Talk:BMW/Archive 2

Conflicting Dates
The main article body states that BMW was founded in 1916 but the infobox states 1913. I have no idea which one is right. according to their website here the correct date is 1916. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.30.7.237 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Turbo
Should the two-of-a-kind BMW Turbo not be under the prototype list, since it was listed as an "inspiration for the M1"?Zchris87v 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms?
There is barely anything negative in this article. BMW is reported to have used slave labour during WW2, which is not uncommom, however they failed to compensate the slaves even to this day. Speculation, but should be researched.

There is barely anything negative in this article. Is there a requisite amount of negativism required for a good article?

Speculation, but should be researched. I nominate you for the task. --BAW (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

'' There should be negative criticism. 76.71.215.144 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

--There should be negative criticism as a rule? In all articles? Or just in the one about this particular car company? Why? An encyclopedia is not a clearinghouse for controversies. An entry should be dispassionate and informative. --BAW (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've now added a controversy section. I don't think there should be negative criticism in articles as a rule, but when a particular controversy is newsworthy and/or an important part of an organisation's history, it does have a place in an encyclopedia. Templetongore (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Nazi connections" section is completely unwarranted. The section as in this revision is clearly intended to imply that BMW itself has some Nazi-related controversy, which is not true. The connections in question belong to Günther Quandt and family, not BMW which wasn't acquired by the Quandts until the mid-1950s. The paragraph inserted has nothing to do with BMW itself and is a classic coatrack. Gr1st (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Quandt's have a 46.6% stake in BMW and the Quandt's have a Nazi past. If the major owners of a firm are controversial in some way, can it really be ignored on that firm's Wikipedia page? Surely it is part of the profile of the company, if only the because the question is raised in the media from time to time (the articles referenced in the section all mention BMW)? BMW themselves have said that they have "confronted" their "wartime history via independent research projects". It is part of the company's history and therefore, I think, something that should be mentioned here. Templetongore (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with some of the above, the criticisms are not notable. Some shareholder who died in the 50s was an member of the Nazi party. oh and BMW made people redundant in 2009 - like 1000s of other companies. Criticism removed. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree with last post. Criticism is both valid and notable. Besides, no clear consensus exists that the section should be removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, at least I give reasons as to why it isn't notable - you have just stated the it is valid and notable without stating why. If you wish it to stay then please give reasons as to why you consider it to be notable. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Biker Biker seems more interested in reverting and putting 3RR templates on my talk page, than joining in this discussion. As he has not responded I shall assume that he has no valid reason for disagreeing with my points and that consensus is pointing towards the removal of this section. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are disrupting the editing process and should stop. If there was consensus on removing it it would have been gone long ago.  I favor expanding the section with more detail, not removing it. The footnotes already there are sufficient to to justify mention in the article: it received significant media coverage, and secondary sources deem it notable.  The issue was so important to BMW they paid a historian to work for six years writing a book about it. That should probably be added, along with expansion on subsequent events after the book was published.  Even aside from the actual events during WWII, the impact on BMW's image is profound, and that's probably why BMW took it so seriously.  For BMW, image is everything, perception is everything.  Take that away and you're left with an overpriced Volkswagen.--Dbratland (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I did not realise that talking on an article talk page was disruptive - be a little more open to people who don't share the same opinion as yours, I don't consider me voicing my opinions to be disruptive in the slightest. Prior to me using this talk page there was no overwhelming consensus either way. Just because the article stayed in its current state for a while, does not mean it has to stay like that forever. Oh, and if you want to add more to the article - please obtain consensus first. Also your opinions regarding BMW's image are not really relevant as far as wikipedia is concerned. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On a more constructive note - At the moment the criticism sections has two parts - firstly do people see the criticism of Günther Quandt as direct criticism of BMW? secondly do people really think the redundancies are worth mentioning? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see doing something like creating a new section called "BMW's Nazi past" and putting all the Nazi material there, rather than calling it "Criticism".--Dbratland (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can, once you gain consensus for such an addition to the article and of course once you get rid of wikipedia rules concerning POV and undue weight. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand why User:119.173.81.176 keeps removing the section when he/she is the only one saying it is irrelevant. Other editors (such as me) think it should be kept, and others have reinstated the section when removed. Yet still this editor persists and claims it is up to others to say why it should be kept. The Quandt family are major shareholders in BMW and have a Nazi past. Therefore it is relevant to this article so I say it should be kept. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What I don't think is that the issue needs an entire section, but the association is noteworthy and should be mentioned somewhere within the article. I would certainly support the entire controversy section being deleted on that basis. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. At the very least the article needs to explain why BMW paid a historian to work for 6 years, and then write a book about BMW's Nazi connections. Not every corporation does such things, so it is notable and interesting, and it cries out for fuller explanation.  How the article says that, and in what sections it says that, are definitely subject to improvement.  So once again, I favor improvement, not deletion.  Ford Motor Company treats the same questions in a fairly enlightening way, without giving it undue weight.--Dbratland (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see room for compromise here, perhaps mentioning the book and briefly mentioning the Quandt Nazi connections as part of the history of BMW would be a good idea - also did BMW itself have a Nazi past? I have no idea myself, but that would be far more notable and worthy of inclusion. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While it certainly is relevant to mention, that one of the major shareholders had nazi ties, its totally inrelevant to tie the whole company to such allegations. The Quandt family has and had 0a bunch of other businesses and eventually bought the majority of stocks decades AFTER the war. There should be no extra section for BMW´s nazi past. Instead, a brief remark on the nazi topic and a link to the Quandt family article should be included in the history part. It is ridiculous that it seems to be the norm to fill up any article of a german company with a nazi section twice as long as the normal history. You don't find russian company articles with huge Stalinism-sections or Iraqi companies with huge Saddam sections.Villevav (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * BMW hired a historian to work for 6 years and write a book about BMW's Nazi past. It would be bizarre for this Wikipedia article to pretend that didn't happen, or to act as if it is not important.  If you see historical topics overlooked in articles about Russian or Iraqi companies, you should address that over on those pages; it doesn't influence this article.--Dbratland (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

External Link
Hi i have currently made a new exotic car site here. I was wanting to add the relevant pages to relevant wiki pages and wondering if thats ok to do so? Please let me know.

