit page move requests to one at a time, or to specifically/explicitly enumerate the pages instead of a general block (i.e. in the current XXX in Macao → XXX in Macau) debate?

Considerations - if the extreme of enumerating each requested move in a general block of pages as a separate vote could cause bloating...something this page have never experienced before. However, not separating individual pages in a general block could promote increased confusion in the event people vote supporting one, two or a few of the block, but oppose one, two or a few of the rest of the block. Also, if in the event consensus leads to voting on individual article's discussion pages, this concern would grow wildly uncontrollable.

I look forward to your comments, whether or not you share my concern, and if necessary what solutions may be posed to this issue. (except you, Instantnood, you're just an annoying non-constructive gnat at I time I cannot find a big enough swatter).—ExplorerCDT 21:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with moving pages in a block, if that is according to the naming policy. For instance, our naming policy is that peers who are known by their peerage title should have that title in the article, and that peers who are not should not. As such, when I see a page that doesn't fit these criteria, I move them, without bringing it to W:RM. The place to discuss such issues, however, is not here, but on naming policy pages. If a consensus is arrived at at the naming policy page that the articles should be moved, they should be moved. If it goes the other way, they shouldn't be moved. But it shouldn't come here, since this is a page which is (or should be) for individual moves. john k 04:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's possibly a good thing to do block page moving -- if block moves are to take place, then handling it this way helps maintain consistancy between several pages that share the same name for something. --Improv 03:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I can understand your concerns with regards to XXX moves, but since I was the one who initiated the one with regards to Macau, may I take this opportunity to illustrate the very reason why it can be a feasible move as some has already theorised here. Indeed, the Macau spelling controversy was supposedly "solved" in a voting which took place in its talk page. It put an end to someone's insistance on renaming Macau to Macao, and since then, there has been a general consistency in the naming of Macau, until other member, which curiously comes from the same location as the earlier pro-macao member, insisted on spelling it as Macao in all his edits to this site, creating several new pages with his form of spelling. It seems like a previous voting exercise was ignored. This is the main reason why I decided to just do a second round of mass voting for all related pages in that controversy here. Perhaps the above episode also illustrates the pros and cons of having votes on each talk page, or in a centralised location like this one?--Huaiwei 20:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't mind the mass voting, I just think it's prone to abuse if the proposer doesn't do full disclosure. I agree with your points, and I remember our Macau vs. Macao fight. —ExplorerCDT 20:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you two John K and Improv approve of the paragraph commenced with "Lastly" in the introduction of the RM page? I agree that it can be used to maintain consistency, but the people who request the moves should bear the brunt of listing the articles effected. Full disclosure, so we don't wrongly hoodwink voters and make admin work easier (they're overburdened as it is) —ExplorerCDT 04:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's generally a good thing if X is used, so that we less often have one move succeed and another one fail because of quirks in how diligent the voters are. This helps with consistancy. --Improv 14:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind using "XXX" just as long as the person promoting the move lists what he wants moved. Sure, it is does help with consistency, but at the same time, not all pages fit into the same mold.  There may be historical or other reasons for why a certain page is named differently than the rest in a series, and they shouldn't be forced into a mold where they don't fit.  Now, the quirks of voters aside, I wish circumstances merited a cookie-cutter solution, but often they don't.  A perfect example being the "The Gambia" and "The Netherlands" et al. debate going on now...historically it was "The Netherlands" for a reason...and the naming issue here should be excluded from being painted with a broad brushstroke. —ExplorerCDT 15:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't think moves of this sort ought to be on this page at all. They should be in naming conventions, or what not.  In the case of Macau/Macao, the fact that a consensus at the Macau page had already been worked out suggests that you would have been in the right to simply move all the pages without listing them anywhere. IMO. john k 22:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Table of contents
The project page would be easier to use if the table of contents were higher. Maurreen 18:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Very true. In fact, the whole intro is way too long, but it's probably best to wait for the result of the poll before changing it around. violet/riga (t) 23:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New WP:RM system
I've created Requested moves/temp as an example of how the new style of RM could be organised. The vote is 20 to 9 for changing over to the new system but I'd like for those people that opposed the decision to look at the proposal. If the changeover is implemented the current discussions would be moved to the relevant talk pages (hence there currently being some red links). violet/riga (t) 19:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The design is fine. However, beacuse I don't have any time or patience to waste darting from talk page to talk page as the masses have stated emphatically they want, I'm going to refrain from participating in RMs for the foreseeable future. Back to VfD where there is one-stop shopping, I suppose. —ExplorerCDT 21:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not title the section on the talk page == Straw Poll on Move == then instruct the proposed mover to bold the next line which would include the new location and then add Talk:{Sourcepage} to the Requested moves page - that way one reviewing them could quickly jump to the location of the poll and discussion in one click Trödel| talk 17:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm - if you have time, could you try one with the discussion transcluded, as I suggested above. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I too would love to see what a transcluded RM would look like. If it would work, I'd agree to dedicate time to a transcluded system if it is what I seem to think it is. However, with the masses saying take it to the talk pages, I already know I have no time for that navigational imbroglio. —ExplorerCDT 22:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * A transcluded one would basically appear just as the present one does, just using a different (and better) system. While I agree that it would improve the state of RM as it is at the moment I don't think it goes quite far enough, though I've not looked into the idea in detail yet...

 * Positives:
 * In line with VfD, FAC and some others
 * Would allow for a good system of directing people to previous (perhaps similar) discussions rather than just at a talk page
 * Discussion can be linked from both here and the article talk page (and thus preserves the edit history too)
 * Less tidying work than the present system, but slightly harder than the link system?
 * Negatives:
 * Still creates a large page at WP:RM
 * Discussion is taken away from the talk page where previous discussions (about the same thing) may have taken place
 * Moving pages is not like VfD or FAC as they are usually done without any form of discussion - others are done with some mention on the talk page, bypassing WP:RM completely
 * Does not encourage people with the article on their watchlist to contribute - the discussion is almost hidden away, though that is true for VfD and the like
 * Doesn't prevent instruction creep, thus not allowing the process to end when it suits the individual case
 * Can still lead to this page being bloated (see how it is at the moment, nearing 200kb)

 * I'd still favour the way I have suggested, though obviously I'm biased and would be keen to hear peoples views on transclusion. violet/riga (t) 22:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts: --Philip Baird Shearer 23:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No "discussion transcluded". For all the reasons that violet/riga gave but also because it could have been added to to the voting proposals it was not.
 * Leave the current discussions in the old format, they will be gone in a week and impose the new method from a date and time specified in the introduction.
 * There should be a time limit for the link to remaining on this page before it has to be accepted or rejected. One week seems a popular choice for these things.
 * I think the layout should be specified in the introduction and should be:
 * Talk:page to be moved – page to be moved → target page - Brief description. ~
 * I have other things to do at the moment, so other than the odd comment I am going to lurk.

