Talk:Automotive industry/Archive 1

202.83.62.xx

To the user from India who keeps messing with the page. Get over your inferiority complex -- or go away.

I think this article needs to focus more on the auto industry as a large component of the worlds economy.I like Radiohead 14:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Subjective Language

The sentence "Yet its tariff for imported pickup trucks is 25% [1], thus hurting the competitiveness of imported pickups." [emphasis added] seems to have somewhat prejudiced tone, which seems to come mainly from the bold words. I would like to get an agreement from a couple other people before I change it though. OranL 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed that bit about hurting. I don't know if it is was such a big deal, but if it makes you feel better. :} Icsunonove 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but that bit I removed was reverted and the POV tag put back on. So what should we do? Icsunonove 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The POV was not the word "hurting", it's the whole section. The meaning is still implied despite the removal of one or two words. Also, the paragraph needs to be given its own sub-heading and moved to an appropriate section. An opinionated essay on U.S. trade tariffs on trucks is not suitable for the lead section of a page called (for now) "Automaker". Also, you need to reference/source such claims as per WP:V; the current ref is a 404 error. hence why the tag remains. --DeLarge 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the discussion. Lets just try and figure out how to improve the page rather than messing around with the revert button. :-) First, I'll try to find that reference that is messed up; I didn't write that bit, just so you know. Yeah, I tend to agree it is a bit too focused for an intro section. Do you have an idea for an alternative name besides Automaker? Icsunonove 18:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The obverse of "there is no need to double up information that is linked to on the page" is "there is no need to maintain a separate page which consists only of two tables". There's already been extensive discussion at WikiProject Automobiles, and a merge tag was placed on List of automobile manufacturers with a view to making it a redirect to this page. So far there's been no dissent, while five editors explicitly approved it: myself, User:PrinceGloria, User:Kierant, and the two editors who've done most of the recent work on the list, User:Sable232 and User:DeFacto. In a week the page will be merged, there'll be nothing to link to, and the bulleted list will be replaced by the template as it more closely adheres to the recommendations at WP:LIST#References for list items, i.e. "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources". You've replaced a list which (a) provides manufacturers' annual sales figures and (b) cites its sources, with your own bulleted list which fails to provide either.

Article name discussion

Discussion of possible renaming of this article is also ongoing at WikiProject Automobiles. The favourites so far are automobile manufacturer, automobile industry, and automotive industry. --DeLarge 19:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Automotive Industry is the correct term used by the Automotive Industry. So titles like Automobile Manufacturer and Automobile Industry may need to sub be titles that are redirected to Automotive Industry. This is just my thought --Settinghawk 04:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I favor the term "automotive industry", but would also like to see the international nature of the article reflected in the title. Something like "Automtive industry of the world", "Global automotive industry", or "International automotive industry", perhaps. -- de Facto (talk). 10:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this to [International Automotive Industry] as a title. It better covers what the artical would be about. --Settinghawk 23:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Any of those proposed alternatives are better than the current title, which is totally unknown outside of North America. Modest Genius ^talk 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I renamed it from "Automaker" to "Automotive industry". -- de Facto (talk). 09:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-updatable

If we wait for the OICA statistics, the page is un-updatable. They only have the 2005 statistics in 2007 --Altermike 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OICA seem to publish, mid-year, their statistics for the whole of the previous year. So we expect to see the statistics for the whole of 2006 about June time. If anyone knows of another trustworthy source for a comprehensive set of global stats, which have already been published for 2006, with the same detail as the OICA ones, we could probably use them though. -- de Facto (talk). 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Most all the stats for all the auto and motorcycle makers is not fully published until about mid to late June. Those numbers are not added up over night. I have never seen any publishing of the publish groups vehicle numbers until June, Also on a side note some of the automaker don't release their own numbers until April.--Settinghawk 01:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Obversely, if we don't wait for the stats from the OICA (or any alternative source) we'll be guilty of original research. So if you want a graph showing Toyota at the top, you'll need to wait a while since GM remained at no.1 in 2006. By definition we can't know 2007's stats until after the end of this year. --DeLarge 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Auto Industry is hard for some to understand that numbers can take some time to shows form over many many automakers. I do know what the top 10 vehicles were for 2006. This is not the Magazines picks, its the actually sales data. Ford F serires trucks were #1 --Settinghawk 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OICA statistics is not so accurate. In 2005, Hyundai-Kia produced more than 3.6 million vehicles. 2.85 million is only a domestic production. So they should be 6th or 7th.

For a pure continuity point, the header has the largest companies by production as Nissan, GM, and FoMoCo - where as the tables from OICA stats are quoting GM, Toyota, FoMoCo as the top three. Perhaps the header should be changed?

Production statistics by color

I was going to add this to automobile production statistics, but that article was just merged here, so that's why that material here. If there's a better place for it, feel free to move it. -- Beland 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Car color is now redirecting here. -- Beland 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Subaru?