Thanks

Richard Richard300187 16:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard300187 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Your link doesn't work

DineshAdv (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

External Link
Does anyone see any value in adding links to satellite images of the company's headquarters. You can get a very good view of the company's 4 cylinder headquarters building and museum.

48.17648°N, 11.55998°W


 * Pretty cool view!!! Please add if possible. Cantor575 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening par
The opening paragraph of this article looks absolutely like no other I've ever seen on Wikipedia. In my opinion it looks a mess and doesn't seem to comply with WP:MS It's not exactly easy to read and practically everything is Wikilinked. Escaper7 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for pointing that out. I've taken the liberty of stripping out most of the extra formatting, including the audio, leaving something that looks half reasonable. TomRawlinson 21:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work, vast improvement. Escaper7 14:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

?
under "pre WWII" the following is written after a reference: "//I would dispute this. There are extant pictures of an earlier BMW Logo which is clearly the precursor of the current logo and equally clearly shows the nose of an aircraft with a spinning propeller (RF1952)// http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/features/2004/bmw-75/03-large/1916-logo.jpg" This needs to be fixed. ? Algonquin  14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree. Theres a citation-less note about the logo NOT being a reference to a propeller, but instead to a logo that looks nothing like the BMW logo except that they both happen to be round. Even a recent Motor Trend had a note about that the logo inspiration does in fact come from a propeller. I'd like to at least chunk the uncited line, unless somebody wants to cite or has a reason not to… Algonquin's image is more definitive than anything else I'm seeing… Xodiaq (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the logo represents the colors of Bavaria. It was on National Geographic's "How it Was Made" when they were making a Z4 (don't know if thats the right show though, but it was one of them). We might need to have an actual citation about that though... Polis4rule (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

POV?
'The BMW Hydrogen 7 is just another example of how BMW allow's great ideas to live on to become Ultimate Driving Machines.' -- just a teensy weensy bit POV, perhaps? Also very non-encyclopedic. I'd change it, but I don't want to get dragged into a huge argument...
 * Pah. I went ahead and changed it, and removed some other seemingly POV comments about the 6 series. I'm not a BMW hater (I own one) but I don't like to see fanboy advertisements on WP, especially when they're poorly spelt. 86.144.207.26 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My fault. Again my apologies for having to clean up after me. By the way, its not about being a "fanboy"--just thought the article sounded too cold.(Qwazywabbit 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

BMW Production Plant in Pakistan ??
I removed a statement under 'Production outside Germany' that states BMW opened a production plant in Karachi, Pakistan in 2007. The source given (BMW Karachi facility goes on stream, The muslim) doesn't seem to be valid. Please provide valid sources to support statements made in the article. --Flexijane 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No plant in Pakistan I'm sure. Why have a plant in Pakistan when there's already one in India to cater to South Asian RHD markets (incl. Pakistan, Bangladesh etc).--Automaniaconwiki 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased
This article seems to be written with quite a bias towards the subject, does not read like an encyclopedia. eg. In the description of the 5 series, 'Condsidered the perfect blend of sport performance coupled with luxury' Seems a bit over the top for an encyclopedia if not quoting something.
 * yep, there was that advertisment tag earlier, somebody removed it and added even more sama style, article needs some rewriting...--&mdash; Typ932T  07:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole entire "Models" section reads like an advertisement. --Bobbit bob 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems most of it has been cleaned up. One section even stated that "The BMW Hydrogen 7 is just another example of how BMW allow's great ideas to live on to become Ultimate Driving Machines", a gramatically incorrect clearly biased sentence. However, most of this has been removed at this point I believe.  Zchris87v  07:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, you were absolutely right, I couldn't believe half of what I was reading. I don't know how many times I read "formula inspired", "amazingly impressive", or other opinionated phrases - this has to be either one of the worst encyclopedic articles I have ever read, or one of the best sales pitches (just kidding). I did quite a bit of cleaning to attain the NPOV.  Zchris87v  07:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my fault. I did not realize NPOV.  I have now read the guidelines and understand about editing.  It was not my intention to make it read like an advertisement-I wanted to convey my thoughts about these cars.  My apologies for wasting other people's time to clean up my mess.  It wont happen again. (Qwazywabbit 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

Edit as of 13:45, 13 July 2007
The edit stated that "It [BMW] is the worlds largest luxury car manufacturer." Searching for this exact phrase returns a few results, neither of which seem to have much factual backing; however, they do conflict on that topic. Until some sort of proof can be found that BMW is the "world's largest luxury car manufacturer", this sentence should be left out. In fact, I thought these were focused on performance, not luxury...  Zchris87v  07:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

7 Series is a luxury model. If you consider BMW Group, Rolls-Royce also. Squash Racket 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even in this respect, is there any source stating that BMW is now the largest luxury car manufacturer? I was fairly sure DaimlerChrysler held that title, and many sources stated that BMW was "sneaking up" on DC.  Zchris87v  21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

BMW sold more 7s than Mercedes of its own S-class in Europe for a number of years. But that changes from time to time. And don't forget Lexus LS (luxury?), Audi A8, perhaps Infiniti etc. From BMW Group's homepage: in 2006 BMW sold 50227 units of 7 Series, I don't know about the others. Squash Racket 10:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BMW Manufacturing Co. Spartanburg
I think this page should not be merged into BMW, cause the BMW article is about the BMW AG or BMW Group, not only BMW (a huge german car producer). Besides this fact the plant in Spartanburg provides thousands of jobs - should be relevant to have is own article ;-) --> TH 10:00, 15 Jul 2007 (CET) <--