 * My views on some of those thoughts:
 * Time limit: some discussions can seem to go on and on (ie. Taiwan/RoC) and an enforced time limit may not work out
 * Layout: the reason I did the layout as it is was because not all moves are straight forward - sometimes numerous destinations are suggested
 * There is, of course, the argument between a too-rigid structure and a too-flexible one. violet/riga (t) 23:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If a consensus is reached after more than a week, then it can always be resubmitted or perhapse a guide line should be suggested. eg "the discussion should be open for at least 3 days and not longer than one week". Time limits tends to foster compromises and decisions. I think you have to insist on a layout. Or more than one option for the target page or If there are multiple pages to be moved then they must be a specific layout. (What you have suggested so far I think leads to confusion). The standard move: move to more than one option: and for block moves: However in principle I think this should become a technical page for simple moves involving no more than a few pages eg It should not be used for things like the ROC Taiwan dispute, There has to be a better page for such disputes. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Talk:page to be moved – page to be moved to target page – Brief discription. – ~
 * Talk:page to be moved – page to be moved to target page or target page two etc – Brief discription. – ~
 * Talk:page to be moved – page to be moved 1 to target page 1
 * page to be moved n to target page n
 * Brief discription. – ~
 * Brief discription. – ~
 * Talk:Third world - First world to First World,
 * Second world to Second World and
 * Third world to Third World
 * This was a move made earlier in the year as a block move, after listing on this page because all three were blocked by edits to the target pages – ~
 * Talk:The Levellers - Levellers to Levellers (disambiguation)
 * The Levellers to Levellers
 * the word "The" should be removed from the Levellers page. – ~

Where do I request picture moves?
This page anounces that it is the wrong place to ask for pictures to be moved. Fine, but where is the right place?

I'd like to move Image:Hedgehog.jpg aside (to Image:Hedgehog.777life.jpg) to allow commons:Image:Hedgehog.jpg to display, but I can't (and it would leave behind a redirect anyway). The local version has worse (but not actually unacceptable) copyright status, but is still a worthwhile picture. --Andrew 09:40, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * You do it yourself. Re-upload the image with the name you want, change the links on the relevant pages.  To delete the old one, ask an admin. Simple. —ExplorerCDT 17:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. If the image had multiple old versions, I suppose I should upload them all in the same order, with explanatory comments? (I'm thinking, for example, of some of the pictures on Featured Pictures Candidates which go through several iterations of minor tweaks.) Thanks. --Andrew 01:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

What form should the discussion on the talk page take
I copied these two comments from my talk page. Philip Baird Shearer
 * Your straw poll format is too formal and cumbersome. It discourages discussion in favor of voting. While that may be helpful in cut and dry yes/no decisions, for something like Requested moves, other solutions could present themselves. Remember, don't vote on everything. -- Netoholic @ 16:51, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

 * Well, with that article, I'm not concerned that the straw poll is too formal; it's just that there may or may not be anyone watching, who would vote on it. In cases where there appears to be only one user involved in the article, I think the user should be able to ask if there are any objections to moving the article, and if no one objects after a week, then an admin should be able to move the article. Rad Racer 17:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are pretty well understood. Someone suggests something, others make their comments, and a consensus may develop. I agree that we should not adopt a straw poll format here; I concur with Netoholic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason I think that it is a good idea to break out the voting from the discussion was in the section on the WP:RM page which Netoholic has removed:

 * To make it easy for the administrator to see if there is a consensus for a move...

I think that users choices and their comments should be separated, because it allows an administrator to be able to assess what the consensus is on a subject without having to read through pages of verbiage in which people may not clearly have expressed what their position is. I am sure that most admins would prefer a format which makes it clear and unambiguous for them. From watching this page for a number of months the most controversial page moves are precisely those were the administrators would benefit from a clear separation of position from opinion.

I think the format which in the section netoholic has removed was not as good as it could be. This is after all only 24 hours into the new way of doing things. The format which was there can not for example handle multiple options. But I do think that there is a need to specify a format. I think that the format should be something like this:

 * ==Requested Move == [This could link in with Trödel| talk idea above}]

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * proposal move to abc
 * (proposal move to xyz or whatever if multiple options)
 * proposal page should not move
 * ---Add more preposals above this lines.---
 * You are encouraged to use Approval voting. Please sign a proposal with only *#~
 * ---Add any discussions on the proposed Move below this line ---

 * Too much instruction creep still. Let the Talk page discussions be as casual or as formal as necessary.  Some only require a few sentences, while some require much more work.  You can't cover all bases on the instructions of this page (which still need to be massively re-worked for simplicity). -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Now that 24 hours have gone by, I think we can see how this is panning out. For subjects like Talk:Alternative information centre then a list of Support and Oppose is adequate and easy to read. But if the move is contentious like the current Talk:Calcutta then separating choice from commentary is clearly much easier for an admin who has to decide on whether there is a clear consensus at the end of the discussion. The trouble is that there will be contention is not necessarily obvious before the first few opinions are expressed. Perhaps a compromise would be to use this format:
 * ==Requested move==
 * proposal copied from WP:RM.
 * Add just * Support or   * Oppose under the proposal followed by your signature:" ~ "''
 * ---Add any discussion on the proposed move below this line ---

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above also covers the situation where someone preposes a new proposal as in Talk:November 17 (resistance movement). So unless anyone has strong objections, I'm going to put the format, immediately above, into the article as a second attempt to replace the first attempt which was deleted by Netoholic. Philip Baird Shearer 23:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WARNING THIS IS AN ARCHIVE SEE Wikipedia talk:Requested moves FOR LIVE TALK PAGE AFTER 23:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Implied volatility

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Boojangl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Volatility Smile separate page
I removed the discussion on Volatility Smile and redirected to a new page. In particular, the description contain errors, such as:

 * The implied volatility is typically significantly higher for in-the-money stock and interest-rate call options, i.e. call options with strikes lower than the current forward rate, than at-the-money options. Out-of-the-money call options on stocks and interest rates typically have a higher implied volatility than at-the-money. Plotting the graph of strike versus implied volatility therefore leads to a picture that looks something like a smile - hence the name of the phenomenon.

In fact, for stocks, it's all 'downside' (low-strike) options that have higher implied volatility while all 'upside' options have lower implied vol.

The nature of volatility smile (skew) and term structure of volatility is inter-related and I think it merits it's own page.

Example
What is "the forward rate for 2 year into 1 year LIBOR"?--Jerryseinfeld 15:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the "discount factor for value of money in two years time"? That here "is 0.9"? The value of money in two years is supposed to be 0.9 times todays value? 1.9 times todays value?--Jerryseinfeld 15:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This seems to have been written to confuse. It doesn't explain how the data come together, it just hands you the numbers, then shows you the final step. It needs to show the whole process, not just the result. GeneralBorne (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition of implied volatility of a financial instrument
Doesnt this only apply to options? Any other type of financial instrument that has an implied volatility?--Sgcook 09:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only financial instruments whose value depends on the underlier's volatility are options, and thus only options can have an implied volatility. However many different types of instruments can have embedded optionality - for instance, an interest rate cap.

Proposed rewrite
I think a better approach for this article would be to:
 * 1) better motivate how to generate implied volatility from pricing models,
 * 2) describe the inability to invert pricing models that causes the use of root-finding techniques,
 * 3) discuss which root-finding techniques are used and why,
 * 4) why quoting options on a volatility basis is a more useful measure of relative value than quoting on a price basis.

This is a fairly major rewrite I've got in mind. Any objections and/or comments, etc.? Ronnotel 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Silence interpreted as consent. Changes have been made, please review, comment & revise as appropriate Ronnotel 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect description
The person who wrote this article has a gross misunderstanding of the relationship of the components of the BS model. It is GIVEN THAT OPTION PRICES ARE CORRECT, therefore, it is implied volatility that is the single unknown that is to be solved for.

