Talk:BMW/Archive 3

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425064421/http://www.bmweducation.co.uk/coFacts/view.asp?docID=185 to http://www.bmweducation.co.uk/cofacts/view.asp?docid=185
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110516025402/http://annual-report.bmwgroup.com:80/2010/gb/files/pdf/en/BMW_Group_AR2010.pdf to http://annual-report.bmwgroup.com/2010/gb/files/pdf/en/BMW_Group_AR2010.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100601010721/http://www.dakar.com/2009/DAK/presentation/docs/histo_1979_2007_us.pdf to http://www.dakar.com/2009/DAK/presentation/docs/histo_1979_2007_us.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100612010703/http://www.sportbusiness.com:80/news/176850/bmw-extends-sponsorship-of-wentworth-pga-event to http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/176850/bmw-extends-sponsorship-of-wentworth-pga-event
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130728114510/http://www.driftuniversity.com:80/why-wait-for-spring-lease-it-now/ to http://www.driftuniversity.com/why-wait-for-spring-lease-it-now/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation
This article needs revising by someone who understands that in English one cannot just splice sentences together with commas. Anothernogginthenog (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017
Please change the "citation needed" after this sentence {"It is the first global guide to private and publicly accessible collections of contemporary art worldwide."} to the following citation:

Blondieesquire (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅--Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 16:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

AG
What does the AG in the name mean? The page doesn't say, or link to an article that tells what this means. I think to U.S. readers this would not be known, my guess is that it is like Private company limited by shares Limited, Ltd., or Incorporation_(business), Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.140.96 (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a US-only project. AG stands for "Aktiengesellschaft", as alluded to in the infobox; it is indeed a company owned by shareholders, but isn't strictly a PLC. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't allude to things, we make it obvious. Fixed now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ag is just Aktiengesellschaft, a corporation limited by share ownership, and is documented under AG on wiki too already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Luxury only?
BMW doesn't only make luxury cars, nor are all their motorcycles "luxury" bikes. And what are we to make of the phrase, "a German luxury automobile, motorcycle and engine manufacturing company founded in 1916." They make luxury cars, luxury motorcycles, and luxury engines? What is a luxury engine? Is their electric car a luxury car? Their smaller motorcycles and scooters are not "luxury" motorcycles. The other problem here is WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia articles are not only about the subject today; they're about the whole history of the subject, which includes many diverse kinds of products, not just BMW's recent high-end position in the export market. And how come the first paragraph of the lead has to say they're a luxury automaker, and then again in the second paragraph we have to repeat that they're one of the big 3 German luxury automakers. What's driving this need to beat this horse? What's next? putting luxury in the article title?I'd look for something quantifiable if you want to characterize where BMW fits into the market, or else leave it out of the lead and explain in depth in the body of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I've reverted the BOLD edit. It doesn't make grammatical sense, and nor is it accurate. Vehicles such as the Isetta and Dixi cannot be remotely construed as luxury cars; nor, realistically, can the 1-Series or the Mini. The current vehicles are generally premium ones, but I doubt anything other than the 7-Series could be 100% considered to be a luxury car – and even then, that isn't how BMW generally market things anyway (sporty executive saloon is more their style). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

luxury cars, a BMW 3 is even for EU standard small, not any luxury at all if you buy the cheap step-in model, Spartan we call that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Year of establishment
The year of establishment in this article could not be right(in box). If you switch to the german version of this article you could see that it have another foundation date: 7. März/March 1916 I think this should be changed because as Germans they better know when one of their companies was founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.186.196 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to BMW's own website: 1917. BFW was formed in 1916. Warren (talk)

Rapp Motorenwerke GmbH was BMW as we know them today, 1912, the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke was the same as company as Rapp Motorenwerke GmbH. Official corporate information from this German Car builders is not the truth. They try to remove that NAZI Gustav Otto from official sources, very bad people. A Nazy founded BMW, that's why they need to remove that here, and on their official Marketing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone can't make a good BMW history site, I need to do it myself, you simply can't remove that the company is founded by a Nazi member in 1912. Gustav Otto has a page himself on wiki too.

BMW = Bayrische Motoren Werke = Bavarian Motor Factories/Plants
Ein Werk = a work. yes. but a Motorenwerk isn't motor works, it is a motor factory.

So, BMW = Bavarian Motor Plants or Bavarian Motor Factories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.116.58 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A "works" in English already means factory or plant. Werke doesn't need to be further translated beyond "works". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Motor werke is just a engine workshop, you can't translate to simplified US Noth American language at all, using 2 words for it is good, the enige workshop factory is good too, better? I think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In English 'motor' has been a common metonym for their entire vehicle for a century. This is why nobody is confused by words like 'motorist'. Regardless, you can't expect to see a different translation here than you find in widely accepted sources. If you have a better source that disputes the standard translation, that might make a difference, but otherwise I'd let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

BMW history - 1945 to 1958
I just wanted to point out that the history of BMW from 1945 to 1958 is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyboza (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714170755/http://www.newbmwseries.com/2009/05/bmw-5-series-gran-turismo/ to http://www.newbmwseries.com/2009/05/bmw-5-series-gran-turismo/
 * Added tag to http://www.bmw.com.au/com/en/insights/technology/connecteddrive/2013/driver_assistance/intelligent_parking.html
 * Added tag to http://www.bmw.co.za/products/automobiles/bmw_insights/history.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