If you write a whole article about a BMW factory I don't know why you wouldn't write about factories larger than that. If you have articles about the German factories and you include them here the BMW page gets too long, right? The Chelsea page is already considered too long for Wikipedia standards. Squash Racket 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, I think there should be a link to another complete article about manufacturing. This is one area BMW is quite emphatic about, and should have its own space to grow. The main article is long enuff. (Qwazywabbit 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

Efficient Dynamics?
What are your thoughts on adding section for Efficient Dynamics? This is a major focus of BMW, from manufacturing facilities to the vehicles themselves. I can provide sourced documentation if necessary, as well as images.(Qwazywabbit 22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)) Yes most important, BMW vehicles are amongst the least polluting and economical vehicles on our roads, esp when compared with its rivals

History of BMW
I have created an article History of BMW to shorten the main article. BMW has a very long and interesting history, and would clutter the main article. If there is any problem with this, feel free to revise.Qwazywabbit 13:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem is, that it's not an article (yet), it's just one word. If you consider moving parts from BMW to History of BMW, you should stick with Copyrights. In general it would be good to first explain what you are about to do, wait if other user reject your plans, if necessary discuss about it, and then make a new article. You should also consider to put the   template into your new article.--BSI 13:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been bold, and copied the history section from here to the new articleB J Bradford 14:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * oops, I didnt save the page. LOL. Bradford, ty for covering for me.  BSI, thank you for the tip on the inuse template--I will use that in the futureQwazywabbit 15:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the same section can be removed from here now, right? Where can I find that template that says --Main artcle: articlename--?-B J Bradford 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BMW Motorcycles
"It was BMW's latest attempt to keep up with the pace of development of sports machines from the likes of Honda, Kawasaki, Yamaha, and Suzuki." BMW is not all about performance when it comes to motorcycles. You can use a BMW as long as some cars, while most Japanese bikes can do about 20000-30000 km. Squash Racket 08:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Logo size
The logo size was originally 140px and was changed to 240px recently. I took a look at other articles (Audi, Mercedes-Benz) and chose to make the Roundel on this page 180px wide. --dinomite 14:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Logo Origins
Here's something to kick off the current arguments about a propeller in the logo:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I had not heard of the archives denying this, maybe they have a different story? Cantor575 23:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

it is impossible to make sure which version of the "origin" is correct, but it is sure the logo-colors blue & white came from bavarias flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.76.239 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Off-road X3?
I know that it is marketed as an off-roader in Europe, but didn't numerous car magazines state that the X3's all-wheel drive system benefits on-raod performance, rather than off-road? Polis4rule (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? It is rubbish on both.76.71.215.144 (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reducing external links
I just trimmed and reorganised the external links. I tidied things and got rid of a fan site, but in particular I removed the links to BMW USA and BMW motorcycles USA. I made sure instead to point to the English language websites of BMW Automobiles International and BMW Motorrad International. This is important IMHO because the English language Wikipedia is not here for the benefit of US readers, but for anyone in any country who speaks English. The relevant BMW USA sites can still be found by clicking through the international sites as can those of UK, Canada, Australia etc. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd/Even Numbering
Under Automobiles/Current, the article states that BMW was going to odd numbers for sedans and even numbers for coupes, etc. I recall them announcing that, but they have obviously reversed that strategy with the 1-series and 3-series coupes. I am deleting that paragraph. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Class Action Suit
Why is the information on the class-action suit so early in the article? Looks like it was just dropped there for no reason. The-Bus (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

BMW Group
I tink this article should be renamed to BMW Motors, and BMW should poit to an article called BMW Group (or at least leave a link on the top of BMW pointing to BMW Group). Reason is that the BMW Group owns more than just the car manufacturing company. --Pinnecco (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Set Bimmers on stun
A little more on the WW1/WW2 aircraft engines would assuredly not be amiss.... Burt Campbell 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Rover Marque ownership
Hi, The Rover Marque was, until the sale to Ford, was property of BMW and that it was licensed for use to the Phoenix four for use on cars produced at Longbridge. Other marques also belonged to BMW, including Triumph, Mini and Riley. The P4 retain Austin, Morris and I believe Wolesly. 77.100.12.167 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction: Acquisitions and company history not needed
The introduction should serve as a briefing of the company. It is not necessary to include the companies acquisition of Rover and Mini in the introduction. And it certainly is not necessary to go into the models of aircraft engines they developed in the INTRO. It may be appropriate elsewhere in the article, but not in the introduction of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.30.222 (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The introduction can describe products and developments concerning the company. It should not simply be a POV summary: "BMW has always been performance oriented. Indeed this is reflected in the company's current slogan: "The Ultimate Driving Machine." — CZmarlin (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BMW E36
I would be very glad if somebody knows the answer for my question: Are the back seats of BMW E36 (3series 1991-1999) SEDAN tip-up seats? Thank you for every help! --  LYKANTROP   21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Way too long
Especially the individual model descriptions complete with multiple pictures per model, needs trimming down, a couple of pictures of representative and influental models, and rely on the individual articles to provided the bulk of info.

Perhaps even a table would be in order?Oosh (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So true, why do we have basically every BMW car currently in production in the Automobiles section. It is so OTT. Its unnecessary and pointless, we don’t do this for Ford or Renault or anyone else, so why do it here?


 * Each of these vehicles has their own pages, so they don't need to be here!


 * I will remove this unless anyone objects. Your thoughts???