This is indirectly supported by the comment: "Implied volatility is so important that options are often quoted in terms of volatility rather than price, particularly between professional traders."

These professional's are quoting implied volatility because THAT IS THE UNKNOWN. The option price is both known and accepted as being correct. 67.150.140.250 (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)jimmyreno 2 august 2010

IV as forecast tool
The statement "Implied volatility is useful for forecasting the market" needs to be supported by some evidence. I'm not saying it's wrong, but this assertion its own it doesn't help very much. Can you elaborate? Also, it doesn't belong in the example section - can you find another place to put this idea? Ronnotel 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

IV on option or undelier
Behshour, I reverted your change because it's inaccurate to describe iv as belonging to the underlier. I understand what you're getting at - i.e. it's the volatility of the underlying asset's price, not the option. However, each of the multiple options written on an underlier can implied a different volatility, so saying that implied volatility is the volatility of an underlier seems odd. I think it's better to associate it with the option on whose price the iv is calculated. Ronnotel 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

VIX definition error
Just popped in to remove the word "futures" with respect to how the VIX is derived. It is derived from SPX options, not SP or ES-- which are futures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.129.111 (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Implied volatility


text:
Warburton, Western Australia

Warburton or Warburton Ranges is an Aboriginal Australian community in Western Australia, just to the south of the Gibson Desert and located on the Great Central Road (part of the Outback Way) and Gunbarrel Highway. At the, Warburton had a population of 576.

History
The settlement was established as an Aboriginal mission under the auspices of the UAM (United Aborigines Mission) in 1934 by Will Wade, his wife and his children. It was named after explorer Peter Warburton, the first European to cross the Great Sandy Desert.

The Ngaanyatjarra people of the Western Desert cultural bloc were nomadic people, but with the arrival of missionaries in 1933, they were drawn to the mission. By 1954, around 500 to 700 Aboriginal people lived at the mission. There was a school where they were taught in English, and traditional culture discouraged. Domestic skills were taught to women and girls, and the men collected dingo or became shearers or builders.

More people were attracted to work at the copper mine which opened nearby, and by the 1970s there were few Aboriginal people living as nomads in the bush. In 1973, the UAM handed control of the settlement to the Aboriginal people represented by the Ngaanyatjarra Council, while the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority of the Government of Western Australia became responsible for economic development.

The town was hit by a flash flood in February 2011. Water levels in some parts of town reached as high as 2 m resulting in 60 homes being evacuated. Water flowed through 15 homes to a height of 30 cm and two people had to be rescued from a stranded four-wheel drive vehicle that had water reach window level.

Warburton Ranges controversy
In 1957, the "Warburton Ranges controversy" or "Warburton Ranges crisis" arose, after it was reported in 1956 that at least 40 Aboriginal people had been discovered to be ill and malnourished in the Central Desert.

The matter came into public consciousness after, in partnership with the British Government, the Commonwealth government had started testing nuclear weapons in the desert, and the Government of Western Australia raised concerns about the Western desert people living nomadically in the area. The response from the Commonwealth was that Aboriginal welfare was a state government matter. Activists protested and many concerned members of the public wrote letters to the Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies, as well as their local MPs. An enquiry into the state of the Aboriginal people by a select committee followed, with their report tabled in the Western Australian Parliament in December 1956, officially called the Report of the Select Committee appointed to Enquire into Native Welfare Conditions in the Laverton-Warburton Range Area (or the Grayden Report, after chairman William Grayden). It reported that many of the Wongi people (referring to the Wangkatha, a group of eight Aboriginal peoples ) of the Warburton Ranges region suffered from malnutrition, blindness, disease, burns and other injuries, and that abortions and infanticide were common. Mainstream newspapers brought the matter to public attention after the Communist Party of Australia's newspaper Tribune published a damning assessment of the report, and letters to the editors flooded in.

In response to the publicity, three separate groups visited the area:
 * a group of journalists led by Rupert Murdoch, then editor of The News (Adelaide), to an area up to the Rawlinson Ranges in the north;
 * a group of Western Australian Department of Health officials, who covered the ground as far as the Laverton area in the west; and
 * a group of anthropologists, including Ronald and Catherine Berndt, who travelled southwards as far as the transcontinental railway.

Murdoch rejected the findings outright, saying in an article "These fine native people have never enjoyed better conditions", accompanied by a photograph of a well-fed, happy family group – failing to mention that the photo was four years old. The anthropologists said that the report had been exaggerated, and that malnutrition was not as widespread as it claimed, but argued that the status of Aboriginal reserves need examination. Being the Aboriginal people's "most tangible asset", mineral rights should not be granted in their land by the government.

In response to Murdoch's repudiation of the report, Grayden set out to return to the area in February 1957, this time with Pastor Doug Nicholls and armed with a movie camera. The resulting film, titled Manslaughter, was screened in Adelaide, Perth, Sydney, and in country towns, shocking audiences with its depiction of malnourished children. More White Australians wrote to the Prime Minister and rejected the federal government's response and Murdoch's report, and the Save the Aborigines Committee was established in Melbourne (a precursor to the Victorian Aborigines Advancement League. The incident proved a spur to a range of activism, including plans by the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines' Protection Society, based in London, in conjunction with the Victorian Council for Aboriginal Rights (CAR) and the Aboriginal-Australian Fellowship in New South Wales, in collaboration with Jessie Street, a leading Australian suffragette. Anna Froland of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom's Melbourne branch, was a leading figure in keeping the issue alive, arguing that both federate and state governments were responsible for the welfare of the country's Aboriginal peoples.

Soon a national movement grew, promoted by Shirley Andrews, the Secretary of the Victorian Council for Aboriginal Rights, Charles Duguid, the President of the Aborigines' Advancement League of South Australia, and Stan Davey, Secretary of the Victorian Aborigines Advancement League. The national movement was created in Adelaide in February 1958, when activists from all over Australia formed the Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement (now FCAATSI).

Geography
Warburton is the centre of a very large and extremely isolated Aboriginal reserve, Ngaanyatjarra, which stretches east to the Northern Territory border. Beyond there the first major settlement is Yulara, near Uluru. The closest town is Laverton 560 km south west along the Great Central Road.

Warburton is situated on the Elder Creek.

The area around Warburton continues to be of interest for mining exploration, predominantly for copper and nickel, but also uranium and gold.

Town planning and demographics
Warburton Layout Plan No.1 was prepared in accordance with State Planning Policy 3.2 Aboriginal Communities, and was endorsed by the community on 9 December 2003 and the Western Australian Planning Commission on 29 June 2004.

The demographics of the population are likely matched by the overall data indicated for the Shire of Ngaanyatjarraku 2016 Census. The 2016 Census indicated a population of 576 residents, 84.9% of whom were Indigenous Australians.

Arts and culture
The Indigenous people of Warburton belong to the Western Desert cultural bloc. It is also in the area of the Papunya Tula art movement, which was founded in 1971–2 and whose name derives from derives from Papunya, a settlement located about 240 km north-west of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory. Artworks by Papunya Tula artists are represented in many major art galleries, museums, institutions and private collections both in Australia and around the world. The main language spoken is Ngaanyatjarra. According to the 2006 census, English was the only language spoken at home by 9.2% of Indigenous persons usually resident in Warburton while Ngaanyatjarra (78.5%) and Wangkatha(2.3%) were the only two other Indigenous languages spoken.