BMW does not use a hyphen between the number and Series
Since an IP changed the spelling of "BMW xyz Series", just for the record: BMW uses "BMW 3er, 5er, 7er" etc. Even the link on their site shows that: http://www.bmw.de/de/neufahrzeuge/5er.html Also, books prove that. (For instance: ''Hans J. Schneider: BMW 5er / Technik + Typen: Die Limousinen- und Touring-Modelle der BMW 5er -Baureihen. Schneider-Media UK LTD. 2007. ISBN 978-3768857895) And my own experience: I have never heard anyone saying "5 Series". --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That is true in German, but this is the English language wikipedia and BMW calls it "1 Series", etc in English. Here are examples: USA, UK. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen that; even though I don't live in Germany, I always refer to their German site. Apparently, models in the US are different from those in Germany. OK. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Theft using OBD
Hi. According to this article, it's not just BMW that is affected (link). And while it is definitely an issue that should be covered by Wikipedia, I think it would be more appropriate to locate it in the OBD article or the articles for the affected models. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article "Video: Key fob reprogrammers steal BMW in 3 mins"?  Yes, clearly not just about BMWs.
 * There are problems with most of the sophisticated digital locks out there - we could usefully have an article on this. But using OBD is either a BMW-only route to this, or is being described as BMW-only by RS, and that's what limits us. Audi / VAG theft (which is equally problematic) doesn't seem to be using that route. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * While the subject of the article is BMWs, it also talks about Opel, Renault, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Toyota and Porsche. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But they're being done through the radio, not via OBD. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, thanks for explaining, I didn't realise that.
 * I think the text is out of place in this article, and would be better located in the articles about the affected models. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.wbcsd.org/about/members/members-list-region.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417153657/http://www.bmw.in/in/en/index_narrowband.html to http://www.bmw.in/in/en/index_narrowband.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bmw.co.za/products/automobiles/bmw_insights/history.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on slang?
The content on slang terms like Bimmer and Beemer has been blanked several times over the years, with shifting rationales. I’ve asked before here on the talk page for an explanation but haven’t gotten much. It’s not too surprising that a sports or luxury brand would have a little snobbery or exclusionary shibboleths around it. The multiple sources from a broad range of different kinds of reliable sources are evidence that the topic is relevant. But it keeps getting blanked, possibly because some editors feel it’s embarrassing? Or they won’t accept that there isn’t a verifiably right or wrong answer to the Bimmer/Beemer cat fight? Should we have an RfC to put this to rest? (Not asking if we should keep or delete it. I’m asking if you think an RfC would settle it). —Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Dennis. Sorry for moving it to the BMW USA article when it apparently also applies to Canada (due to the first sentence, I thought it was USA only). An RfC sounds like a good idea here. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see RfC below. This is the first time I've created an RfC, so apologies if I have made any mistakes. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight given to outdated 2003 10 to 1 bimmer Google claim
(copied from previous section) Googling suggests the cited 2003 claim of Google being 10 to 1 in favour of bimmer is now thoroughly dubious, as bimmer now get 6 million hits, beemer 3.2 million (with a dictionary definiton of it as either car or motorcycle, and 5 images, all of them cars), and beamer 15 million (tho not all of these refer to any kind of BMW). So I've now flagged this as undue.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(I also added this in the Undue template's reason parameter, but that doesn't seem to display anymore).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The 2003 claim is also hard to verify, as the link is dead, and the claim is also strange, given that it's so at variance with things now, that the editor is unnamed, and that it never mentions googling the spelling Beamer.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It also seems likely that rich owners of BMW cars were a much higher proportion of Internet users in 2003 than now (even though they are presumably still somewhat over-represented), thus perhaps explaining the ratio changes, and this thus seemingly was and is thus a tiny rich elite telling the rest of us how we should speak, by questionably or wrongly claiming this is how most people do actually speak.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I've now removed my undue flag and cited today's Google results, justified per WP:IAR if necessary. The flag will presumably have to go back if the previous situation is restored for some reason or other.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Tlhslobus. I think the Business Week reference can be useful... but without the Google hits bit. Despite whatever Business Week thinks, Wikipedia does not consider search engine results quantities as a reliable source. So my suggestion is to remove all the Google stuff and use the "Both nicknames are widely used..." quote as a reference for "...using Bimmer only to refer to BMW cars". See reply to Dennis below Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 1292simon. But it seems to me that would involve replacing 100% verifiable data with a 100% unverifiable and deeply flawed claim in an unverifiable dead link (which, if I understand you right, you seem to be suggesting we continue to use as some sort of RS, while completely distorting the meaning of what it actually said) in a way that will be deeply misleading to our readers, thereby clearly disimproving the Encyclopedia. I don't know what rule, if any, supposedly mandates us to do that, but if it exists we are seemingly obliged to ignore it per WP:IAR and per the related 5th pillar of Wikipedia.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also we have no need to say that "Bimmer refers only to cars", since that is amply demonstrated elsewhere in the section, or even that "only Bimmer refers to cars" (which is what the Business Week article says but so do 4 other old references, even though they seem demonstrably wrong about the situation today, and quite likely also about the true situation in 2003). If we can't have the Googles, then I think the whole sentence should go, though I suspect that would actually be doing a wikilawyering disservice to our readers, contrary to WP:IAR and the 5th pillar of Wikipedia, by seemingly misleading them about the true position today, in a way that the current sentence does not. A somewhat inferior alternative might be to leave the sentence without the Googles, but have it flagged in some way that makes it clear to our readers that it's pretty dodgy (but that would still leave them a bit mystified, thus making it an inferior solution). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * But quite likely the best solution may be to look at the various British English and American English dictionary entries for Bimmer, Beemer and Beamer at the multi-dictionary site http://www.lexilogos.com/english/dictionary.htm, and use them as reliable sources. I'm too busy right now, but if nobody else does it I'll probably do so eventually some other time. If that makes it clear what the RS situation is today, I'm not too worried about what was said in 2003, provided the wording makes it reasonably clear to our readers that it's only referring to 2003 (e.g. by saying Google counts at the time) - tho scrapping it altogether might be better given its verifiability and undue weight problems even in relation to the situation in 2003. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason the Business Week WP:GOOGLETEST assertion was written with WP:INTEXT attribution is that it expresses a point about Business Week. It is telling the reader the source's opinion about this subject. The reason the specific year this was published is mentioned in-text is because it means to say exactly that: in 2003 the source Business Week was satisfied that the question was resolved by a Google test. It does not say it is an accepted fact, in the same way man-made climate change or the non-planet status of Pluto is an accepted fact. It does not say this is true in 2004 or 2005 or Stardate 2450. It says a very specific thing from a specific source at a specific time. The reason for all this specificity and in-text attribution is that this is not an objective fact and there is no objective research on this opinion. Just like there is no objective research on whether Star Wars is more of a space opera or a fanasy-sci-fi or a Buck Rogers nostalgia flick. We're not debating the curb weight of a BMW 525i, which an be settled by an independent source weighing the car on a scale. We are informing the reader what various reliable sources think or surmise about a subjective phenomenon.In contrast, the addition "though googling gives very different results today" is a violation of the WP:NOR policy and a misuse of WP:WikiVoice. It's like saying in an article, "Dennis Bratland walked down to Whole Foods last Thursday and the parking lot looked empty, which proves that Whole Foods is dying." The 'parking lot' test is not an objective criterion, and Dennis Bratland's data collection is original research. Telling readers about google tests you personally conducted is not allowed in the article namespace. Keep in mind also that Google uses your location and your prior search history and the contents of your gmail account and who knows what to adjust the search results you see. Your search results and my search results are not identical. It's a hopelessly skunked question.If you want to write something in the article that argues with the opinions that Business Week published in 2003, you needed to find that published in a reliable source. It's not your decision whether or not Business Week's opinions are wrong. Our sources get to device that for us. So many editors want to argue with the verifiable information found in reliable sources about this whole Buttle-Tuttle bimmer/beemer confusion, but they keep failing to find relaible sources to back it up. That's a clue: you're inserting your own opinions, following your own agenda. You're not letting the sources lead you. The earlier version of this was an accurate reflection of what the sources have to say here, even if you don't like it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that Business Week's opinion is a fact, regardless of whether their method of reaching that opinion is flawed. But the purpose of it in the article is as a data point regarding the relative popularity of bimmer vs beemer. For this purpose, an opinion based on a 14 year old Googletest is not a very good source. So I now think the article should use dictionary results instead. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You will find many editors who either reject dictionaries entirely, or consider them less reliable than other types of sources, due to WP:NOTDICTIONARY. To give one example, see Evergreen's comment at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.More importantly, and I can't emphasize this enough: this is not about whether bimmer or beemer is "correct". The answer to that question is not encyclopedic, per WP:NOTDICT, and is of vanishingly small relevance, per WP:WEIGHT. This about the weight sources give to the fact that BMW fans care about which is "correct". The point of this is to inform readers that this is a signifier of BMW subculture. Just like Air Force people care about whether you say "flight deck" or "cockpit" or Navy people care about whether you call an "aviator" a "pilot". Army sergeants don't like being called "sir", Air Force sergeants expect to be called "sir". Which is correct? We don't care. The fact that they care is what we are writing about. Over at and  you can has out that debate, but the encyclopedic question is "what does this say about BMW culture?". You won't find much cultural information in any dictionary, because ditionaries aren't long-form treatises on culture. The sources we have for that are books, journals, magazines, feature articles in newspapers, and similar long-form media. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, could you point me towards the policy that covers using dictionaries as sources? I understand your point about the cultural significance, but how does this relate to Business Week's claim about the Google results? (For the record, I actually have no opinion about whichever is more popular / applies to motorbikes only / etc) Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170211055512/http://www.carscoops.com/2013/07/jay-leno-pulls-out-mclaren-f1-v12.html to https://www.carscoops.com/2013/07/jay-leno-pulls-out-mclaren-f1-v12.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC about bimmer and beemer slang
Should the text below (for context, it is located after "In the US, specialists have been at pains to prescribe that a distinction must be made between using Beemer exclusively to describe BMW motorcycles, and using Bimmer only to refer to BMW cars,") be removed from article? "in the manner of a "true aficionado" and avoid appearing to be "uninitiated." The Canadian Globe and Mail prefers Bimmer and calls Beemer a "yuppie abomination," while the Tacoma News Tribune says it is a distinction made by "auto snobs." Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts.    An editor of Business Week was satisfied in 2003 that the question was resolved in favor of Bimmer by noting that a Google search yielded 10 times as many hits compared to Beemer."