 * DineshAdv (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would definitely keep that, but in a shorter way. I think that there must be some overview about the cars that BMW produces--  LYKANTROP   21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why keep it, even in a short form? All that is nececary in the Automobiles section is a list of current BMW cars. All the descriptions, and pictures and everything else, should be deleted. If it has a main article then it is just unnecessary repitition!
 * The Motorsport section also has its own page, so that is just unnecessary repitition aswell. I'm not sugesting we get rid of it, I just feel that it should be about 5 lines, and not paragraph upon paragraph of repitition and information mentioned on its own page.
 * A decision will also have to be made on the Series Generations section because I'm not convinced listing all of the "e-codes" is helpful to the article, although I do believe you can never have 'too much' information. Maybe we should make a seperate page for that, like is often done with TV programs, which have a list of episodes not on their main page but on a different page.
 * DineshAdv (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just gone through this article section by section and done some "weeding." There was an unbelievable amount of weasel wording and clear bias, which is unfortunate, as it reinforces a negative stereotype about certain BMW fans, giving the rest of us a bad name. This made the model description section a good bit shorter. I agree that the descriptions should be kept on this page (or at least be moved to a separate "summaries" page as DineshAdv suggested), but they do need to be more concise and hopefully I've begun to contribute to that undertaking. Current thoughts? Bflorsheim (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy... what has happened to this page? it has been made over by the BMW company. It has turned into a brochure. I am glad that the Nazi history has survived. Persoanlly I have owned three BMWs I love them, plus Bikes. I think it is criminal that the Culture section has been removed, becuase one BMW owner (probably an employee from BMW) as seen fit to remove this information, which was backed up with citations from the BBC and the Guardian News Paper and was reviewed by wiki editors. He said 'weasil words' which make BMW owners look bad. Well really, wikipedia is not here to make you feel better about the car you drive mate. It never bothered me that BMW in the UK has always been asscociated as a drug dealers car, or for that matter know as Black Man's Wheels. Bob Marley used a BMW logo in his promotional materials. All of this has been deleted because some travelling salesman, who probly hates Jeremy Clarkson for pointing out that BMW drivers are sheep (I still drive) ... we are. So what.

What is next? The history of Germany with the second world war removed because it does not show Germany in a good light. Wiki is about truth... not massaging your ego and glossing over well known and substanciated facts, just because they don't fit into your 'vision' of yourself as you drive down the road.

Pathetic. I just heard on the radio that people are leaving Wiki in the 10s of thousands... this is why. It has turned into a bunch control freaks coupled with corporate interests.

So thanks for the new BMW brochure, but you know that they have a website.. if I want sanitised company propaganda I can go there... oh dear wikipedia, victim to the corporate sheeple.. they get paid to pervert this once great organ of the web. It is now going out of fashion, so it will get more and more corporate and less and less accurate and less and less of interest, and less and less useful for everyday things. Good.. a litte knowledge is a bad thing, and here on BMW totally screwed up page, which is now a brochure, why bother? Pointless! Total vandalism. Is that weasil enough for you? Take the information off, do what you like, but you'll still look like a pimp or a drug dealer if you drive one about in the UK urban environment. Just like I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.65.176 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Factual Errors
The section pertaining to the BMW 7 Series erroneously claims that the Hydrogen 7 is one of the world's first hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This makes this article directly contradictory to the current Wikipedia article on the Hydrogen 7.

The Hydrogen 7 does not even feature an electric drivetrain, much less use fuel cell technology. Instead, the Hydrogen 7 uses the 6.0L V12 from the 7 Series that has been modified to burn either gasoline or hydrogen. The Hydrogen 7 burns hydrogen in an internal combustion engine - not in a fuel cell. The Hydrogen 7 is now one of the cleanest (if not the cleanest) internal combustion engines in use.

I'd edit myself, but I'm not quite used to how things work on Wikipedia, yet. Well, at least not from this side...

Sources:   

--R4mdbaptlican (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Z4 Production???
Who said the Z4 is out of production?76.71.215.144 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

i love BMW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.196.35 (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins of the logo
Contrary to the way this is represented in the article, this information is contraversial and not reliably cited. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, the inconvenient truth is that the exact origins of the logo are not known for sure, even by BMW itself.  Socrates2008 (Talk )   11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sport Sponsorship
Perhaps someone with better knowledge on the subject could add something on sports other than motor sport sponsored by BMW. For example the International Polo matches played yearly at Shongweni (in Durban) and Illovo (in Johannesburg) in South Africa!

PS. Almost anybody writing about and knowing BMW is likely to be biased in favour of that company. It goes with the territory if you drive one! Maybe the Wikipedia editors could take out the overly spin when present!

John A Forbes (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The BMW Education Programme
I wanted to include some information about the BMW Education Programme in the BMW wiki page. This is a web-based resource, providing comprehensive and award-winning educational materials for primary and secondary schools.

--BMW Education (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC) BMW Education

Wikiproject Companies
I recently met this wikiproject and I thought that the BMW article would fit in perfectly well. That is why I added the project banner to the article...

2009 Job Cuts
I think the section about 2009 job cuts should be removed. The agency staff were well aware that they were not being employed on a permanent basis when they went to Right4Staff and got the jobs, and as such were not entitled to redundancy when they were released. In a 2007 BBC television programme about BMW Swindon (which in late 2008 became a sub-ordinate of BMW Oxford), Andrew Schumm, training manager for Swindon, said that the temporary labour were perfect for what the production required because of the peaks and troughs in demand for motor vehicles. The article does not include the mention of these bitter employees doing a shoddy job for the last shifts they were working, throwing tools into vehicles in progress of being made. Rudeboydreas (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and I have got rid of it. It's trivial and unencyclopedic.  So what if less than 1% of the 100,000 employees are fired in a recession, just as many could be hired in an instant in a boom?  Companies grow and contract all the time, and wikipedia should not document every small change and every individual firing and every redundancy just because an aggrieved ex-employee / unionist / whoever wants their "injustice" lamented in public.  In the grand scheme of things this section is not even worth a footnote on a footnote in history, and I don't think it adds anything to already very long and detailed article. It's like having a section called "Dog bites man" or "Sun rises again today"?! Mu2 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears the correct number was more like 8,100 jobs, about 7.5% of the workforce. The old section was too narrowly focused on 850 jobs in the UK rather than the worldwide layoffs, but these comments about unionists and the workforce don't seem to me to be a relevant contribution to the discussion of the article.  BMW cut a significant number of jobs in 2009 and it received widespread attention.  Almost a year has gone by.  How, precisely, is it unencyclopedic to describe these events?  Rather than deleting the section from the article, it should be improved.--Dbratland (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is notable and should stay. It should however be expanded to include the rest of the worldwide layoffs as highlighted by Dbratland. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I changed my mind. After the job cuts, BMW increased working by adding 250 agency staff in June and then in September announcing another 1000 new jobs to build the new models (noting that most of the 850 original losses had since been re-hired. The whole thing evens out to be a non-event. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

