Talk:Bugatti/Archive 1

Comment
I'll have to check references, but I believe there were examples of bugatti type numbers that referred to engines, not chassis and drivetrain.

Advanced materials in Bugatti
Due to some research after magnesium I found the following about Bugatti. Maybe it is interesting for this article? I didn't know where to insert this in this article, so I put it here, hoping someone else likes to insert it in an "advanced materials" section. Magnesium was used in vehicles since 1921. Often it was found as mass production magnesium parts in the engine part, but sometimes also elsewhere. "Even in the car body extruded u- and angle profiles were often used to build frames which were then covered with Mg sheets. Examples are German bus trailers and a prototype of Bugatti (Type 57C Atlantic) both build in 1928". (citation of Automotive Applications of Magnesium and its Alloys, by C. Blawert, N. Hort, K.U. Kainer, in Trans. Indian Inst. Met., vol 57, no. 4, august 2004, pp. 397-408. Since using magnesium for car body applications receives nowadays a lot of interest, among others due to CAFE-regulations, it might be interesting that Bugatti did something like it already in the late 20s. Bye, SietskeEN 10:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Lydia
Project Lydia was scrapped a long time ago and will not be produced. Can I delete this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.113.24 (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Failed... continued into 1960s
The intro doesn't make sense or is at least confusing. If the brand failed with the onset of WWII it can't have struggled into the 1960s. Can someone fix this? Prego. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad writing
This is the lede for your second paragraph:

"The original company is legendary for producing some of the most exclusive cars in the world as well as some of the fastest."

Exactly what is an exclusive car? Perhaps a car that only permits certain people to drive it. There are other problems with this sentence, but they are too convoluted to diagram here. I suggest a re-write like this: ''"The original Bugatti company was legendary for producing some of the most expensive and powerful cars in the world." '' You have researched the year the company was founded. Use it to better effect, like this: '''"From 1909 to 1963, the legendary Bugatti company produced some of the most expensive and powerful cars in the world." '''

Cars are not fast or slow. They can't move without human control. Races are fast. Timed performances are fast. But a racing car is described in terms of its engine power, and then indications can be given about its potential speed. Writing about how fast a car is makes this article read like it was written by a child.

The entire article needs re-written, but please consider starting here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.197.110 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you make a good point. You're always welcome to fix writing that needs tweaking. I suspect exclusive also refers to a limited production of stylish cars. There are other companies that make expensive and powerful cars. Bugatti is known for its niche of exclusive cars, available only to those with the money and desire from something unusual. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

More Bad Writing
"Possibly the greatest achievement to be seen from Bugatti" WOOOOOOW A BLUE ONE! This needs to be removed or rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.64.71 (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Justin Roeder?
Founder Justin Roeder was born in Milan, Italy, and the automobile company that bears his name was founded in 1909.

This "Justin Roeder" is mentioned in many previous versions of this page, but I can see no other references on the web to anyone of this name who has anything to do with Bugatti. Also, surely, it is Ettore Bugatti's name that the automobile company bears?

I would be bold and change it to Ettore Bugatti, but the history of edits that keep the Justin Roeder name in the article make me wonder if I am missing something. Vandalism, or something else? . Traced it back to an edit on 2010-02-12 and it does appear to be vandalism - changing it back to Ettore Bugatti. --nonky 21:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonky (talk • contribs)