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey
However, I have no issue with discussion about one term being more popular than the other, eg "noting that a Google search yielded 10 times as many..." (notwithstanding that Google search result quantities have been dismissed as a reliable method of determining popularity). 1292simon (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep some version of the text here. I hope we can all agree at the outset that this is not an up or down vote on whether to keep this precise wording. No RfC on article content is going to overturn the basic principle that all article content can be changed in the future. The reason this belongs in the article is that it reflects many different sources: newspapers, magazines, books, online media, and in several different countries, and across a long span of time. It's not a blip on the radar in an isolated time and place. The discussion of bimmer/beemer is something that that has been of interest in good sources many times. The basic tone is to use in-text attribution to summarize the opinions of a variety of sources about how people use this slang. It's not a scientific fact: it's a piece of culture with subjective observations made by good sources, and we don't misuse Wikipedia's voice. The only reasons I know of for it not to be here are that articles should only contain dry lists of financial statistics or car specifications, or articles should never speak of things that annoy BMW fans. These objections are false: Wikipedia articles include content based on the weight given by our sources. Our main reader is the general public, not car specialists or enthusiasts. The sources are the reason this is here. The tone will never be perfect and we will always go on making adjustments to try to get it just right. It's fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thorough re-write is required, in my opinion. I agree that pieces of culture have their place in car articles (even if accurately covering the subject is much harder than dry lists of specifications!). The issues I see with the current text are:
 * The "true aficionado" and "uninitiated" statements are WP:FRINGE theories, not reflecting the general attitude of BMW owners/enthusiasts worldwide.
 * Same goes for "Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts", a handful of sources with passing mentions about bimmer/beamer does not justify this blanket statement about enthusiasts worldwide.
 * Agree with foregoing comments. Not much to add. The issue is not critical, so it is best to concentrate on clarity and quality of writing, and keeping it informative without getting tedious. Never mind being over-sensitive about details. JonRichfield (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
1292simon said a couple of the direct quotes using the terms "true aficionado" and "uninitiated" were a minority point of view, so obscure that they meet our standard for FRINGE. What sources go with that assertion?There are many sources to support this general thrust: the totally unsurprising fact that a luxury brand has a culture of exclusivity and occasionally snobbery associated with it. You could easily say the same of lots of high-end brands. Some examples: Certain brands, such as BMW, Harley-Davidson, Ducati, Gucci, Apple, and many others have an identity connected to them, and subcultural identities often come with shibboleths or just obscure jargon to distinguish insiders from outsiders. Here is a more sociological analysis of brand cultures, the image of BMW culture to outsiders, and how BMW subculture members themselves react to it. You could write a whole article about BMW subculture, if you really wanted to. Harley Owners Group is one artilce that discusses how companies stage-manage their own brand culture, and some give H-D credit for pioneering the approach that Ducati, Apple, BMW and others imitated to a certain extent.This part of our article is only a few lines mentioning some cultural artifacts related to slang. The sources don't say this is a reflection of every single BMW admirer or owner. No discussion of culture, subculture, or language is going to make categorical statements that would describe every single member of a group. It's just observations made by reliable sources.The use of a search engine test by Business Week was cited as an example of how nobody really has scientific evidence of how many BMW drivers actually consider themselves members of the subculture or ever act as gatekeepers, or which term is dominant. When the best you've got is a search engine test, you're admitting you really don't know. We can't insert that opinion in the article, but we can let the sources speak for themselves. can you cite the sources that show this is a WP:FRINGE view? If you would like to adjust the wording, I have no objection. We don't have to use direct quotes, but I thought it best in this case not to try to characterize what the sources said, and instead let them speak for themselves. I still think the general theme is correct, and not a fringe view, based on the sources I'm aware of. If you can show me a significant number of sources that call this into question, I'd change my mind. Or we could expand what we have to cite reliable sources who dispute the sources we currently have. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * if say, leave the slang out. It's not really educational and more of a us thing. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, you don't like it. I get that. A lot of people don't seem to like it. But you cite nothing, and make no argument. I just cited a long list of sources that consider BMW's culture and the image of that culture from both the point of view of insiders and outsiders as a subject worthy of articles, long treatises and whole books. I could go on citing more and more of them. Before I do that, I'll cite examples of Wp:Featured articles that have similar discussions of slang, etymology, subculture, and attitudes as worthwhile parts of "Wikipedia's best articles": Octopus card, Slate industry in Wales, ROT13, The Bus Uncle, 4chan (entire article). And so on. There nothing in What Wikipedia is not that would suggest this is not encyclopedic. To exclude it is an "us thing", as in "us" deciding that we will include some of what our sources have to say, but arbitrarily exclude other content from the very sources we purport to trust. The WP:Due weight policy says that if our sources give it attention, we must try to give it a proportionate amount of coverage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dennis, here are some reference I've found for you: 1, 2, 3, 4. They all examine the bimmer vs beemer topic without any mention of elitism (ie true aficionado, unititiated, offending enthusiasts), which would not be the case if the elitism was commonplace. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the text said that elitism or snobbery was commonplace, only that it existed. But if you want to alter it to make it more explicit that nobody is saying it is common, that's fine.That said, I don't think the sources you cite offer any evidence either way, since they don't actually say anything about the question of how prevalent elitism is among BMW enthusiasts. If anything at least two of them do take for granted attitudes that are unmistakably superior or exclusive.This says "Over time, different people (who couldn't spell very well and didn't take the trouble to find out) started to use the term Beamer." It's saying if they call a car a Beemer, it shows they are ignorant of motorcycles and in fact so ignorant that their basic education is called into question. Also, they're lazy, it says. Clearly an elitist attitude. This glorifies the origin of Beemer to the rarefied Olympus of "the track" where everyone is so busy and important they don't have time to say BMW. Car enthusiasts are easily cowed with the fallacy that "if racers do it, it's better". The aftermarket of ill-advised mods thrives on this fallacy. It also says, "When the first BMW cars came out, those same enthusiasts decided that the car couldn't have the same slang as the motorcycle", which is clearly saying that one group must differentiate itself from another group. The car owners would be unhappy if anyone mistook them for members of the motorcycle owner group, and vice versa. We call that exclusivity. The fourth source, again, emphasizes that this slang comes from racing, where heroes are born, and again suggests that exclusivity is a logical reason for the choice.All four sources accept without question the premise that it actually matters which word anyone uses, and accept the premise that one should not use the words "wrong". The first source say they took another website to task for this error. Why so serious? I ask.Again, we should not say how common these attitudes are, because we have no data. We have copious sources that say they exist, and the existence of so many sources tells us it meets our standard for WP:WEIGHT. The evidence that elitism and exclusivity are a factor continues to mount. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * you keep repeating that this is a "blanket statement about enthusiasts worldwide." Where? What blanket statement? Which words say anything -- at all -- about all BMW enthusiasts? I don't see any. Not this In the US, specialists have been at pains to prescribe that a distinction must be made between using Beemer exclusively to describe BMW motorcycles, and using Bimmer only to refer to BMW cars, in the manner of a "true aficionado" and avoid appearing to be "uninitiated." This doesn't say that either: "Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts." If you're really worried it says that, just change it to say "Using the wrong slang risks offending some BMW enthusiasts." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Dennis. Yes, it is vague wording relating to "risks offending BMW enthusiasts" that I mean by the blanket statement. Given the reference that the claim is based on, could we move the sentence earlier so it ties in to the "In the US..." sentence, and re-phrase it to "Using the wrong slang can offend some car enthusiasts."? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Tlhslobus (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Googling suggests the cited 2003 claim of Google being 10 to 1 in favour of bimmer is now thoroughly dubious, as bimmer now get 6 million hits, beemer 3.2 million (with a dictionary definiton of it as either car or motorcycle, and 5 images, all of them cars), and beamer 15 million (tho not all of these refer to any kind of BMW). (claim now flagged as undue and this item copied for discussion in a new section below).
 * 2) Some of the definitions (e.g. Beamer definitions 1.2 and 2.2 at Urban Dictionary(UD)) seem to imply that Beamer may apply to any nice car (though this may perhaps just be praise for BMW by the definition writers). Two definitions (Bimmer 4 at UD, Beemer 4 at UD) imply that Bimmer may get also you in trouble, especially outside America (I've never heard Bimmer used in Ireland, but maybe I just lead a sheltered existence). The defintions at UD are frequently inconsistent. But many UD definitions and examples imply that any of these nicknames may get you in trouble. And this is not because you will cause offense, but because you may receive a gratuitously offensive response. (But I'm not sure that we can say this as I don't think UD counts as a WP:RS).
 * 2b) And after removing 2 inappropriate sources, our current remaining source that says that 'misusing' Beamer may cause offense is an unverifiable dead link, with no named author, bad editing ("as" instead of "so as"), and seems not to be a WP:RS (being apparently one individual's contribution to a Question and Answer session, with no clear indication of who any of the Q&A individuals might be).
 * 2c) So I've added a CN explaining much of this in the reason parameter (though I haven't mentioned there that there may be special problems with bimmer outside America - anybody can add that if they think it should be there).
 * Urban dictionary is garbage. Please, never speak of it again.<P>In addition to the numerous sources already given, 1292simon added four more sources that verify for us that BMW enthusiasts think it is important to "correctly" use the terms bimmer and beemer. We have zero sources telling us that it doesn't matter. Non-BMW fans and grown-up adults with a proper sense of perspective almost certainly realize that this is a bullshit thing for anybody to care about, but our sources are telling us that car enthusiasts and BMW enthusiasts in particular generally think it matters to get this "right", whatever "right" is. The fact that BMW enthusiasts care about this is, according to many, many sources, a relevant fact to know about BMW culture.<P>Remember, when I say "Americans like baseball", that does not say "ALL Americans like baseball". It doesn't even say "MOST Americans like baseball". It only tells us something that is identified with Americans. Many sources will say "Star Wars fans disown the Christmas Special". That doesn't mean ALL Star Wars fans hate the Christmas Special, it just says that opinion is a characteristic one associates with Star Wars fans. One hundred percent of them? No. 51% of them? No. Any specific percent of them? We don't know. That's not the point. Saying "Vodka is the national drink of Russia" does not mean all Russians drink vodka, or "Tea time is very English" does not mean every single Englishman is into tea time. If I say, "Burning the American Flag risks offending Americans", that does not mean 100% of Americans care if you burn a flag. Some don't. That is why "Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts" is not a blanket statement about every BMW enthusiast. It is a statement about what characterizes BMW enthusiasts, according to a very large number of sources. Zero sources contradict this characterization. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Tlhslobus. Regarding point 2c, I agree that the supporting reference does not pass WP:RS. Also, the quote says "...as not to offend the car enthusiast that enlightened me", so the author is just referring to one person. Also, that part of the quote is a throwaway line in a "chatty" piece, so it is misuse to base a factual claim on it. For these reasons, I think it should be removed. Cheers 1292simon (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Simon, I'm very much inclined to agree with you.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird what high standards we apply to sources that say things about BMW that a few editors don't like, while over on the E30 article, as long as there's any old source somewhere on the page, then we can happily vouch that all the horsepower and torque figures are good as gold. The other sources cited, including the ones 1292Simon found, support the general sense that those who fancy themselves knowledgeable about BMW can be characterized as taking offense by those who don't care one way or the other which vowels we imagine could exist after the B. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I never said the E30 horsepower figures are "good as gold" without references. I thought it might be ok if the references for the figures were provided in the articles for the engines instead. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just saying, neither Bimmer not Beamer are common terms for BMW. As far as I have noticed, all of the "evidence" provided here refers to online sources rather than books. In this case, I consider citing books mandatory. Online sources are not eligible. However, since the terms Beamer and Bimmer are both uncommon in my opinion, I doubt that good reliable sources can be found. Actually, I am quite surprised and wonder why one would say either Bimmer or Beamer? I have never heard anyone saying this. The common term for a BMW vehicle is just BMW, which is an easily pronouncable three-syllable term that doesn't require a fancy replacement word. Surprisingly, Beamer actually refers to a digital image projector rather than a BMW automobile. --2003:4D:EA1C:4D00:616D:2678:76E9:683A (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Close to a dozen good reliable sources have already been found and cited. Wikipedia isn't a compendium of what you or I have personally heard anyone say. The cited sources have already reported the fact that these terms are common. Nobody has cited anything which contradicts the reliable sources that have been cited so far. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I had not seen the box with cited sources, only the links with the online sources below, my bad. I don't see a problem with adding the Bimmer-Beemer thing then, just cite the sources properly. However, I have found a lot of unreliable books, so choose carefully. --2003:4D:EA1C:4D00:ED86:65:B10:A01A (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

