Talk:Automotive industry/Archive 3

Someone restricts the development of this article
Here is a guy(Schalkcity) that think wiki is his personal blog and always undid my editions. Somebody help me to solve this in valid way. --Fantasizer Wiki (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This table is according to the source, OICA, with their figures of 2008, published in 2009. Some minor edits have been made to reflect the current situation. However, no other INDEPENDENT sources are used, so the data may be not completely accurate. However, the data provided by OICA are generally considered as independent and accurate, so unless another independent international source mentions other data, this table should not be changed. Schalkcity (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OICA uses the statistics that companies send out. Something you say It's like that OICA counting the number of the car in every streets. So INDEPENDENT is unmeaning.--Fantasizer Wiki (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Crisis in the Automotive Industry
The section (as titled above) mentions the statement put out by the three large automotive companies, but does not include any information on the subsequent bailout granted by the government. If anyone has the time/references then this could do with being updated with the relative information. :) 137.205.246.88 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Sam (4th Jan 09)

Hyundai and Kia
As Hyundai and Kia are in the section Top vehicle manufacturing groups listed separately, I suggest to add one bullet point about the merger to section Company relationships (even though link to article Hyundai Kia Automotive Group is already included in the paragraph about automotive industry in South Korea). JanSuchy (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't bother complaining, the regulars of wikipedia seem to always go out of their way to find the most asinine rankings to 'prove' their outdated viewpoints. Seriously I have not bothered to log in nor contribute because the damn regulars who keep culling corrections and additions are the cancer that is killing wikipedia.

French and Indian automotive industry
There is no mention of the Indian automotive industry. Neither of the French one. It is significant enough to warrant a mention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.174.69 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Top 20
The list as presented now, is way too long. If the list is reduced to the Top 20, one can see at a glance what the major automotive companies are. The full list is still available as reference, so everybody can look into that one for more information. I know it has been proposed earlier, but there was no consensus then. So this time, please give reasonable arguments for not reducing the list. My argument for reducing the list, is that is becomes more useful for everybody who wants to know what the major automotive companies are. Schalkcity (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My view is that the list should at least cover all the companies in the reference. An arbitrary cut (at 10, 20, 25 or whatever)) would introduce a level of subjectivity (why include Mitsubishi but exclude Isuzu?), and thus contravene the "WP:NOR" policy. -- de Facto (talk). 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The full list is on List of top automotive manufacturing groups, why also have the full list in this article? It is all relevant and referenced information, and covers all companies from the OICA list in both articles, why not then have the list in Automotive industry reflect the Top companies at a quick glance, then the full list, to the Top 50 or beyond on List of top automotive manufacturing groups. That way the article stays neat and organized. --Viddea9 (talk). 12:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why have the same table in two places - it requires maintaining twice? That other table should be merged back into this article where it came from.  To make an arbitrary chop here contravenes wp:or, unless you provide a reliable source to support the choice break position. -- de Facto (talk). 22:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a Top 20 here and the full table on the other wiki, makes perfect sense. This wiki is for people who want to see at a glance what the LARGEST automotive companies of the world are. If they want to see the full list of OICA, they either look up the pdf, which is added as a reference, or they check the other wiki. You keep asking why a Top 20 and not a Top 19 or Top 21. Well, as you might know, the human race is used to work with round numbers. 20 happens to be one of those round numbers. So please, be a realistic person and keep the list to the Top 20 and a full list on the other wiki.
 * And by the way, if you just add the remainder, please pay attention to the numbers. As you might have or might not have noticed, your addition starts at number 42, whereas my previous list ends at number 40. So don't just copy, paste without reading what you are copy-pasting! Schalkcity (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought wikipedia had moderators, who monitored pages where edits are undone and redone many times, in a short time period. If any of those mods is reading this: do something! Either accept a Top 20, as I want or accept a full list, as DeFacto wants. Similar 'edit-wars' were ended within 2 days on the Dutch version of wikipedia. Doing nothing is the worst thing you can do, because you can't do anything wrong. So, post a message of what you or the several moderators of wikipedia think is the best solution, because otherwise this edit-war is not going to end any time soon. Schalkcity (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly! de Facto will just keep on restoring back the full list, and adding to it, and Schalkcity and others keep reducing it. A constant, non-stop back-and-forth, day after day. So BEFORE any user decides to change the List, discuss it here as to why it should be changed, or discuss it on Talk:List of top automotive manufacturing groups.--Viddea9 (talk). 04:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Schalkcity, until you provide a referenced reason for chopping the list at 20, and WP:Consensus is reached that we should do that, the list is liable to be restored to its original fully referenced state at any time (see policy: Verifiability). -- de Facto (talk). 09:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OICA only list the world's 50 "LARGEST" motor vehicle producing groups, they do not list the hundreds of smaller companies and groups. We reference their data.  To then chop their list down and say only the top 20 are interesting, without a referenced reason for making that cut, is prohibited under Wikipedia policy as original research. -- de Facto (talk). 09:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The full list, namely the Top 50 (or close to it) is on List of top automotive manufacturing groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.143.217 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a choice of two possibilities to go forward with then:
 * Delete the "List of top automotive manufacturing groups" article as an unnecessary duplication of information that is (or at least should be) in this article.
 * Attempt to get consensus to remove the entire list from this article, and refer to the one in the "List of top automotive manufacturing groups" article.
 * It contravenes WP:NOR to have just the partial list in this article, unless a reliable source to support the choice of break position is provided as explained above.
 * -- de Facto (talk). 15:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of support for the chop, I have now restored the full supported list. -- de Facto (talk). 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not then just have the full list only on List of top automotive manufacturing groups, and remove it completely from this article in order to keep the article neat and polished?--Viddea9 (talk). 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada and the United States
I think they should combine the sections of the Automotive industry in the US and Canada as North America, and have three subsections, one for the US, one for Canada, and one for Mexico. Thus subsequently merging Canadian motor industry and Automobile industry in the United States into Automotive industry in North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.143.217 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proton (carmaker)
Is there any reason Proton is not listed here ? Passportguy (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * With the 2008 data update, it is now listed. Tomh009 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hyundai and Kia, again
While Hyundai and Kia talk about the "Hyundai/Kia automotive group" it isn't one company, and Kia is not a subsidiary of Hyundai (or vice versa); see Kia's largest owners on Kia's investor relations page: http://www.kmcir.com/eng/kire1000/kire1500.aspx Given that Hyundai owns only about 40% of Kia, I believe they should be listed separately. Tomh009 (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With the update to 2008 OICA production statistics, Hyundai and Kia are now listed separately, with appropriate footnoting explaining why "Hyundai Kia Automotive Group" does not include Kia. Tomh009 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