merging proposal of Bugatti articles
Im not sure if its a good idea to merge these articles, because they have only a common name. We should check how other similar cases have been made here, any similar reborn car brands? --Typ932 T&middot;C 07:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Maybach has only has one article. Ch Th Jo (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the articles should not be merged as they describe two entirely different entities. However, I think that all the detail relating to the Volkswagen era should be removed from this article, as it overlaps with the other article, and the current Bugatti has nothing to do the the originally founded company.Myredroom (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should merge the articles because it's too confusing like this. It will be easier to browse. Everything will be easier if the articles are merged. Thumbs up from me (Wiki id2 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I disagree. Two completely different companies, one merely purchased, over fifty years after the original icon was created, the right to call the Veyron a Bugatti. The only thing the two companies share is the word Bugatti. It don't even see it as remotely confusing. The correctly written hatnote at the top of the page should make it perfectly clear which is which. --Falcadore (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - having a different article for the historic Bugatti and for the current French subsidiary of Volkswagen AG seems a good idea to me. I don't think it is confusing. Hektor (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you support Bugatti Automobili SpA as a part of the current article but feel Bugatti SAS should be excluded? If you write a third article for Bugatti Automobili SpA, shouldn't you/we also author a bunch of separate articles for the ownership under Hispano-Suiza, Snemca and Messier? Ch Th Jo (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont see it as good idea, for the reasons told above, its like giving old merit to totally new company, which only uses Bugatti name to gain something. --Typ932 T&middot;C 12:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Merger - Whatever happens, we need to apply the logic fully, not partially as we have in the discussion so far. There is a third entity, Bugatti_Automobili_SpA which is mentioned in this article. Currently the term 'Bugatti_Automobili_SpA' is a re-direct to this article. Why does Bugatti Automobili SpA not have it's own article? Additionally, If you don't support merging because of the current ownership, then there should be separate articles for each owner throughout history, giving us SIX articles total. That's not wrong or bad - it is a possible solution - but arguing in favor of one article about Bugatti and Bugatti Automobili SpA (and the other owners) but having a second article solely about Bugatti SAS is kind of kooky. If you don't support merger because VW owns the current incarnation of the company, then shouldn't all the information about ownership by Hispano-Suiza, Snemca and Messier also be purged from this article? Maybach, like Bugatti, ceased to be, was later revived and has only one article in Wikipedia. I don't think three or six separate articles about the Bugatti brand is very friendly to readers who know nothing or very little and want to learn more. I'd like it to be as easy as possible to learn about any subject in Wikipedia, including the whole history of Bugatti, including all three incarnations that manufactured cars and the other owners that didn't manufacture Bugatti cars and I don't think creating -six- articles, one for each owner, supports ease of use. In my opinion, if the article is titled simply "Bugatti" then it really needs to be a comprehensive overview of the entire -brand- including all ownership eras - Bugatti, Hispano-Suiza, Snemca, Messier, SpA and SAS. (Another way to look at it - There's already a large amount of information about SAS and the Veyron in this article, so we aren't really "merging" the articles, we'd just be expanding the existing SAS section in this article, then eliminating the SAS article, making it a re-direct to Bugatti.) Ch Th Jo (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Why does Bugatti Automobili SpA not have it's own article?" because nobody has made such article, Im really against the merge, because these are really different cars, not comparable for instance Jaguar which has been made continously only ownership has changed, Bugatti is just brand that was bought afterwards. --Typ932 T&middot;C 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger into Bugatti Automobiles
I believe that the article Bugatti should be merged into Bugatti Automobiles. I do believe that Bugatti should have a redirect to Bugatti Automobiles founding in 1909 and then add the information to it. It just makes it all simpler. The name Bugatti, along with Bugatti Automobili SpA should redirect to Bugatti Automobiles. As Automobiles refer to cars. (Wiki id2)

I Agree Dgn1234 (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also in favor of merging both articles, i.e. Bugatti into Bugatti Automobiles. After all, 'Bugatti Automobiles SAS' owns the copyright of all kinds of intellectual properties regarding the old Bugattis, including logos, brand name, historical model names, history etc.

Like it or not, it is not our job in WP neither to make a statement over the fate of an historical brand such as Bugatti, nor to judge on the fact that the brand is now owned by the Volkswagen Group. As you can easily make it clear in their own website http://www.bugatti.com/en/tradition/history.html , they actually own the rights for the Bugaatti's more than 100 years of history. (85.75.101.222 (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