BMW Thailand
BMW - Rayong Car Assembly Plant

Type: Car Assembly Plant Area: Rayong Products: Passenger Vehicles under BMW, MINI, and Motorrad brands Annual Production: 6,000 Vehicles Owner: BMW (Thailand) Co Ltd Shareholders: BMW AG Activity since: 2000

Contact

Coordinates: 12.979709,101.119874 Address: 7/201 Moo 6 Amata City Industrial Estate, Mabyangporn, Plukdaeng, Rayong, 21140 Email: Phone: +66 (38) 640 000 Web: http://www.bmw.co.th

https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/france/article/detail/T0029464FR/le-bmw-group-investit-15-millions-d-euros-dans-l-agrandissement-de-l-usine-bmw-en-thailande?language=fr

93.20.247.162 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong translation
The German name Bayerische Motoren Werke is grammatically incorrect; it does not make any sense ( and in general, names cannot be translated ). This means that the English translation "Bavarian Motor Works" is wrong. Therefore, I recommend that someone removes it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Message from 89.204.130.23: The source cited does not say that BMW translates into English as Bavarian Motor Works. It says that Rapp Motor Works became Bavarian Motor Works. That is a difference.

BMW is a name and you don't translate names.

Bayerische Motoren Werke is grammatically incorrect and you can't translate it. It means something like Bavarian Engines Works or Bavarian Engines, thou shallt work! This doesn't make much sense to me. Bavarian Motor Woek would mean Bayerische Motorenwerke, that's just not the name of the company. While the pronounciation is similar, it is still different.
 * I don't agree that names can't be translated as a blanket rule. And despite the grammatical quirks of the original German name, I think it is helpful to have a translation of the words available for English readers. Translation is rarely a literal process! Therefore I am in favour of retaining the text. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not saying the name of BMW in English is Bayerische Motoren Werke. We're saying those words translate to Bavarian Motor Works, and we have numerous sources in English who use that 'translation', or perhaps 'rough translation', somewhat like a transliteration. Culturally, the understading of BMW translated this way is widespread. See Cleveland CycleWerks, or Bidgewater Motor Works, Way Motor Works, etc. Many sources say this <P>I haven't seen any sources saying Bavarian Motor Works is incorrect. If we are shown one, we can mention that in the article, alongside the many English sources that accept this as the usual translation. Lacking those sources, it's fine the way it is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said, you can't just translate it like that. These words don't translate into English as Bavarian Motor Works. I'm not saying that the name in English isn't Bavarian Motor Works, I'm saying that Bayerische Motoren Werke is a name and that it doesn't translate into English as Bavarian Motor Works. It simply can't since it's a name and doesn't make any sense in German. You can safely say that English books refer to BMW as Bavarian Motor Works, there is obvious evidence for that. However, I haven't seen any proof for the translation theory ('BMW translates into English as Bavarian Motor Works'). Several books refer to BMW as Bayerische Motorenwerke. While this is grammatically correct, it isn't their name. I think claiming that BMWs name is wrong is hardly anything someone could prove. But at least I would change the sentence to something like "English language literature refers to BMW as Bavarian Motor Works which translates into German as 'Bayerische Motorenwerke'." The 'translation' though is definitely wrong and none of the cited sources actually says that it translates into English as that, they just refer to it as that.