On merging sections "Culture" and "Nomenclature"
First, of course they belong together. The subjects of BMW language, terminology, words, etc. should not be separated into two disconnected sections of the article.

Second, "Culture" is a terrible name for a section that discusses the slang terms Bimmer, Beemer, etc. It isn't about all of BMW culture, neither corporate culture, nor enthusiast culture, but rather it is only about slang word usage.

Third, I admit that "BMW-speak" could be called a little too informal for an encyclopedia, but I object that Wikipedia is by nature lively and uses ordinary plain English, and should not be stuffy.

So the two sections should be made into level 3 headings, and the section heading should probably be called == BMW-speak == unless anyone can suggest a better section title.--Dbratland (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The culture part of the article is about the BMW culture and specifically what each division of the brand is colloquially known as. The model nomenclature section is the section on the rules of how the models are designated. As the article is right now, the sections don't need to be merged. The sections don't fit in with each other at all until you give them a section name like "BMW-speak" which brings together everything to do with naming. It's up to you however, you have my "permission" so to speak to revert me (I won't complain) but can we find a better name than BMW-speak if it they have to be merged? :) Matty (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I'll wait and see what others think.  I wanted to be spending my time trying to clear flags off the article anyway.  Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

List of cars
Greetings all. With regards to the section of vehicles, both current and historic, would anyone object to splitting off this section into List of BMW cars? Many automotive mfr. articles link in this manner, for examples see Category:Lists of automobiles. That way a streamlined list similar the one here can be maintained, but without overwhelming the article. It would also address the "way too long" and other concerns about the many galleries, etc. A summary of the vehicles can be kept and the list linked. It could be a companion to List of BMW engines. Any comments welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea.--Biker Biker (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I would keep small section of current offerings also in main page. --Typ932 T&middot;C 07:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would make a List of BMW vehicles, because BMW also builds motorcycles.Stef9580 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Actually I was thinking of a List of BMW motorcycles, but we can use the List of BMW vehicles as is.  Working on it now. SynergyStar (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy... what has happened to this page? it has been made over by the BMW company. It has turned into a brochure. I am glad that the Nazi history has survived. Persoanlly I have owned three BMWs I love them, plus Bikes. I think it is criminal that the Culture section has been removed, becuase one BMW owner (probably an employee from BMW) as seen fit to remove this information, which was backed up with citations from the BBC and the Guardian News Paper and was reviewed by wiki editors. He said 'weasil words' which make BMW owners look bad. Well really, wikipedia is not here to make you feel better about the car you drive mate. It never bothered me that BMW in the UK has always been asscociated as a drug dealers car, or for that matter know as Black Man's Wheels. Bob Marley used a BMW logo in his promotional materials. All of this has been deleted because some travelling salesman, who probly hates Jeremy Clarkson for pointing out that BMW drivers are sheep (I still drive) ... we are. So what.

What is next? The history of Germany with the second world war removed because it does not show Germany in a good light. Wiki is about truth... not massaging your ego and glossing over well known and substanciated facts, just because they don't fit into your 'vision' of yourself as you drive down the road.

Pathetic. I just heard on the radio that people are leaving Wiki in the 10s of thousands... this is why. It has turned into a bunch control freaks coupled with corporate interests.

So thanks for the new BMW brochure, but you know that they have a website.. if I want sanitised company propaganda I can go there... oh dear wikipedia, victim to the corporate sheeple.. they get paid to pervert this once great organ of the web. It is now going out of fashion, so it will get more and more corporate and less and less accurate and less and less of interest, and less and less useful for everyday things. Good.. a litte knowledge is a bad thing, and here on BMW totally screwed up page, which is now a brochure, why bother? Pointless! Total vandalism. Is that weasil enough for you? Take the information off, do what you like, but you'll still look like a pimp or a drug dealer if you drive one about in the UK urban environment. Just like I do.