It's clearly missing a few major automakers. AlexLibman 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the full list (from the [1] linked pdf source]) you will see Subaru listed at #19 while this tables title is "top 15" (another "famous" one not in the top 15 is Porsche at position #38): . --Deon Steyn 08:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mergers

If Chrysler is to be listed seperately, then so should Daimler. The sales are correct for Daimler (2.04 million sales), but this obviously does not include Chrysler which was previously inluded in the chart.

Also, Hyundai should be together with Kia, together it should create the 6th largest automaker, which is what is stated on the Wikipedia article Hyundai. Thus, this would place BMW Group at 15th place.

This is how the 2006 data is presented in the source document. To split it differently could be considered as "original research" (see WP:NOR). I'm guessing that in the data for 2007 the Daimler/Chrysler split will be properly accounted for. Kia, I believe, are an independent listed company, they are not a subsidiary of Hyundai, although Hyundai are a major share holder. -- de Facto (talk). 08:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Saab not Luxury?

Judging by Saab's website, It is stated as the ultimate european luxury brand. Not "near-luxury", whatever that means... So the article now stands corrected, and no further editing is necessary to justify Saab's position as an automaker. Not to mention that Saab's 2008 9-3 goes head to head with Volvo's S60 (which is noted as luxury) and BMW's 3-series (obviously luxury). Wikipedia stands corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.231.146 (talk) 15:15:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Validity of "Type of vehicle" column

I removed this column from the table because we don't seem to have a generally accepted meaning, and beacuase there doesn't appear to be any international, verifiable, source to confirm the validity of data put here. Almost every day someone changes the content, with no supporting citation, to match his or her perceptions of the marque in question. Until we have an objective and verifiable system to classify each marque, it is best left out. -- de Facto (talk). 11:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Smart North America

I thought that you could buy Smart cars in North America? Antonw1 03:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Volvo Cars

Isn't Volvo Cars for sale, just as Land Rover and Jaguar (all three are currently part of Ford)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schalkcity (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with car model

I think this article would be improved by including more general information about the way the industry works, as opposed to currently how it is basically just a collection of statistics about production. Ham Pastrami 08:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose You can improve this article, but the destruction of another article (car model) is nor needed, neither desirable. --Juiced lemon 13:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BMW missing??

Why is no mention of BMW on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.201.214 (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The list includes the top-15 manufacturers in production. The BMW Group doesn't fall within that. regards, Icsunonove (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fiat and Alfa Romeo

They sell Fiat and Alfa Romeo automobiles in Mexico, which is part of North America. Shouldn't the listing be Global then? I'll change it for now. Icsunonove (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Daimler + Chrysler

I don't quite get why Daimler AG and Chrysler LLC are partitioned in this table, since the data is from 2006. The split wasn't formal until just recently in 2007. For 2006 the data should be for DaimlerChrysler AG. Icsunonove (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree on this. Tomh009 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Main market

The main markets column has really deteriorated ... a better column title would be "markets" as, for example, while Hino is available in Canada, it is a minuscule market for the company (except possibly as a North American foothold). And I would suggest two additional "market" terms -- "Global, except North America" and "Global, except USA" as these really apply to a large number of marques. Tomh009 (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Made it top 20

Expanded list to top 20 which now includes biggies like BMW, Mitsubishi, Subaru and Tata (new owner of Land Rover and Jaguar). --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Are the new entries' production volumes still from the OICA data? Tomh009 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Renault

Renault owns CONTROL stake of NISSAN that means that alliance is 4 th man, greater than VW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.102.233 (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Renault's 44% ownership of Nissan does not meet the criteria for a subsidiary relationship. Therefore it is listed separately. Tomh009 (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Automotive marketing

Wikipedia doesn't have an article covering the marketing of automobiles, a major sector of the advertising industry. Anyone? --Wetman (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

VW is not a Porsche subsidiary

Just like Mazda is not a Ford subsidiary, and Kia is not a Hyundai subsidiary. Ownership of under 50% of the shares may give the owner a lot of influence, but it does not provide control, and it does not meet the definition of a subsidiary. Tomh009 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Toyota and Daihatsu

I think this was a very bad idea as it betrays a manipulation of the source data from the OICA. That organisation's figures list Daihatsu separately. It also lists Chrysler separate from Daimler and this has not been altered. Why not simply present the data as it has been sourced? To take figures and alter them to show information which does not exist elsewhere may be original research. 131.173.32.97 (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The figures are not altered as such, but added together. We can either present the top 20 manufacturers in the world, based upon our criteria of what is a subsidiary (>50% ownership) -- or we can present the list of top 20 manufacturers according to organization XYZ. I will argue that using OICA source data, with references, and grouping manufacturers together based on ownership, does not fall within the meaning of original research. Tomh009 (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote from original research article, 'Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research,"'. And that's exactly what we have done with the OICA data. Tomh009 (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Porsche is not a subsidiary of GM, or did I miss any recent development?