Wilurarra Creative Centre
Wilurarra Creative Centre is a community facility which is activated by a year-round program, for people aged between 17 and 30 years. Within Wilurarra Creative's Centre people work on a range of different practices including music, fashion performance, land and cultural practice, digital media, print media and art. Wilurarra Creative engages with the demand from Warburton's young people for the activities that link the reality of contemporary cultural context within which Ngaanyatjarra life operates.

The centre was built in 1994, the first dedicated music recording studio in the Ngaanyatjarra region, and its programs have been across various art and cultural forms, subject matter and involving a range of community people. In 2007, a video produced by Warburton Youth Artists Nerida Lane and Prudence Andy won the prestigious Heywire Award. The Wilurarra Creative program is based on empowerment, equality and collaboration. Wilurarra also utilises the democratising power of YouTube. The Studio and its programs are currently funded by the Federal Attorney General's Department and occur in the town of Warburton on the Ngaanyatjarra Lands.

Tjulyuru Cultural and Civic Centre
The Tjulyuru Cultural and Civic Centre houses the Tjulyuru Regional Arts Gallery, which is reputed to be the largest collection of community-controlled Aboriginal Australian art in the world, also known as the Warburton Collection. The gallery exhibits Aboriginal arts and crafts from Warakurna Artists, Papalunkutja Artists, Kayili Artists, Tjanpi Weavers and Wilurarra Creative. The Warburton Arts Project was commenced in 1990 to preserve local tradition and culture, with the new cultural centre opening in October 2000. It includes a performing arts venue, and is a regional centre for Ngaanyatjarra culture.

Rainbow cave
The rock art site known as the "Rainbow cave" has been painted layer upon layer over the years, using imagery which is used to teach children. Stewart Davies and Tommy Simms are two of the artists who painted the cave in the early 2000s.

Facilities
Warburton is in the Shire of Ngaanyatjarraku. Information on travel and tourism in the area can be found on their website. The town has an air strip, one community store, health clinic, school, youth drop-in centre, open air swimming pool, sports field, gallery and coffee shop (open Sunday mornings), and roadhouse. The town is serviced by Australia Post and the Flying Doctor Service.

A two-chair haemodialysis unit opened in the community in 2013. Patients can return to Warburton permanently or for extended visits and be treated. The service is run by Western Desert Dialysis in partnership with Ngaanyatjarra Health Service.

Ngaanyatjarra Community College was opened in August 1996 to provide a range of adult education options for the community. The only current service offered at the college is a telecentre.

Warburton is a "dry" community where the use and import of alcohol is prohibited under local by-laws.

Tourists and visitors need a permit from the Ngaanyatjarra Council to enter the town and use any of the highways in the area.

Climate
Warburton has a semi-arid climate (Bsk) with long, hot summers and short, warm winters. January is the hottest month of the year, with a mean maximum temperature of 37.9 °C and a mean minimum of 23.2 °C. July is the coolest month with a mean maximum temperature of 20.9 °C and a mean minimum temperature of 5.8 °C.

Average rainfall is 242.7 mm, with February tending to be the wettest month and September the driest month. Warburton is therefore more affected by the tropical rain systems from the north of Australia rather than the rain-bearing cold fronts arriving from Antarctica towards the south of Australia.

title: Warburton, Western Australia


text:
Packard Clipper

The Packard Clipper is an automobile that was built by the Packard Motor Car Company (and by the later Studebaker-Packard Corporation) for model years 1941–1942, 1946–1947 and 1953–1957. For 1956 only, Clipper was classified as a stand-alone marque. The Clipper was introduced in April 1941, as a mid-model year entry. It was available only as a four-door sedan. The Clipper name was re-introduced in 1953, for the automaker's lowest-priced lineup. By 1955, the Clipper models were seen as diluting Packard's marketing as a luxury automobile marque. It was named for a type of sailing ship, called a clipper.

For only the 1956 model year, the Clipper became a stand-alone make of automobile produced by the Studebaker-Packard Corporation. The Clipper line was aimed at the middle-price field of American automobiles that included DeSoto, Oldsmobile, Hudson, and Mercury. Following the closure of Packard's Detroit, Michigan factory in 1956, the Clipper marque was discontinued, although the Clipper name was applied to 1957 Packards that were built at Studebaker's South Bend, Indiana, factory.

1941–1947
By the end of the 1930s, Packard president Max M. Gilman realized that his best efforts to improve profitability during the last lean decade had not been enough. The Packard One-Twenty had arrived in 1935 and saved the company from immediate demise; the One-Ten had followed, achieving even higher volume. Despite a strong performance in the revival year 1937, Packard sales had plummeted as the depression returned in 1938, and the 76,000 sales for the calendar year 1939 were hardly past the break-even point. They netted the company a scant half-million dollars. This precarious financial state combined with the new model developments among Packard's rivals, GM's LaSalle and Cadillac Series 61, Chrysler Imperial, and the Lincoln-Zephyr, meant that Gilman quickly needed something radically new if he wanted to keep the company alive.

Introduced just eight months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Packard's hopes for the future rode on the new car design. The Packard Clipper represented a break from traditional styling and embodied an abrupt change in construction techniques. However, World War II intervened. It made the investment to produce one of the only all-new 1941 American cars impossible to realize in a normal marketplace.

Initial reception
The Clipper's market timing could not have been worse. After only 16,600 of the 1941 models were made, and a few thousand 1942s, Detroit stopped building civilian automobiles to concentrate on defense production. By the time cars began rolling off the lines again in late 1945, the still sleek Clipper's impact had been diminished by four years of war. The bright promise of its debut was limited by late introduction; what should have been its solid sophomore year was weakened by World War II. Its third and fourth years were postponed until 1946–47. Though Packard designer John Reinhart and other Company insiders wanted to retain and "sweeten (in Reinhart's words)" the Clipper's svelte lines, Packard management felt pressured by new postwar designs throughout the industry, introducing the mixed review "bathtub" or "pregnant elephant" 1948–1950 Packards.

There were only two other automakers that introduced all-new 1941 models which were stopped short by the American entry into World War II and thus rendered obsolete before their time. Besides Packard, Ford brought out a much-changed design for the 1941 model year — the restyled Ford and its Mercury clone. Nash also produced all-new 1941 models, using monocoque "unitized" construction for the first time. General Motors redesigned for 1942, arguably a piece of bad timing even worse than Packard's, but the 1942 cars were so relatively few in number that they still looked reasonably new when GM resumed automotive production in 1946. The Ford/Mercury comparison is not apt either, primarily because these were quite different cars from Packards, with no pretense of luxury. Nor did their design history mirror the Clipper's. The 1941 Fords and Mercurys were evolutionary developments, clearly related to the 1940s they replaced. The Clipper was such a dramatic break with the previous Packard design as to preclude comparisons.