Any objection to autoarchiving this talk page?
You're not supposed to add MiszaBot to a talk page without consensus. Any reason not to?--Dbratland (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I object, this BMW page has been massively vandalised. I can't even find the excuses for removing cited content which was okayed by wiki editors... where is that dicussion page. The only reason to archive this page is try and cover up the BMW corperate tampering, and the incredibly small minded vandalism by people who are more interested in the personal image than acuracy and breadth of a quality wiki entry. I am appalled and shocked that this has been allowed to happen. I am one of the 10's of thousands of wiki contributers who are going to stand by and watch wikipedia crash and burn, as we've had enough of idiot such as 'weasil words man' who are only interested in thier POV and no one says anything anymore... Spineless bunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.65.176 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This talk page isn't so big that it needs to be archived at all, let alone auto-archived. Besides, reading the badly-spelled drunken rants and allegations of wikifiddling is quite good fun. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * :-) --Dbratland (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BMW History - 1959 to 1995 period is empty !!
Almost thirty years including first export of cars, etc, is not covered. Someone should update this, as it's pretty bad. Sadly, I don't know enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.43.245 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin of BMW logo "has all changed in the last year"
Article should probably be updated; apparently BMW museum has come upon documents recently that prove the 1917 design was solely a version of the colors, and the propeller connection wasn't made until 1929. At least, that seems to be the official BMW version now. --Dbratland (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on this video from BMW it's clear that BMW has concretely identified its logo as being a modification of the Rapp logo. Any association with an airplane propeller has to be a later addition to the BMW lore, and should be removed as the inspiration of the logo. ShinySteelRobot (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazi connections
I have made this section smaller due to undue weight, this is not a BMW bashing witch hunt article, and neither is it a Quandt article - considering what BMW are notable for, you should not devote so much of the article to whining about the Nazis, otherwise any article relating to Germany could have an extensive whining Nazi past section. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I undid your edit. If you scroll up you can see this has been discussed more than once, and the undue weight argument has failed to win consensus.  It's too bad those who want to reduce or eliminate the Nazi section want to edit anonymously.  It's impossible to tell if this is three editors or one, but that's not my problem.My advice would be to create an account and/or to then make a proposal here on the talk page to refactor the Nazi section.  The sense I get is that most editors don't see undue weight here, and your best bet would be to come armed with numerous good sources that support the argument to remove material in question.  Or just let it go; it really is a small part of a big article.  --Dbratland (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * just letting it go is probably the wise choice, removing cited information when there are no BLP issues is always hard, I don't agree with the amount of space taken up by that section, but if people take the time to read it they will realise the extent of BMW's Nazi past - afterall it is not as if BMW was making Zyklon B or running death camps. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This danish freedom fighter section in the company history is rediculous. There might have been thousands of claims against BMW after the war, it´s plain cherry picking to just list one in detail in a brief summary, that doesn´t even try to cover the whole history. There is a separate article for this purpose, namely the history of BMW. I seriously doubt that a random reader of this article would appreciate such trivial remarks. Let´s try to make this article coherent. I want this article to explain the history of BMW, not the nazi past of Quandt family. Instead, there should be a separate article for that purpose. My suggestion for the structure of this article is, that is should cover the foundation, start up of the different branches, involvement in WWII production (what type of stuff it produced and that slave labour was used) and the history after WWII. If the history section consists of, say 5 paragraphs, I´d say one paragraph dedicated for this purpose is definitely the ceiling. The history from 60´s onwards is much more related to the current business. (Villevav (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I agree that this content is of tenuous relevance to this article. Günther Quandt would be a more appropriate article. Letdorf (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC).


 * See also this archived discussion, where another user pointed out Coatrack. Is the artilce about BMW or Günther Quandt? Let's say the current CEO of XYZ Enterprises was prosecuted for a crime (e.g. financial fraud) during the 1970s, would that mean that half of the history section of the "XYZ Enterprises" article should be devoted to discussion about the CEO's fraudulent behaviour? I would say no, as the article is about the company, not the unrelated activities of its employees.


 * Companies tend to work with the respective governments of the day otherwise they would not be in business for much longer. This applies regardless of whether people or other countries find the activities of the government objectionable (take a look at all the Western companies operating in China right now, they do everything they can to comply with the regulations in that country). Almost every major German company operating at the time would have had some Nazi connections as this was required by German law. For the companies involved it was a choice of compliance or perish. Like it or not, ethical compliance is not the primary goal for most corporations. The focus should shift away from Quandt towards the role of BMW as a company in regards to compliance with the laws in place from 1933–1945. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The section in question is hardly relevant to this article. The sole link to BMW is that Quandt became a shareholder, 15 years after WWII. The remainder of the section is about the Quandt family, it has nothing to do with BMW. --Sable232 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now all that the article say in relation to the Nazis is that BMW did a super-great job building super-special jet fighters for the Luftwaffe so that the Germans could keep killing RAF fighters and keep fighting for Hitler and so on-- good for them, right, what clever little Germans they are.

So I guess all you guys who wanted to whitewash that part of the article did a pretty great job, but, I'm pretty suspicious of the whole thing now. I mean, now, all it does is say how GOOD they were and how CLEVER-- like we should DEFEND their work with Hitler, you know.

And I'm not sure that that's the appropriate stance to take on this important issue.

Like, *what* did the article use to say? What did it use to say?

What did they do that was so bad, that, now we can't hear about it anymore?

Did they use slave labor, for example?

Is that what they did that we need to cover up? Did they use slave labor?

If they were *so good* that they didn't use slave labor, then, maybe we should mention that. Or, if they *did* use slave labor, then, maybe we should explain that they supported Hitler and the Nazis, and, not just as a CHARITY EVENT, but, because they wanted some slaves to put to work building cars and everything, right.

After all, as the whitewashers have implied, it was pretty common for Germans to be Nazi fascists who loved Hitler, and, yeah, maybe this is *relevant* in terms of.... business ethics, maybe? Some business books say that ethics are important-- business ethics. And I guess that whether or not you think that Hitler is a fucking fascist or not is an important part of that.

Or else we can just revert to pro-Nazi apologetics: all Germans were Nazis, and, therefore, because all Germans did that, *because that's the way that Germans acted*, it must have been okay, because it just is, because Germans are.... always okay!*

And, you know, since we know that it's not okay, let's just not talk about it, right.

But, why don't we talk about this? No need to get *mealy-mouthed and vague*, let's talk about specifics.

As good Germans, BMW happily compiled with all the Nazi laws that were in place during Hitler's cheerful administration of 1933-1945.

And we'd expect nothing less from them, right. After all, this is apparently the way that Germans normally behave, there's almost no need to mention it *every* time that Germans were fascist criminals, since they were really *all* like that, huh, whitewashers?

BMW compiled with Hitler's laws for twelve years.

Let's talk about specifics.

What does that mean.

What did they do.

!

Kwiataprilensis (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We can write

BMW's major shareholding family had 50,000 forced labourers during WWII, these are major war crimes.