Please correct the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.204.123 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Top 20 motor vehicle manufacturing companies by volume 2006 Graph

Would it be useful to change the colors of the graph so they are not all blue (Cars, Light Commercial Vehicles, Heavy Commercial Vehicles, Heavy Buses). I believe the current color code key degrades readability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.30.142 (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are history

I don't see historical production figures. Are there any? For instance, 1915 {U.S. only?} was 825930, 1916 (U.S. only?) was 1525578, & 1917 (U.S. only?) was 1745792, per Floyd Clymer, Treasury of Early American Automobiles, 1877-1925 (New York: Bonanza Books, 1950), p.166 & 173. Also, the first wrecker was introduced 1917, p.173. Trekphiler (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of production figures from ownership table

Tomh009 left this comment on my talk page, I'll answer it here.

Suggesting a change (removing production figures) on the talk page of an article is fine -- making a "suggestion" in the notes while unilaterally deciding on such a change seems rather high-handed. Why on earth is "less information" a better thing for Wikipedia? I expect to revert this change unless you have compelling information as to why it's not valuable for the reader.

The change was basically to make maintenance easier. The production figures are already presented and fully referenced in the included 'Top 20 motor vehicle manufacturing companies by volume 2006 ' table. The duplication of data in the 'World's largest vehicle manufacturing groups (by volume)' table makes it awkward when marque ownership changes. It's better to have one table of production figures and one table of ownership details. Actually, I'd favour sorting the group names in the ownership table, not by 'volume' as they are now, but alphabetically too. Often being bold is the best way to get something worthwhile done. Think carefully about the maintenance issues, highlighted by perpetual edit disputes resulting from editors attempting to re-compute production figures because a marque has changed ownership, before reverting to having the figures and ownership hierarchies in the same table. -- de Facto (talk). 17:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done much of the editing of numbers over the last six months and I have not found it onerous. I believe the production numbers are definitely valuable information -- and they are not (as far as I know) on any other Wikipedia page. The "top 20" chart has rough numbers only and is not very readable. (Also note that your edits removed the references for the manufacturers' production volumes, even though the top 20 chart still references those.) Tomh009 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to edit them at all in the second table if they are not there. I don't propose to remove the production numbers from the other table, they will remain intact. Why do you want them repeated a second time? They just add confusion to the page, especially when they have been edited to be different from the ones in the first table. The top-20 chart has the precise numbers, from the OICA data, and is properly cited. The OICA reference on the top-20 table remains. Click it and it takes you to the OICA source page. When OICA eventually release their 2007 manufacturers' data, what is the point having to first edit the table in the template, then, using the same numbers, the ownership table in the article? -- de Facto (talk). 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The top-20 chart has less precise numbers, and in a less readable format. If anything, I would suggest that we remove the top-20 chart, and retain only the more comprehensive (and more readable table). The only content the top-20 chart has over the main table is a very rough indicator of truck and bus production volumes. And as far as editing work goes, editing the coarse bar charts is definitely more work than the numbers in the main table. Not to mention that the two tables still need to be kept in sync for acquisitions and ordering when new data is available. So what is the point of the top-20 table, then? Tomh009 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The "top-20" chart template is a convenient way of making the chart available to multiple articles, and protecting it from amateur and casual vandalism. Given that OICA only produce data once per year, editing is rarely required. If acquisitions occur, then OICA generally reflect it in the next years data. You are correct that the precision is less, but if you think that better than ±500 accuracy is desirable, then I'm sure that could be achieved. -- de Facto (talk). 18:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Which other articles use that template? And why do you think "3670" next to a turquoise bar is better than "3,669,514 vehicles" in the table? Note that the OICA data for 2006 does not reflect 2006 ownership in any case -- they list DaimlerChrysler and Chrysler separately even though the split was not announced until 2007. So going strictly by OICA as the only reference would not give us either today's picture (with current ownership) or the 2006 one -- but, rather, the 2006 production numbers with the announced ownership as of June 2007 (the Chrysler split, again, was not completed until later that year). In any case, other than it being a template, you did not provide any arguments in support of having the top-20 chart at all. Tomh009 (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You can check what articles use it with the "What links here" item, from the article "toolbox" menu. I've added the full figures to it now. What do you think? The OICA data is the most comprehensive I could find, I know it has its quirks, but do you know of a better consistent source? The reasons I would prefer to keep it are:

1. It centralises the chart and its data, keeping it out of the main article, and its quite complex table.
2. It's a convenient way of making the chart available to multiple articles.
3. It offers some protection from amateur and casual vandalism.

-- de Facto (talk). 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)