After the war, while Packard opted to improve the Clipper, while other automakers restyled its models for 1949. While the bulbous 1941–48 Fords, Mercurys, and Nashes were replaced by modern designs, the Clipper was replaced by a bulbous 1948 upgrade that, while well received in its initial year, aged quickly in comparison with the new models from the "Big Three" and Nash. A 1949 Mercury Eight which had cost $2,000 new was still worth $430 five years later, while a 1949 Packard Eight which had cost $2,200 new was worth only $375. Motor Trend automotive journalist Tom McCahill, who had raved about the Packard Clipper, called the 1948 Packard "a goat".

The Clipper's timing was unfortunate. The state of the world being beyond Packard's control, Clipper production came to a halt on February 9, 1942, just as it was hitting its stride and when Clipper styling had spread through the entire Packard model lineup.

Style identity
A full envelope body with a modern look was a long time coming at Packard. Cadillac was wearing pontoon fenders and flowing lines by 1934 and had adopted all-steel bodies by 1935. In 1936, Lincoln announced the Zephyr, with an all-steel unibody, and a shape so advanced that derivations of it were still in production twelve years later. Chrysler also tried introducing a streamlined platform which the market didn't respond well to, named the Chrysler Airflow. By comparison, Packard adhered to traditional, crisp, conservative styling. Its main acknowledgment of new-era styling was the skirted fender which appeared in 1933. Packard – like Lincoln and Cadillac – had survived the Depression by building medium-priced cars: the One Twenty, Zephyr, and LaSalle, respectively. But unlike its rivals, Packard styling had remained arch-traditional. Unlike Lincoln, Packard followed the medium-priced One-Twenty with an almost-low-priced car, the Six (later briefly known as the One Ten). Unlike Cadillac, Packard refused to market its cheaper models by a different name and remained wedded to them long after prosperity had returned. By 1941, the year the Clipper debuted, the least expensive Cadillac was priced at $1,445; the lowest priced Packard sold for only $927.

Arguably its conservative design philosophy had stood Packard well in the years leading up to the Clipper. The company was able to advertise—and sold quite a few Packards with—styling continuity from year to year. There was a family resemblance between a 1939 and a 1932. In 1939, the comparison of its One Twenty with the LaSalle, the company declared that: "Packard has style identity...Packard styling is consistent...But look at the 1938 LaSalle! About the only similarity is in the name, and who can be sure that a sudden fanciful style change won't make the 1939 a style orphan?"

Mercedes-Benz and Rolls-Royce survived for years with very expensive but dated designs. Packard also survived with limited styling change for at least eight or nine years up through 1940. Packard's hallmarks were good ones: the chiseled frontispiece; the grille recalling classic Greek architecture; the ox-yoke radiator/hood shape harkened back to the Model L of 1904. The cormorant mascot, red hexagon hubs, and arrowhead side-spear, were recognizable and timeless.

To create a modern envelope body while retaining those famous hallmarks was no small undertaking. It is still one of the chief accomplishments of automotive industrial design that the people who created the Packard Clipper were able to do so flawlessly. Advertising invited America to "Skipper the Clipper" in 1941. It was showing the country an obviously brand-new, up to date, in Packard's words, "Windstream" or "Speed-Stream" automobile, yet one which was still undeniably a Packard. Though it did not owe a curve or contour to any previous model, the milestone 1941 Clipper carried the same inimitable radiator and hood shape, as well as the same arrowheads and red hexes, and the same long hood and close-coupled profile of Packards of the past.

Design
Writing in The Classic Car and The Packard Cormorant, Joel Prescott published an account of the Clipper design which considerably revised the picture offered by George Hamlin and Dwight Heinmuller in Packard: A History of the Motor Car and The Company, published by Automotive Quarterly. James A. Ward's book on the decline of the Packard Motor Car Company includes views of designers such as Howard Darrin, John Reinhart, William Reithard, and Alex Tremulis.

Prior to World War II, Packard, like most auto companies at the time, did not have a styling department. It was Harley Earl's formidable Art and Colour Section at General Motors that convinced the industry of the importance of styling. A handful of outside consultants, like Raymond Loewy at Studebaker, occasionally sold their designs to American producers. Sometimes the designs even reached production without drastic changes by the body engineers, who at that point largely controlled the shape of cars. One such design consultant was Howard "Dutch" Darrin, whose involvement in the Clipper occurred because Packard was his favorite American make.

After returning to America in 1937 following a successful career as a Paris coachbuilder, Darrin looked around for chassis on which to practice his automotive art. He said, "I concentrated on Packards knowing that by lowering the radiator I could make a very beautiful custom-bodied Packard with little change in its basic structure." The result was a long skein of dramatic Packard-Darrins, which were actually cataloged by the company at one point and which led to Darrin's role in the Clipper. "Around 1940, Packard called and asked if I'd design a new standard line car for them. The hitch was that I had only ten days to do so, Chief stylist Ed Macauley (actually vice-president for design) would be on the coast for that amount of time, and if I didn't have anything before he left, it would be a lost cause. The company offered me a thousand dollars a day if I could meet the deadline."

Confident in his ability to put a thousand a day to good use, Darrin said he thought he "could establish enough lines for a full- and quarter-scale model". Later he said that to meet the deadline, he "slept several nights on a drafting table", yet Packard never paid him.

Kaiser-Frazer stylist Bob Robillard admitted that Darrin had held onto his claim as the originator of the Clipper almost from the start. A 1946, Darrin paper delivered before the Society of Automotive Engineers, "Does Styling Control the Design of Cars?" stating that he widened the Clipper body because the continuous fender-line, which comes right through the door past the A-pillar, required more width for the proper hinging of the door, "the net result being a wider and more roomy car." However, according to Reithard, "the parameters for track, wheelbase and overall length had been established. Other than that, we had very little to go on except some very rough sketches and hand-waving from Darrin."

While Darrin held himself the central design figure and the original design "called for a sweeping front fender-line that carried right through the doors to the rise of the rear fender, similar to a custom Clipper I built later for Errol Flynn". However, Packard shortened the sweep to fade away at mid-door. This was done as a hedge because no one knew if the through-fender-line would sell. He said Packard Styling also "vandalized the design by throwing on huge gobs of clay along the wheelbase" creating a flare to the lower part of the doors to hide the running boards they added for the same reason. Thus, by Darrin's own admission, the Clipper that appeared in production was not entirely his work. Few designers besides Darrin believed this splendid car was the product of ten days' work. But despite the work of Packard's designers, the Clipper's theme was clearly Darrin's, confirmed by Alex Tremulis and other insiders.

At the time Packard contacted Darrin about designing a production car in the theme of his limited-production Victorias, the company was, according to Darrin, "....so afraid of GM they couldn't see straight." GM's new C bodies, introduced midway through the 1940 model year, made Packard's traditional bodies, only facelifted since their 1938 introduction, look dated. Packard had, as Darrin said, "....the best chassis in the industry," but upper-echelon GMobiles looked more modern than Packard's traditional 1941 bodies. 1941 Buick and Cadillac sales were up 24% while Packard's traditional bodied cars down an accordant amount.

The Clipper changed that. The only thing hindering the Clipper's ascendency was War II, and after the war, the sheet steel shortages and strikes at vendors plagued all independents. After the war, for example, Chrysler was held up for weeks just by a strike at the supplier of their door locks. Being a holding company, GM was better able to weather this situation.