 * It's called "marketing German" since "Bayrische Motoren Werke" is a compound noun and should be - following the rules of German grammar - hyphenated to "Bayrische Motorenwerke." Unfortunately, there is a rule that word brands don't have to follow grammatical rules which leads to the crap fashion to break up compounds. Just for your information. Best regards, GeoTrinity (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is pretty tiresome. Nobody has ever cited a source saying it's incorrect. Thanks for your opinions, which we can put next to the other opinions above. But articles aren't written based on opinions. We get our content from reliable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Content forking does not mean blanking whole sections
Content forking says: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material.  This mass deletion is not what that means. It refers you to Summary style, which details the structure of having parent articles contain summaries of the content in child articles. BMW does not merely refer you to History of BMW. It summarizes the history, and refers you to History of BMW for the lengthier version.<P>Having no summary at all is worse than having a history section that is maybe too long. If we can't get a reasonable summary, [this should be reverted pending a better edit. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It definitely needs a summary. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that a summary would be useful. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I copied in the lede of History of BMW as a temporary measure, rather than totally revert 1292simon's deletion. It's lame, and totally avoidable. Why exactly couldn't one have written a summary first, then nuke the content? In other words, if you make an edit, click preview, and what you see is, overall, objectively worse than the current version, then don't click publish. If the old version is better, then put your changes in draft form somewhere until you have a version that is better than the old one. This is the essence of Editing policy.<P>Anyway, both the lede of History of BMW and BMW could use a good rewrite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Logo caption
Hi, Does anyone else think "Logo exclusively used in vehicles since March 2020; a flat variation without the black outline was introduced in that month (see § Logo)" is on the long side or is it just me?, Seems it could do with shortening ?, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure we need it at all, readers who are confused can read the logo section. If we do want to keep it "(for the 2020 redesign see § Logo)" seams much better. Toasted Meter (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally would support removing it and adding a hidden note stating one should visit the Logo section below, Pinging who either added or expanded on the caption, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I've simplified the logo_caption now. Gibranalnn (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I still feel it ought to be removed with a hidden note added, Pinging Toasted Meter who may have different views, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed would be fine with me, I think readers will be able to figure it out. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for replying Toasted Meter :), Gibranalnn I've gone ahead and removed the caption as consensus here is to remove it. Thanks again all. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 logo change
In early 2020 BMW introduced a new logo. The new logo has a flat 2D design with a transparent background. BMW has made it clear that is used for brand communications only. BMW cars, motorcycles and dealerships will continue to use the previous 3D logo. Should this article should continue to the older 3D logo as its main logo (in the info box for example)? Discuss here before changing to the new 2D transparent logo. Jschnur (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Since this article is about BMW as manufacturer/company, not individual products. I think it the new logo should be used. Adjayanto (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Look at: BMW’s electric i4 sedan finally shown of in concept form, please. --62.148.209.180 (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a concept car, they have said they will not be using it on production cars. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The new logo really is atrocious!, As Toasted Meter says the new logo won't be used on production cars so as such IMHO the current logo shouldn't be replaced. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As the additional logo is for brand communications only there's no reason to change the existing logo.--<span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> Dewritech (talk)  13:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What on Earth?! Has the BMW logo changed or not?! I have eyes and I see it has changed like the VW logo. --85.76.139.177 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please explain the rationale for replacing the logo in the infobox with text saying "BMW GROUP"? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi 1292simon, An IP had changed the logo to the 2020 one, an editor had an issue with that so replaced it with the BMW Group one (presumably not realising we'd previously been using the other logo, Anyway I've changed it back, No doubt it'll be replaced within 2 days lol, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 10:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Davey2010 for the explanation and for restoring the other image. Unless we start seeing cars with "BMW GROUP" in black letters directly above the kidney grill, I think your version is much better ;) (the whole 2020 logo thing with "we have a new logo but we're not actually putting it on our cars" suggests a long, boozy lunch within the marketing department IMHO) Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Haha well I think given the choice I've rather have the "BMW Group" on their cars .... atleast you'd be able to see it from a distance .... unlike their new logo, Yeah I'm slightly baffled as to the point of the logo, Think they all need to go back to the drawing board and design something better not worse!. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What is this sentence trying to say?
"However the name BMW dates back to 1913, when the original company to use the name BMW was born (initially as Rapp Motorenwerke)." ~JBT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.211.241 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It means that Rapp Motorenwerke, who first used the name BMW, were established in 1913. Born is possibly a bad verb, since companies are not persons and thus cannot be born. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 02:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - corrected to founded. Jim Michael (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Logo has been changed
About an hour ago the logo on the page was changed without consensus, should it be reverted? HistoricalSimon (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - reverted already. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * HighRes bmw-art-car-18-by-ca.jpg

Revisit logo change
Considering BMW is using the new logo is being used to identify BMW cars and motorcycle brands, we should use the new logo. Whether or not we like the new logo is irrelevant, and whichever badge they decide to put ornamentally on their vehicles should not matter. The new logo is now their primary logo.

https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/brands-and-services.html

Mghabmw (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, As can be seen here they've still used the "old" logo on a 2021 model .... so they're still using it. Not our problem if they can't make up their minds which logo they actually want to use. I can understand your point but to me their primary logo is whatever they display on their vehicles. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