I think that the article is fine as it is; the major period of Bugatti car production was indeed the early (mostly) pre-war years; a large variety of vehicles were produced over a long period. The two later iterations of Bugatti's car-making history are adequately introduced at the end. These two later episodes were very, very different from the first...essentially producing only one, very expensive 'supercar'. Hence I think that it is appropriate to keep the articles separate. Jjcarder (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think as Bugatti (current) owns the rights to the old production the articals should be merged. 82.43.48.217 (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be merged, so it isn't confusing. Wikicars, also has evreything on Bugatti. --123.192.63.119 (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Should not be merged, its fine now -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 12:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree. They are two different companies, eventhough the current Bugatti owns all the rights of the former. I understand the possibility of confusion since they both bare the same names. I think adding "SAS" to the current company would be the best solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.66.39 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reject Lotus is a perfect example of many companies with a name and history which is linked should not be merged. There are reasons to merge and reasons not to. The right disambigautions notes, or even a disambig page slotted in at Bugatti can easily make for a useable page. Also, Bugatti did not only make cars. They have a history of aviation manufacturing as well, which is outside the scope of either Bugatti or Bugatti Automobiles. If Bugatti was to be sent anywhere it should redirect to the disambiguation page. However that is not my preferred option. I am personally against the merger for a number of reasons, not least of which a tide of Veyron inspired WP:RECENTISM edits would quickly squash historic Bugattis story and policing a merged article would become a nightmare. Essentially, Bugatti is already a merged article. Like Wikipedia suggests if one component, in this instance Bugatti Automobiles, grows beyond the size of the original article it can be split into its own article. There is more than sufficient reason for Bugatti Automobiles to maintain its own article. If this was taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles (where this probably should be discussed actually) I don't think you would find a lot of support. It does strike me though after attempts last year to merge everything into Bugatti failed to find popular supposrt, argueing the opposite to merge everything into Bugatti Automobiles is a bit disengenious. --Falcadore (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Numbers built
In a line I just deleted from the article it said that 7900 Bugattis were built 1909-1947 of which 2000 survived. But I remember having read in a book sometime (not in my possession anymore) that about 8000 were made and that 4000 survived. I can find no definitive number, so I decided to leave it out (and to move the figure of 8000 to the lead). Mark in wiki (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2014
a bugattti is the fastest car in the world suckers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.168.241.4 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Successor
I reverted the edits that changed the sentence "Today, the name is owned by [..] Volkswagen" into "Today, its successor Bugatti Automobiles is still based in Molsheim but is now owned by [..] Volkswagen".

To me the word "successor" is ambiguous. In what way did they succeed the original company? In a legal sense, in its public image? I feel it might be more accurate to call the firm Messier-Bugatti-Dowty the successor. And according to Bugatti Automobiles the only connection with the old firm was that Volkswagen bought the right to produce cars under the trade name.

Further, I feel that "still based in Molsheim" is a confusing phrase, because it might imply that Bugattis have been built there more or less continuously from 1945 until 1989, which is incorrect. Cars with the name Bugatti have also been built in for instance Campogalliano. Mark in wiki (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Veyron
Bugatti was the first company to design the Veyron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.6.192 (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Buga
es:wiktionary:buga says that the Spanish jargon term buga, "car", comes from Bugatti. If somebody can get reliable references (hard to find with jargon), it should be added in the article. --Error (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017
It's written 'was French' it is still a French manufacturer, even if it belongs to the VW group as well as Bentley, they both joined the VW group in 1998. Why this error, just for French bashing? 139.191.133.28 (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is about the historic car marque that was French and existed from 1909 until 1963. For the later company that is currently owned by Volkswagen, see Bugatti Automobiles. Mark in wiki (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thank you, that's a bit confusing, anyway - EEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.191.133.28 (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017
It should says is instead of was as the company still exists as part of Volkswagen 24.97.253.174 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is about the historic car marque that is defunct since 1963. Mark in wiki (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the opening paragraph mentions Volkswagen. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017
Could somebody add the Start date and age template from "| foundation = {Start date|1909}" to "| foundation = {Start date and age|1909}"?

173.73.227.128 (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  08:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is weird as it omits key facts about Bugatti
The article says things like "Italian entrepreneur Romano Artioli acquired the Bugatti brand in 1987" and "Volkswagen AG acquired the Bugatti brand in 1998" without indicating from whom the rights were acquired (and "for how much", though this information might be not available). 93.185.30.72 (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2018
The word "constructor" should probably be "builder." My guess is that someone made a literal translation from French, where "constructeur" is the standard term for "builder" of automobiles. Twarger (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you for you good eye. Happy editing! Dolotta (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016
I want to fix a grammar error. RonanHi (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". - Arjayay (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights.