Perhaps the best summation of the Clipper's design comes from Joel Prescott: "The truth may well be that the Clipper should be remembered as automotive history's most successful committee design, because assigning the genius of its beautiful lines exclusively to one particular designer cannot now be done with any degree of certainty." And as it turned out, this new look guaranteed the Clipper an appearance never compromised by competitive imitators. In 1942 Cadillac and Buick adopted the same pontoon fender line, but the Clipper still looked unique, apart from and slightly above the crowd, especially the new 1942 senior Clippers, which alone retained the debut 1941's 127 in wheelbase, longer hood, and front fenders.

The Clipper was to be Packard's last bellringer not just for the Forties, but through the firm's 1956 demise, another reason its name brought back in 1953. Though introduced in April of '41, the Clipper, despite priced between the One-Twenty and One-Sixty, outsold the entire year's One-Twenty production.

Engineering and evolution
When considering the great transitional designs that brought us from the art decorations and speed-lining age of the Thirties into the envelope bodies of the Forties, much is always made of Bill Mitchell's famous Cadillac Sixty Special. In particular, its thin window frames, squared-off roof, wider-than-high grille, and concealed running boards were bold steps forward. The Clipper had at least as many pioneering features in an even more integrated package.

The original milestone 1941 Clipper rode the 120/160/180 wheelbase of 127 in and used the One Twenty's 282 CID straight eight, but produced 125 bhp (five more than the One Twenty). Despite the familiar engine, few Clipper parts were interchangeable with other models. The chassis was entirely new: a double-drop frame allowed a lower floor without reducing road clearance. The engine was mounted well forward and the rear shocks were angled to assist the traditional Packard fifth shock in controlling side-sway. The front suspension was entirely new since the lower frame eliminated the need for Packard's traditional long torque arms, the same reason Rolls-Royce and Bentley, despite copying nut for bolt Packard's prewar Saf-t-fleX i.f.s, also went with a similar GM-type i.f.s. in the '56-on Silver Cloud/Bentley S series; a double-link connection between the Pitman arm and steering brackets, with a crossbar and idler arm and two cross tubes, controlled wheel movement.

The 1941 Clipper was the widest production car in the industry and the first to be wider than it was tall—a foot wider to be exact. The body from cowl to deck was a single piece of steel, the largest in the industry, and the floor pan had only one welded seam from end to end. Single pieces of sheet metal comprised the rear quarters and hood. The hood could be lifted from either side of the car or removed entirely by throwing two levers. Instead of the traditional third-side window, ventipanes were incorporated in the rear doors, providing controllable flow-through ventilation. The battery made its first move from under the seat to under the hood, where it stayed warmer and was more accessible. There was a "Ventalarm" whistle to warn when the tank was within a gallon of being full, and an accelerator-activated starter button, so the act of starting simultaneously set the automatic choke. Reithard's symmetrical dashboard contained a full ration of instruments, including an electric oil pressure gauge adapted from the One Sixty. Options included Packard's Electro-Matic vacuum-operated clutch, which let the driver ignore the clutch pedal in ordinary driving; "Aerodrive" (overdrive); an effective auxiliary under-seat heater, leather upholstery, fender skirts, and, for $275, air conditioning — a Packard first, introduced on all eight-cylinder 1940 models.

Introduced in April 1941, as a single four-door sedan model, the introductory Clipper was by no means a cheap or even medium-priced car. Per Packard chronicler MGH Scott, the Clipper was neither junior nor senior, and priced as it was since the days of strictly high hat luxe were over thanks to more affordable engineering improvements from the late '30s and more egalitarian times. The Clipper sold for around $1,400, in a market niche between the One Twenty and One Sixty, competing in the midst of Buick Roadmaster, Cadillac Sixty-One, Chrysler New Yorker, Lincoln Zephyr. Despite a mid-year start, the Clipper garnered 16,600 sales for the 1941 model year, eclipsing the total year's 17,100 less expensive One-Twenties. Clearly, for Packard, it was the wave of the future. By the 1942 model year, Clipper styling spread through the Packard line, except where special tooling existed—convertibles, taxis, wagons, and commercial cars. Curiously, however, the market slot occupied by the 1941 Clipper was abandoned, recreating a gap between the base 282-ci Clipper Custom ($1.341) and the 356-ci One-Sixty Clipper ($1,688).

The bulk of the 1942 production was concentrated on the 120 in wheelbase junior models, but the One Sixty and One Eighty Clippers proved conclusively that Packard was as much a builder of luxury cars as ever. The '42 160/180 Clipper was 9.5 in longer and 140 lb heavier than its square-rigged 1941 predecessor, with wider cabin, nearly as much rear legroom as the long wheelbase 1941-42 160/180, which retained the old-style Packard body.

The smooth 356 CID straight-eight of the One Sixty and One Eighty Clippers, featuring a 104 lb, nine-main-bearing crankshaft and hydraulic valve lifters, was the most powerful engine in the industry through 1948, exceeding Cadillac's V8 by 15 hp. It could deliver 70 mph in second gear overdrive and take the 4000 lb car to over 100 mph on Packard's Proving Grounds banked oval track. In 1950, ten years after Packard's nonpareil nine-main-bearing 356 inline 8 debuted, Rolls-Royce mirrored the design for their nine-main bearing, F-head 346-ci B-80 inline 8, used only in a handful of Phantom IVs produced solely for heads of state, military vehicles, and Dennis fire trucks. Like Packard's 245-ci six used in junior Clippers, Packard's 1940–50 356 Super-8 engine also appeared in marine guise 1947-51.

The top-of-the-line Clipper One Eighty offered two shades of leather or six colors of wool broadcloth upholstery, Mosstred carpeting from New York's Shulton Looms, walnut-grained instrument panels, amboyna burl garnish moldings, seatbacks stuffed with down and rear center armrests. Unlike any other contemporary, the post-war Custom Super's headliner was seamed fore to aft instead of sideways. Packard claimed that the unique headliner was adopted "to provide a more spacious feel to the interior."

With a nearly full line of Clippers, Packard managed to build 34,000 1942 models before production ceased in February (an annual rate of around 80,000). According to John Reinhart, there is no doubt that Clipper styling would have proliferated in 1943–45. "The next logical step would have been convertibles and commercials—and a wagon." But the war intervened. Whereas Cadillac with its greater facilities was able to field a complete line of restyled 1942s, including convertibles, all of which came right back in 1946, Packard was able only to add a club coupe body before the war.

The lower priced two-door club coupe was the sportier Clipper despite a weight saving of only 45 lbs., with about 40 built before production ended in February 1942; a single One Sixty the only example known to exist. Postwar, about 600 senior coupes were made, compared to about 6,600 senior sedans.

In 1946–47 the numerical designations were dropped, and the line consisted of Clipper Sixes and Eights on the 120 in wheelbase and Supers and Custom Supers on the 127 in wheelbase. For the first time there were now seven-passenger sedans and limousines, riding a 148 in wheelbase. For their type, these "professional Packards" enjoyed success. They compare with Cadillac's 1946–47 Seventy-five, beating it not only by 15 hp but by a foot of wheelbase, yet selling for about the same $4,500–$5,000. Counting several thousand bare chassis supplied to commercial body manufacturers, the Seventy-five outsold the long-wheelbase Clipper; but for finished cars from the factory, production was about 3,100 cars each for 1946–47 combined.