BMW admits ‘regret’ over using Nazi slave labor during WWII, a full investigation is done by family request and is revealed. this page needs some updates, main introduction and Wehrmacht and Nazi ties alinea, early Nazi supporters on a IG Farben scale. Who is the admin, or is there a group connected to German History, WWII slave labor. I can write the text myself if we all agree now? Anyone able to update the information I found, subject Guenther Quandt involved in the Nazi movement, and the First General Director Franz Josef Popp of BMW AG from 1922 to 1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

G Power and Alpina bought by BMW
This is clearly a hoax. Good riddance.It also serves as an example of why unsourced additions should be reverted immediately, especially if they contain anything but utterly commonplace, perfectly logical and well-known facts. But buying two little accessories companies on the same date, for € 1.3 billion and € 2.7 billion, with not an iota of news and no press releases, is obviously bullshit. --Dbratland (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to model line up display
I have simplified the list of current BMWs.

It is far too congested and if someone wanted to find a quick link to all of the BMWs it is far more easier to do it now than before where you had to read three paragraphs. It has worked well on Mercedes-Benz for years now. Wjs.william (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The main tool Wikipedia has for that purpose is categories, in this case, Category:BMW vehicles. There is also a page called List of BMW vehicles for anyone who wants the same information in a somewhat different format. Taking the same information, and putting it into yet a third format on BMW is not helpful.  --Dbratland (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And on the bottom of the page is the same links to BMW cars formatted in another way, in a timeline. If a reader can't find the BMW they want in the category, the list, or the timeline, not to mention the search engine, there's no helping them. --Dbratland (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with you putting a short list in the article as it complements the existing prose, but in my opinion the prose is much more useful and should stay and agree with others (like me) who have reinstated it following your repeated deletion. However, I did rework the list (assuming it is going to stay) to use more conventional formatting and a single link on each line. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work. I just had used it and I thought that it was too cluttered if you just wanted to quickly find a model. Looks much better now.Wjs.william (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Largest luxury car maker claim
I have twice removed the claim in the intro that BMW is the largest luxury car manufacturer - the first time it was uncited, the second time it was cited but with nothing more than a passing reference in an article about a different company. I have issues with these "largest" claims. Firstly by what measure is the largest claim being made? i.e. by units produced, by revenue? What portion of BMW's vehicles can be classed as luxury cars? Certainly the 1 series and the MINI aren't, nor are their bikes which make up a proportion of their revenue. I think the claim is so riddled with potential pitfalls that it is best to omit it unless really clear comparison criteria and supporting data can be produced. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is pretty definitive. Gr1st (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't though. I does separate MINI and Rolls Royce, but does not make any other model distinctions. I would challenge anyone who says that the 1 series is a luxury vehicle. "Luxury" is a purely subject term and as such I think it should be avoided when making claims of "biggest in the world". By all means include data on BMW's sales - that is a great reference, and even compare them with its competitors, but I'd prefer if it was left at that.--Biker Biker (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC) (EDIT of course I meant "subjective term" not "subject term". --Biker Biker (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC))


 * I agree the business week article is insufficient. Looking at the 2008 production numbers at OICA, it's not clear at all whether Mercedes or BMW makes more cars -- subtracting the Minis and the Smart Cars, retrospectively -- you end up with about the same number for each, in the neighborhood of 1 to 1.2 million. Subtract the non-luxury cars from the remainder and its anybody's guess which one comes out ahead. And that was in 2008, and a lot has changed since then. The top 5 car makers, Toyota, GM, VW, Ford and Honda, each made 3 to 5 times as many cars as BMW, and any one of them could have made more than the 1 to 1.2 million (theoretically) luxury cars as BMW.So what data we have suggests its too close to call without very definite numbers. And I see no urgent need to have any superlative about the top luxury car maker without strong support -- how does it really make the article better, anyway? --Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And I did not even think of BMW as a luxury car. I have tried a BMW, that was like driving a dodgem car. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean up of Bimmer and Beemer?
Any explanation for deleting this paragraph? It's well sourced and relevant. "Clean up" doesn't tell us much. --Dbratland (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A bad image
That picture at the box in this article is bad - I think we all know what that picture is the Jon Woods one, but it's not related to the BMW article at all. I think a removing this unrelated picture. --Jason 07:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason sanez (talk • contribs)

Porm industry, marc williams
Appears that the page has been hijacked. Founder is inexplicably a "marc williams," and the company was established in 19177777777777777777777?

I can't help right now, but entire article might need a readover. Luckily, looks like the hijacker doesn't like to use capital letters.

Somebody help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Arts section addition
BMW Guggenheim Lab is to be a multidisciplinary exhibition, forum, think tank, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

'WikiProject: BMW Motorcycle' Proposal
Dear all,

I am currently proposing this new WikiProject would have the primary aim of creating and developing a page for each model (both old and new) of BMW motorcycle produced in the company's history. This would enable a highly valuable resource to be for both enthusiasts and restorers such as myself to be created, where extensive information about specifications, development, modifications and the history behind could be found. Not only this, but it would encourage motorcycle enthusiasts, who would not normally have used Wikipedia, to both use its resources and to contribute to the project's pages, becoming part of the motorcycle fraternity which would be the driving force behind this community. Once this task has been completed of English Wikipedia, I, with help of other editors and members of the project, would like to then translate the pages into other languages (particularly German, in order to make the resources available in Germany, where many BMW enthusiasts and restorers are concentrated), and so contribute to the wider Wikipedia group. The WikiProject, would also contribute large numbers of pictures to Wikimedia, as part of its galleries.

In order to promote the group and encourage the growth of the articles in our scope, the WikiProject is not only being promoted to present editors who are currently active editing articles on BMW itself and motorcycles in general, but also notify groups such as the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and the BMW Club in the U.K., which would encourage members (20,000+) to contribute some of the extensive knowledge of the topic which is demonstrated by members of these clubs. Members of the WikiProject who are active in clubs outside of the U.K., would also be encouraged to promote the Project to their respective society, making the WikiProject multinational. Current, more experienced editors, would then help the 'new boys' to use Wikipedia and share their knowledge, which has often been built up during the course of a lifetime of passion for BMW motorcycles. This would enable us, together, to produce a resource which will help generations long into the future and help preserve and catalogue BMW's legacy in the motorcycle industry.