This article impliythat Bugatti no longer is operational, and production of probably the last and greatest combination engine in history. All other manufacturers have moved to hybrid, so Bugatti’s recent model should be acknowledged as well as praised! Hpcine (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

UMMM didn't Bugatti make Aero-engines and um Aircraft????????????????
Yes of course they did, the mere fact that his aircraft and engines were just as iconic as his cars counts for nothing of course.!!!!!!!!!!!! When will you car types open your eyes?????????????????Petebutt (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bugatti made only a handful of aero engines and they weren't a success. The U-16 is notable as being an unusal layout, and the others are notable as Bugatti products. Otherwise they're just yet more engines at a time when every engineering manufacturer seemed to be having a go at them (three engine makers on my street alone!).
 * AFAIK, Bugatti never completed an aircraft. The 100P was built as a prototype, but never flown. This was either due to the WW2 occupation (although the Germans adopted French tanks and aircraft engines readily enough, they largely ignored the aircraft), or else it was due to the aerodynamics and structure of the thing having been worked out on aesthetic grounds rather than theory and no-one was fool enough to try it...
 * There is a very interesting article waiting on the construction techniques of balsa-filled plywood monocoques for aircraft: the de Havilland Mosquito, the German Moskito, the 100P and the post war jet the de Havilland Vampire. I've even heard that technology from Louis Vuitton on how to make trunks for lightweight luggage had an influence in this, with Free French ex-pats during WW2. That would certainly involve the 100P.
 * As always, the answer here is WP:SOFIXIT. Coverage is allocated on the basis of individual editors bothering to create articles. If you think it's worth doing and you're in a position to do it (skill, references, time) then please do so and I look forward to reading it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a mention of the 100P had already been added to the article. I added a bit on the engines, and paragraphed it all. Certainly Bugatti's importance for the history of aviation is limited, but it might be less limited than we realise today. I hope to get more info on Mr. De Longe who seems to be a crucial link between Maestro Ettore and the world of aviation. Oh and also: the 100P was NOT designed to aestetic criteria, it was designed to be fast. Its prime goals was to beat the Germans in an air race. Then again, aviators always say that "if it looks OK, it will fly OK" ... Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There was also a bicycle. Conventional enough diamond-frame layout but using clusters of small diameter tubes.  Sadly I no longer have the magazine article with a story on the bike but it was about the blue bike in this piece: https://www.bugattirevue.com/revue19/bikes.htm Mr Larrington (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022
in key people add carlo bugatti Burgrplayz3 (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bugatti Automobiles which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

German
if you want to say that bugatti was founded in germany, then you have to modify all the articles of all the wikipedia bases concerning the territory of alsace loraine https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace%E2%80%93Lorraine Quio had its own peculiarities, laws, and governor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.172.30.238 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that we are at least three to agree, it would be necessary to change German (for the date of creation) by Alsatian (Alsace), which will satisfy everyone! 176.172.30.238 (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

everyone wrong. 1) germany did not exist in 1909, it was the kingdom of prussia. 2) Alsace Lorraine was an "Imperial Territory of Alsace-Lorraine" therefore a form of principality with its own legislative distinctions. So technically to be exact it would have to be said that the brand was started in Alsace and became French in 1919. And it is good to add that Bugatti never asked for German nationality during the Second World War (he could have) but applied for French nationality in 1946 and spent the rest of his life in France as well as his descendants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.172.11.213 (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I had not heard of Bugatti referred to as a German company before. Molsheim was part of France during all years of production, and Ettore demonstrated his allegiances by twice escaping from the area ahead of German forces. Do you have a source for this German tie? --SFoskett 14:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's because of the country racing colours, they were not set in stone in the early days of motor racing. So it's quite possible to have french Bugattis running in white. At no time was Ettore Bugatti based in Germany. --Pc13 14:45, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I also read that Ettore sided with the allies in both wars. However, the facory was founded before WW I. Alsace was part of Germany from the Franco-Prussion War to World War I.  So Bugattis were originally German and built by German workers. One can speculate that he might have chosen Germany because it was so technically advanced, though he must have greatly regretted it later. I gave the book back to my brother, but here is a link that says the Molsheim factory was founded in 1909. http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9358237&query=arco%20branquial&ct= "Molsheim" even sounds German, as Alsace is a natively German speaking area. Maybe, besides nationalistic reasons to forget, there might not be any cars surviving from the German period. --David R. Ingham 22:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC) ---I see that we are at least three to agree, it would be necessary to change German (for the date of creation) by Alsatian (Alsace), which will satisfy everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.172.30.238 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are surviving early cars. I found a reference on the official Bugatti site to the fact that the factory was considered to be in Germany in 1910.  I didn't know this, but I feel that the matter is settled and that you are correct.  --SFoskett 13:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Buggati was a German brand and Mr. Ettore Bugatti had worked at Deutz in Cologne