Many economic experts predicted that the end of World War II would bring a severe recession or perhaps even another depression to the United States. They had history on their side because the US did experience a sharp, albeit brief economic downturn after World War I. Perhaps Packard's management team took these calamitous warnings to heart while planning its postwar strategy. If the economy were to fall, it would make sense to market the low-priced Packards—the Clipper Sixes and Eights—rather than the upmarket Supers and Custom Supers.

The postwar economy proved the experts wrong. It was healthy and many materials, notably sheet steel, were in short supply. Workers who would never have struck during the war, now demanded more money, and so the automakers and their suppliers endured a series of costly strikes. These factors, of course, strangled production. At the same time, Americans were willing to spend freely to acquire most anything—especially new cars. Packard could not produce cars in the numbers intended, and it was selling the less profitable junior-series models.

Packard management's chief interest after the war was in the same medium-priced cars that had saved it during the Depression, the Six and junior Eights. The company was still firmly run by President George Christopher, who had helped save it with the One Twenty. Christopher, a graduate of GM's Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac divisions. Christopher had junior Clippers in production by October 1945, but it was not until June 1946 that the first Super/Custom Super came down the line. Total Packard production in the first two postwar model years was 82,000, against 91,000 Cadillacs. The difference was that the vast bulk of Packard production was of Clipper Sixes and Eights priced $1,700–2,200. Other than the less popular Series 61 price leader, which replaced the LaSalle for 1941, postwar Cadillacs began at around $2,300. Packard could have built and sold as many senior Clippers as Cadillac did Series 62s and 60Specials, had Christopher and his team so chosen.

The long-wheelbase (147-inch) Clipper seven-passenger sedan and limousine were competitive with Cadillac and the low-volume Chrysler Crown Imperial (Lincoln had no long models) in the first two postwar years. Likewise, among owner-driver models, Packard had Cadillac neatly bracketed. The Cadillac Sixty-two sedan and coupe started around $2,300 in 1946—about the same price as the Super Clipper. Against Cadillac's $3,100 Sixty Special, which came only as a four-door sedan, Packard offered the more sumptuously trimmed Custom Super Clipper sedan or coupe for about the same money. The 1946–47 Cadillac Series 62 and 60 Special outsold the concurrent Packard Super and Custom Super Clipper three to one, simply because George Christopher's board chose to focus on building junior models, which accounted for 80% of Packard's postwar production.

This is a new point that has been missed in the many postmortems of Packard's fall: Reverting to strictly luxury cars would not have meant downsizing the labor force or contracting the facilities. The market for anything on wheels was bottomless; it did not matter whether the car cost $1,800 (Clipper Eight). $2,300 (Clipper Super) or $2,900 (Custom Super). It would have sold. Nor is this a hindsight judgment, since Packard management was capable of seeing this at the time. At the start of postwar car production, Fortune recorded a consensus that "there now exists a market for from 12 to 14 million cars", and that was in a day when three million or so cars was considered a very good year. "In 1941," Fortune continued, "The 32 million American families owned 29,600,000 cars . . . As 1946 began, the cars were down to 22 million which is not very far from the danger point (18 million) of a transportation breakdown . . . of this remaining total, at least half are in their last days." It did not take a mystic to comprehend these facts, as the late Hickman Price, Jr., who bought Willow Run for the Kaiser-Frazer partners, once said: "I believed we would have a period of three or four years—I remember putting 1950 as the terminal date in which we can sell everything we can make."

Almost immediately after production got rolling in 1945, chief stylist John Reinhart was told, much against his judgment, to update the Clipper. If Dutch Darrin had thought Packard loaded "gobs of clay" onto his original model in 1941, what must he have thought of the hideously bulbous 1948 models? Furthermore, there was no change in market orientation, still rooted firmly in the medium price field. Indeed, in 1948, the final year for President George Christopher, senior Packard production dwindled from 20 percent to 11 percent of total production, trailing Cadillac by tens of thousands. Packard, as a later president, James Nance, stated, "handed the luxury car market to Cadillac on a silver platter."

Professional designers have contemplated continuations of the Clipper into 1948–49, with a broader range of body styles including hardtops and convertibles. Their designs were beautiful and would have kept pace with the all-new Cadillacs and Lincolns of 1949, allowing Packard to come back with its first postwar redesign in 1950. But the key failure was to reorder the corporation's priorities and establish it once again as the American luxury car it had been so successful for forty years.

Packard lost its battle for survival since the company could not achieve GM volume, it would have been smarter to extract more profit from each car built. Not only were customers standing in line, but by putting top-of-the-line Packards on the road, the public's image of Packard as a luxury car builder would have been enhanced.

The 1948 facelift lost the design continuum the Clipper had offered. Though it retained the Clipper's basic shell, the 1948 model bore no resemblance to its predecessor. The bulbous 1948 design became known to some as the "upside-down bathtub" or "pregnant elephant" and Packard's market share declined.

The money spent on the facelift, as John Reinhart and others maintained, should have gone into an expansion of Clipper body styles to compete with Cadillac. Packard recognized this too late when it brought out a convertible as the first 1948 body style—a model it should have had by 1947 at the latest. Eighteen months later Cadillac was already out with the Coupe de Ville hardtop, while Packard's newest model was the Station Sedan.

By 1948, it was clear that the future of the car business belonged to the giants. At least one independent manufacturer was ready to make that happen; George W. Mason, President of Nash-Kelvinator. Mason wanted a postwar combination of independents, a fourth player in an automotive Big Four, with Packard as the luxury division. All independent automakers faced problems. By 1954, there was only a "Big Two," as Chrysler's market share fell to 12.9%.

All Cadillacs had been downsized for 1936, and were effectively junior cars ever since, increasingly sharing components with GM's other divisions. Despite the company's postwar cash reserves, Packard continued production of its now-dated L-head straight-eight engines through 1954, competing against a field of OHV V8s. Moreover, the small independent automakers could not achieve unit costs and tool amortization down to GM/Ford levels, nor afford the requisite TV advertising and annual model changes.

1946–1947
For 1946–1947 all Packards used Clipper bodies and the "Clipper" name.

1948–1952
The Clipper nameplate was dropped for 1948 as Packard issued its Twenty-Second Series automobiles, which, while proclaimed by the company as "all-new," were actually restyled Clippers. Only the 1941–47 Clipper's roof and trunk lid survived. At this time, Packard's president, George Christopher, insisted upon concentrating on sales of the company's lower-priced cars, while longtime competitor Cadillac focused its attention on the upper end of the market.

The Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Series (from mid-1949) cars wore the "upside-down bathtub" styling that was briefly in vogue in the late 1940s. Unfortunately for Packard, Nash, Lincoln-Mercury, and Hudson, the four manufacturers who embraced this type of styling, General Motors introduced designs that were lower-slung, more tightly drawn and less bulbous at around the same time. GM's designs caught the buying public's fancy, while the "bathtubs" quickly fell from favor.

Following a round of bitter corporate infighting in 1949, Packard management finally decided to phase out the "bathtubs" and create the all-new Twenty-Fourth Series for 1951. The new "high-pockets" design (so-called because of its high beltline) was much more modern. However, Packard continued to push hard into the lower end of the mid-priced field with its new "200" and "250" models. While the 250 hardtop and convertible, which would soon be named Mayfair, were an attempt to market upscale coupes which were slightly less bulky than the high-line sedans, and were decorated with chrome side scallops reminiscent of the top-shelf 400, the 200 was a full-range, middle-priced line continuing to compete with Oldsmobile, DeSoto, Mercury, the junior Hudsons, and others. James J. Nance became the company's president in 1952, and he immediately set to work on divorcing the lower-priced cars from the higher-end Packards. To this end, he decreed that the 200 and 200 Deluxe would be consolidated into a new line of Clippers for 1953.