Currently, there are no such WikiProjects which would be dedicated solely to the BMW motorcycles (not even BMW itself) and the development of pages on each individual model, in opposed to the current situation where some models are briefly referred on a BMW related page. This WikiProject would allow this community of people who are highly knowledgeable about this specific topic to develop articles in extreme depth, something not possible with larger groups, which could then be published on the world wide web, available gratis, as with all Wikipedia articles, to the public.

If successful, the idea could serve as a blueprint and be replicated for other motorcycle manufacturers.

Please visit the project proposal page, in order to see more details of the project and to join. Any questions or queries can be posted either on the proposal page, or I can be contacted directly on my talk page.

Many thanks and any help from fellow enthusiasts on this project would be greatly appreciated.

DAFMM (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Theft using OBD
Is it just me or does this section seem woefully out of place and just odd given the overall content and context of the article?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It got a lot of press footage in the UK. I don't think it needs its own section, but the information is nevertheless useful and relevant IMO. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember it getting press in the US as well. I mainly just think its out of place in the article. Is it significant (WP Notable) enough that it deserves its own article?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove S1000RR from Motorsport victories, add Isle of Man TT and land speed records
The S1000RR Superbike racer is nice and all, but the Motorsport section is a roster of victories and championships, isn't it? Shouldn't that be removed until something substantial is achieved? In its place, shouldn't things like IOM victories be listed? BMW once dominated the 500 cc sidecars, for example. Similarly, the 1930-1937 Motorcycle land-speed records were significant and should be listed here. I think there were other motorcycle championships in the early period as well. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP is not a newspaper, but...
Hi Folks, Let me start by saying that although I'm an auto enthusiast, I wouldn't say that BMW vehicles do or do not have any special interest for me (OK, the 850 series were just plain cool, but that's about the extent of my fan interest). That said, there appears to be 2 items that are more "current events" than encyclopedic information. The OBD theft section, if nothing else just appears to be out of place in the article, and the "I'd rather cry in a BMW" (although strange that it has its own article) link in the "See also" just seems completely out of character and context for the rest of the article. The article does not have a "BMW in popular culture" section and maybe it needs one. This doesn't resolve what to do with the OBD section, but maybe someone's suggestion will. What are your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A pop culture section is a dumping ground for lazy editors. The OBD stuff should be merged up into a more appropriate section of the article. The thing that makes it hard to merge up is the question, "How does this affect BMW?" Were sales harmed? Were cars redesigned? If it had not effect, then it is of no importance and should just be deleted rather than consigned to a pop culture dumping ground. I would rather cry in a BMW isn't really about BMW, it's about China. I'd lean towards removing it from the See also section if it has had no effect or influence on BMW itself. If it is important to the BMW community/culture of China, then move it to the Community section. Possibly broaden "community" by renaming it "culture". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Supercars/Concept Cars
I'm not a car guy, but when I am interested in cars I want to see their super cars and concepts cars. Why is there no mention of that? I know for a fact BMW has an i8 concept car that was introduced at a car show somewhere, why isn't that on this page?

StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014
Changes to current models should include the updated lineup

Before:

1 Series (E81) (2004–present) Coupe and convertible

3 Series (E93) (2007–present) convertible

7 Series (F01) (2008–present) Sedan

5 Series (F10) (2009–present) Sedan, wagon

6 Series (F12) (2010–present) Coupe, convertible, Gran Coupe

1 Series (F20) (2011–present) Hatchback

3 Series (F30) (2012–present) Sedan, wagon

4 Series (2014–present) Coupe

3 Series Gran Turismo (2013–present) Progressive Activity Sedan

5 Series Gran Turismo (2009–present) Progressive Activity Sedan

BMW i3 (To be launched 2014) Sedan

X1 (2009–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)

X3 (F25) (2010–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)

X5 (E70) (2006–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)

X6 (E71) (2008–present) Sports Activity Coupe

Z4 (E89) (2009–present) Sports Roadster

After:

1 Series (F20) (2011–present) Hatchback

2 Series (F22) (2013-present) Coupe and convertible

3 Series (F30) (2012-present) Sedan and wagon

4 Series (F32) (2014-present) Coupe, convertible, Gran Coupe

5 Series (F10) (2009–present) Sedan, wagon

6 Series (F12) (2010–present) Coupe, convertible, Gran Coupe

7 Series (F01) (2008–present) Sedan

3 Series Gran Turismo (2013–present) Progressive Activity Sedan

5 Series Gran Turismo (2009–present) Progressive Activity Sedan

BMW i3 (i1) (2013-present) Sedan

BMW i8 (i12) (2013-present) Sports Car

X1 (2009–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)

X3 (F25) (2010–present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)

X4 (F26) (2014-present) Sports Activity Coupe

X5 (F15) (2013-present) Compact Crossover SUV/Sports Activity Vehicle (SAV)

X6 (E71) (2008–present) Sports Activity Coupe

Z4 (E89) (2009–present) Sports Roadster

On a side note, under M Models the M3/M4 start production in 2014 not 2013.

A.a.tawab (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Production statistics need correction or clarification.
Article shows 2013 worldwide production of BMW vehicles as 1,655,138 units but 2013 sales in China as 1,699,835 units. How can sales in China be greater than production in the entire world? Can someone with knowledge of the topic please clarify. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlefty (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 July 2015‎
 * "China sales" is a heading under "Worldwide sales". The China number is 415,200. "Annual production" is a new heading, lower down than China but not under the China section. Scroll up and look at the table of contents. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)