Talk:Borgward

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revival[edit]

We read that the new company was founded in 2008 and that this new company went on to start work on the new product three years earlier. Er, what? -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source from 2005[edit]

I found this while doing a quick search - http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=205 VoVillia 07:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vovillia (talk • contribs)

Split[edit]

It's nonsense to have a single article covering two entirely different companies that share only a name. The article about the historical (20th century) company should be something like Borgward (1905-1961) with the new company just being Borgward. There should, of course, be cross-references between the two articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the company to which you'd like to devote an article with the title "Borgward" seems to me to be utterly unremarkable, other perhaps than as a legitimate reuser of the trademark "Borgward". Why have an article about a car company that has so far sold no cars and that hasn't attracted much other press? If it did merit an article, perhaps this should at this point be titled "Borgward (vaporware)", as opposed to real-world "Borgward".
It strikes me that a lot of old car trademarks have recently been recycled in optimistic websites. There have recently been "Alvis" cars (sorry, no URL offhand) and "Allard" cars. These don't even seem to be mentioned within the en:WP articles on the earlier, better-known products, even though examples were (are?) actually sold. What's special about "Borgward"? -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If, as the article states, the marque was revived by Borgward's grandson, they're clearly related. Such a connection should, in my opinion, be sufficient to keep them in the same article, at least for now. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, given that the new company may not be notable enough for its own article, it makes sense to keep this as a single article, for now. If information on the new company becomes a significant part of this article, then the matter should be revisited. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. I think, if/when the new company establishes itself, keeping them in the same article would be too confusing. --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is an inherent tension between the entry on the Bremen group created and run by Carl Borgward (1890-1963) which was collapsed in 1961, and the entry - in a style which is in places more "marketing department" than "encyclopaedia" - on the people piggy-backing on the name of it sixty years later, irrespective of the extent of any reported involvement of Carl Borgward's grandson. These days that tension becomes ever more stark (and irreconcilable) with virtually every improvement made to the text. Each time that happens, regardless of whether your interest is in the Borgward company or in the people working on a future use of the name, the case for separating the two wiki-entries becomes stronger. Charles01 (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this series of legitimate users of the same brand name (and, for most of the history, the same logo):

  1. Triumph Cycle (1885/1886 to 1930)
  2. Triumph Engineering (1885/1886 to 1972); article also deals with Triumph Motorcycles (Meriden) Ltd (1974 to 1983)
  3. Norton Villiers Triumph (1973 to 1978)
  4. Triumph Motorcycles Ltd (1983 to present)

This isn't optimal: there's a lot of overlap between (1) and (2), and the material about Triumph Motorcycles (Meriden) is a little uncomfortable within (2). But here we have articles fairly clearly separating companies that themselves were separated by months or a few years. By contrast, somebody born when the last Borgward was manufactured by the first company would be in late middle age by the time the first Borgward was manufactured by the second. I too think that this material should be separated into two articles (though I'm not sure of the best names for them). Fru1tbat and John Broughton, you expressed reservations about splitting, but that was over two years ago. What do you think now? -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I agree that the new company should now have its own article. By contrast, back in 2015, it wasn't clear whether the new company would just collapse, and never achieve notability. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes ago, I carried out the split: Borgward for the old, Borgward Group for the new. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the choice of titles follows that of de:Borgward and de:Borgward Group. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Borgward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Borgward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new "Borgward" company[edit]

Additionally, until these 21st-century-built Borgwards are newsworthily running along the roads, the one photo representing the company/brand should show the logo of the company that verifiably churned out thousands of actual cars. For example, this photo. -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hear about this new company named Borgward, IFF we can do so from reliable sources and in a non-promotional way. Moreover, much of what's said is unremarkable: "the company aspires to become one of the leading electric-vehicle manufacturers in the next decade": Does any car company not aspire to become this? Should we start an article with a company's aspirations? Etc etc. -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Borgward has sold approx. 75,000 units of BX5 and BX7 SUVs so far (January 2018). In a few weeks, it will be selling cars in Middle East markets and by mid-year Borgward will sell cars in Europe and South America. Moreover, "aspiring to become a leading electric-vehicle manufacturers" is not a priority for every automaker, as you will see by looking at the development strategy of most of the major car companies. Please read the new entry, which is not PR lingo and contains references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.135.82 (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to be informed. The article now starts "Borgward Group AG is a German-based international automobile brand, which carries the identity of former German premium brand Borgward. Borgward has started its business with a fleet of conventional SUVs with German design and engineering, with sales reaching approx. 75,000 units by January 2018." OK, but where is the evidence for this? The article doesn't seem to cite any. It just has evidence of "unveiling" and similar. Also, how does "Borgward Group AG is a German-based international automobile brand, which carries the identity of former German premium brand Borgward" better than, say, "Borgward Group AG is a German/Chinese automobile company using the name of cars made from 1937 to 1961"? (Actually I'm not sure of the latter year: this article is unclear on the matter.) The language still seems promotional. This is an encyclopedia, not a conduit for PR blurb. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The language is positive neutral. It is by far not the PR lingo, which you objected to initially. Evidence is given on some aspects, and there will be more. To seperate the old and new company, the article does not indicate a direct link between the new company and the manufacturing company that ceased operations in 1961, other than brand ownership and the fact that it was built by Carl F.W. Borgward's grandson. Considering your objections, I also refrained from stating that the design of the modern cars is inspired, to some extent, by old design lines of the 1950s. Borgward's Chief Designer Anders Warming has publicly stated this. (There are some links on youtube) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.153.178 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the article on the new company should be posted to Talk:Borgward Group. And we don't normally treat YouTube videos as reliable sources; if nothing else, we prefer not to use primary sources. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


TV adaption[edit]

New docudrama about the "Borgward affair" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VZJkEaU3sk https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Aff%C3%A4re_Borgward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B40:2258:40BD:DA03:F458:EF6B (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Written like a book[edit]

The section controversial company bankruptcy is written like a book or documentary rather than an encyclopedia article chapter because of the following reasons:

Puffery words are used throughout the section.

There are subsections written like they are from a book about this situation. For instance, Cui bono? does not sound like the name of a chapter in a proper and informative encyclopedia chapter.

Very few references and many "citation needed" marks appear throughout the section. I personally think that either;

1. More references be added in where they're needed

2. The section be shortened down to where there are references

3. The entire section be removed to clean up this mess

This is just what I think should be done and I'd like more people to agree with me before any sort of action is done this section.

- WaddlesJP13 (talk) 00:19 UTC, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the content, it's been over a year; no response, no new refs, and the unencyclopedic content remained. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Borgward&oldid=1206380452"