BMW has been doing the "two logo thing" ever since, because the molding techniques didn't allow them using the "proper" logo everywhere. This was especially noticeable with the "airbag steering wheels" that didn't come with the proper BMW logo, but with a molded logo just like the one seen below. I suppose we can stick to the proper logo they put on their cars. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh wow thanks Johannes for your thoughtful reply - I never this, You learn something new everyday! :) – Davey 2010 Talk 20:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Formula One
The lede contains the sentence, "the company has significant motorsport history, especially in touring cars, Formula 1, sports cars and the Isle of Man TT," but they simply do NOT have a significant history in Formula One, by any stretch of the imagination. Zero Constructor's Championships and one Driver's Championship, in what amounts to a very short period of time in the sport - when compared to other companies who HAVE had a significant history in Formula One - and they only supplied engines. Note that there is no reference to support the claim either. I suggest "Formula 1" be removed from this sentence and will do so if there are no objections? FillsHerTease (talk)


 * I suppose that removing the Formula 1 part is a good idea; BMW has indeed not had a "big" Formula 1 history. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"BMW V Series" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect BMW V Series. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Name Pronunciation
The audio clip should be of the full name, not the initialism. Unhelpful to hear "BMW" pronounced in German. Etudierplus (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There's actually an ogg file on commons (c:File:GT_BMW-AG.ogg), but one could argue that the speaker says „Bayerische Motorenwerkeaktiengesellschaft“ instead of „Bayerische Motoren Werke“. But anyways, I suppose that there is no need for changes as the article has a section on the company's name (BMW) that explains the naming gibberish well enough (and uses this exact file). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad, thank you very much! I guess anyone interested enough will scroll down to hear the pronunciation anyways. Etudierplus (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The word 'Countries' looks out of place under the sub-heading 'China' under the tab 'Overseas subsidiaries'
The word 'Countries' looks out of place under the sub-heading 'China' under the tab 'Overseas subsidiaries'. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Area served and exclusion of Russia
The "Area served" field states that BMW has "Worldwide (except Russia)" presence (maybe not presence, but you get the idea), meaning it's everywhere EXCEPT Russia, now that surprises me. Sure, BMW is a multinational corporation, so putting "Worldwide" as "Area served" makes a lot of sense, however it doesn't mean that BMW has dealerships or official repair shops in every country around the world (from the top of my head you should add North Korea or Somalia and other countries that don't have an official BMW presence), so isn't it easier and more true to life to just leave it as Worldwide?

While it is true that BMW used to operate in Russia, and now left the country, I feel that it would be closer to reality to mention somewhere in text, and not in the "Area served".

TLDR: listing "Area served" as "Worldwide (except Russia)" is misleading because it implies that BMW has an official representation is every country except Russia. CATFELLA (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you because, as you say, there are various exceptions and they can change year by year. I personally prefer to just list "worldwide" in the infobox and let the details on exceptions for the article (if worth mentioning), although other editors may disagree. I will remove the "except Russia" and clarify people can revert me if they have reasons to do so. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

ReachNow, Car2Go and any other car sharing services operated by BMW have not operated in the US since 2019
Reference: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1126500_daimler-and-bmw-call-it-quits-on-car-sharing-in-north-america

Currently the article claims that ReachNow operates in three cities. Wikibenjamins (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You can be bold and fix it yourself citing your sources, as Wikipedia is a collaborative project, there are no "official"  editors. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022
Headquarters:Munich, Germany, EU MaxTheVin (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Already in article. <b style="background:#f5b836;color:#d12b1f;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Pizzaplayer219</b>Talk<sub title="C" style="margin-left:-22q;">Contribs 14:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2022
Considering the Mercedes and Audi wiki pages (that are direct competitors to BMW) clearly state that they produce luxury products, it would only make rational sense for that to be included in the first sentence of BMW's Wiki page as well like it was before.

So in my opinion, the first line of BMW's description as a company should include "is a German multinational manufacturer of luxury vehicles and motorcycles headquartered in Munich, Bavaria."

That's all. Thank you! Petarzik32 (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The lede already says that. What change are you asking for?  RudolfRed (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Neue Klasse and 2002 in history
Current text:

The 1962 introduction of the BMW New Class compact sedans was the beginning of BMW's reputation as a leading manufacturer of sport-oriented cars. Throughout the 1960s, BMW expanded its range by adding coupe and luxury sedan models

Update to:

In 1961 the BMW 1500 was unveiled at a car show as a family car and went to the market a year later. It was an amazing car, and by 1963 the sales of BMW 1500 had completely turned BMW’s cash flow around.[1] BMW New Class compact sedans was the beginning of BMW's reputation as a leading manufacturer of sport-oriented cars. In 1966, BMW was practically unknown in the US. Sales in the US that year were just 1253 cars. Then BMW 1600-2 came to America’s shores, tripling US sales to 4564 the following yearThroughout the 1960s, BMW expanded its range by adding coupe and luxury sedan models. Then BMW stuffed their largest m10 engine in their smallest body and created the 2002. That opened the floodgates, and established BMW as the premier performance automobile line in the US.[2] Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, BMW expanded its range by adding coupes and luxury sedan models [3]


 * 1) https://www.bmw2002faq.com/articles/technical-articles/history-and-reference/history-prior-to-bmw-2002-development-r416/
 * 2) https://www.bmw2002faq.com/articles/technical-articles/history-and-reference/history-of-the-bmw-2002-and-the-02-series-r366/
 * 3) https://www.bmw2002faq.com/articles/technical-articles/history-and-reference/bmw-neue-klasse-a-birth-of-a-sports-sedan-r379/

Kupper26 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)