1953–1956

Nance originally hoped to introduce the new "Clipper" as a stand-alone marque, targeting the mid-range price field, which he believed was dragging down the Packard image. When word was leaked to the Packard dealer network that they would be losing their best-selling Packard model to "Clipper", they balked. As an appeasement, Nance rolled the Clipper out as a Packard and worked to transition the cars toward their own make. Thus, the Packard Clipper name was reintroduced and applied to the company's entry-level models, previously known as the Packard 200, beginning in 1953. Clippers were available in Special and Deluxe trim models, as two- and four-door sedans. A 1953 Clipper went from 0 to 60 mph in 17.6 seconds in a Popular Mechanics test. The turning circle was 41 ft.

For 1954, the "Clipper by Packard" was given its own unique rear fender trim and taillights to further differentiate it from traditional Packards. The cars were also available with a distinctive two-tone paint pattern. For 1955, Packard became a marque in the newly formed Studebaker-Packard Corporation. The 1955 Clipper Custom offered torsion-bar suspension something not offered on other models, which only offered coil and leaf spring suspension. It also had a power steering option and an all-new Packard built V8 displacing 320 CID and was increased to 352 CID in 1956. Drivers enjoyed the comfortable ride but complained of door rattles and poor workmanship. Length was 215 15/32 inches long.

The Packard Clipper Constellation was a two-door hardtop automobile produced by the Studebaker-Packard Corporation for the 1955 and 1956 model years. The 1955 model was a Packard product and sold as part of the Packard Clipper line; for 1956, Clipper split from Packard, becoming its own make.

A total of 8,039 Clipper Deluxe, 14,995 Super and 15,380 Custom were built during model year 1955.

Separate marque: 1956

Packard's president. James Nance, believed that as a Packard line, the Clipper models were diluting Packard's standing as a luxury automobile marque.

There were also concerns that the Clipper was cannibalizing the sales of other models in the lineup. However, this had more to do with the ill-planned market differentiation strategy and less with the car itself. Despite being marketed to a lower-income bracket consumer, the 1956 Packard and Clipper are essentially the same cars. The only real difference lay in the length, with Packard featuring a slightly longer wheelbase.

However, company pushed ahead with making Clipper a separate nameplate. For the 1956 model year, the status of being a stand-alone make was emphasized by creating a separate Packard Clipper division within Studebaker-Packard. Clipper's logo was a ship's wheel.

The automaker required Packard-franchised dealers to also execute a separate Clipper Dealer Sales Agreement in order to sell the line. Studebaker agencies in areas not covered by separate Packard dealers were allowed to sign Clipper franchise agreements (and could also take on the regular Packard line as well, subject to factory approval).

Clippers began receiving unique trim and rear quarter panels in 1954, and when Packard introduced its redesigned model in 1955, the Clipper retained its older rear sheet metal while receiving two-tone combinations that were unique to its models. For 1956, the Clipper received new rear sheet metal and tail-light treatments. Clipper marketed two hardtop coupes, the Panama in the Super model line and Constellation in the Custom range. Both were carry-over model names from the 1955 model year.

Around mid-1955, dealers began complaining that consumers were lukewarm to the cars because they were true Packards and demanded that the Packard name appear somewhere on the cars. Nance refused at first, feeling that placing the Packard name on the cars would undo his plan to save the Packard name for luxury automobiles. However, when dealers began defecting to Mercury franchises, Nance gave in, fearful that the shrinking number of dealers would harm the company more than just the Packard marque. A small "Packard" script emblem began to be placed on the decklids of newly built Clippers. In a complete reversal of Nance's strategy, the emblems were also made available for placement on already-built cars that were languishing on dealers' lots.

By the summer of 1956, Studebaker-Packard was in financial trouble. The Packards and Clippers were not selling at anywhere near a profitable level, and the company's creditors refused to advance any further money to the company for new tooling that would have allowed Nance to finally realize his ultimate goal of sharing body components among the company's three lines of cars. In late July, the last Packards and Clippers rolled out of the Conner Avenue factory.

Following the closure of Packard's Detroit, Michigan factory in 1956, the Clipper marque was discontinued, although the Clipper name was applied to 1957 Packards built at Studebaker's South Bend, Indiana factory.

1956 models and production
Total Clipper production for 1956: 18,572 (excludes exports, if any)
 * Clipper Deluxe
 * 4dr Sedan (5,715)
 * Clipper Super
 * 4dr Sedan (5,173)
 * 2dr Panama hard-top (3,999)
 * Clipper Custom
 * 4dr Sedan (2,219)
 * 2dr Constellation hard-top (1,466)

Studebaker-Packard: 1957
Following the closure of the Detroit, Michigan Packard plant, Studebaker-Packard entered into a management contract with the Curtiss-Wright Company. Under C-W's president, Roy T. Hurley, S-P's new president Harold Churchill approved the production of a new Packard, to be built in Studebaker's South Bend, Indiana plant. The new Packards, originally to continue the Packard Executive nameplate, were to share the Studebaker President four-door sedan body and new four-door station wagon body as well. The total tooling cost of the new Packard was estimated at $1 million. At some point, however, the Executive name was dropped, as all of the Packards produced for 1957 carried the Packard Clipper name. Body styles were limited to a four-door "Town Sedan" and the "Country Sedan" station wagon.

In order to keep the tooling cost as low as possible, trim components from the 1956 Clippers were used. This was done to make the 1957 model differ in appearance from the President; outside, this included a narrower Packard-style front bumper and 1956 Clipper tail lamps and chromed wheel covers. Other differences include finned rear fenders and differing rear wheel panel treatments, as well as a wide chrome strip across the length of the car (extending across the tailgate on station wagons). Inside, the cars' dashboards were fitted with the same basic instrument cluster as used in the previous two years, while trim levels were generally higher than for Studebakers.

Sales of the new Clippers were not great; historians differ as to why, although the cars' obvious Studebaker origins (which led the new Clippers to be derisively nicknamed "Packardbakers" by many people) certainly did not help. Only about 4,800 were sold for the year, of which 869 were station wagons. The only engine option was the supercharged 289 CID Studebaker V8.

For 1958, the Clipper name was discontinued, and the few Packard automobiles that were produced (four-door sedans, station wagons, and two-door hardtop coupes) were simply known by their marque name. The only exception to this was the Packard Hawk, which was based on the Studebaker Golden Hawk.

Australian assembly
The Packard Clipper was assembled in Australia from CKD kits circa 1955.

title: Packard Clipper


text:
User:Bluemoon9428

I am an American living and teaching English in Incheon, Korea. My academic interests:
 * Korean language
 * Linguistics
 * Computer Science

I majored in Advertising at the University of Florida, but I am yet to contribute anything to either of those areas on Wiki. However, I contributed the following to the World of Wiki:
 * IFTC Jump into English Textbook (Teacher's Manual)

Want to know more about me? Go to my web site at http://www.ryanbrainard.com

title: User:Bluemoon9428