main articles
these should have short overview of every area plus that link to main article, now it is just link collection ... not an article. --Typ932 T&middot;C 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is good, yes. Would like to agree on a suitable length for the overview as the different countries are not consistent at the moment.  Would you care to suggest which ones of the current intro paragraphs are good examples?  (And the country articles probably should have consistent naming, too ...) Tomh009 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hard to say which are best, maybe the shortest ones, it just should be summary of the whole article, the namings could also be same style  --Typ932 T&middot;C 10:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai Automotive
They don't own MG and Ssangyong Motor anymore.--Korsentry 04:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

China section
A couple of important points need adding to the China section of this article: the first is that some Chinese produced cars have been known to fail regulatorary crash and other safety tests (Vauxhall/Opel Frontera was one notable example). The other important point which has been missed is that the Chinese car industry only 'gained' its current technological standards by engaging in some high-profile joint ventures with major Western automakers - such as General Motors, Ford and Volkswagen Group. These points need to be precis'd into the exisiting prose. Rgds, 78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nissan and the French flag
Given the fact that Renault has a controlling stake in Nissan (44% of shares) there should be two flags: Japan and France...--88.18.148.105 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 44.3% is not control -- you need 50% plus one share for control. At that point we would list Nissan as a brand of Renault SA.  However, currently it is only a major shareholding, as with Hyundai and Kia, or Volkswagen and Suzuki. Tomh009 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

history in the united states
I came here looking for a history of the automotive industry in the united states and it doesn't exist. Bob A (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a correct statement. Naturally you are free to address this issue, just like anyone else. Tomh009 (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)