It is funny, because I've heard people argue the cars are French, Italian, and German. Maybe Italian is the most fair considering the man was Italian and just happened to setup his manufacturing operation in Molsheim, whose ever flag it was under before and whoever it is under now, means little actually. Will the Germans lay claim to Bugatti because they simply ruled that town? Will the French lay claim to Bugatti because they ended up with the city after the War? I guess we'd have to ask Bugatti what he felt the "nationality" of his cars were, but somehow I think he'd care less than the French and Germans on here apparently do. :) 71.106.175.177 07:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY, REALLY think it should say that bugatti is an Italian car manufacturer based in france.. Lets say Italy is conquered and ruled by france for 12 years, and after that italy wins its independence, but Milan for example is considered part of france now.. no matter what the map or french say, milan will still be an italian city, its people are italian, they will live like italians, act like italians, eat like italians and so on.. Bugatti is ITALIAN!
 * If it was Italian they would have been red and not blue. it's like saying chevrolet is a french car. Gzuckier 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, with all your agruments if you write on wikipedia that DuPont is a French company, just because it was created by a Frenchman :) 176.172.30.238 (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Milan is a part of france??? what are you saying????!

German first, then French, now later Italian, now French again
Bugatti was German at first, then in its days of glory in the Grand Prix races between the world wars, it was French, because Alsace where the factory was located was given over from Germany to France following the First World War. The marque did not survive the Second World War, but when it was revived decades later, the new plant was built in Italy. Therefor, now Bugatti is an Italian car. But when displaying lists of Grand Prix Motor Racing of the 1930s and 1920s, it ought to be represented by a French flag. John Anderson 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * the "new" plant in Italy was new 20 years ago. Nearly 10 years ago Bugatti was bought by Volkswagen (German), they built their new (and current) prodution plant in Molsheim (French). So whatever Bugatti is, it is not Italian (anymore).--84.170.236.219 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK then, anyway, it was not Italian in the 1920's and 1930's. I thought they still operated the plant in Italy too, but obviously I was wrong. John Anderson 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I found in an old MotorTrend article that Rimac, a Croatian company, took a 55% share in Bugatti about a year and a half ago, with VAG unit, Porsche, holding the other 45%. Radwriter (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * this discussion makes no sense, we do not define the nationalities of companies by their shareholders. it's stupid! or we will have to change the nationalities of MANY companies on wiki including American companies. 176.172.30.238 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

My great-uncle worked for Buggati. Based on the conversations I had with my grandmother (who immigrated from Alsace-Lorraine prior to WWII), she (and therefore her family members) spoke German and French but always considered themselves French. In addition, the patents that I am aware of that were issued to Ettore Bugatti were issued in France. He most certainly would NOT have considered the marque to be a German one at any time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lherrou (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I dunno why there is such a ridiculous resistance to accuracy. It is a FACT that the Automobile was founded in a place that was part of Germany. Maybe it is desputable to say "German automobile" but that doesn't mean the birthplace country's name should be banned from the intro - doing that is beyond ridiculous and absurd! Loginnigol (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Speed
Payata km 660 2407:C00:6005:D365:1:0:F267:56D3 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a rough consensus against moving this page. Splitting the articles into three is outside of the scope of this RM, and should be discussed in another thread. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  20:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

– A discussion on Talk:Bugatti Automobiles has established that that page will not be moved to Bugatti. The discussion came to the following conclusion: that the long-term notability of the original Bugatti is well-established, while that of Bugatti Automobiles is not.
 * Bugatti → Automobiles Ettore Bugatti
 * Bugatti (disambiguation) → Bugatti

While I'm fine with the conclusion, I don't agree with how it was implemented. As things are now, WP:COMMONNAME still fully stands: no matter how you slice it, most readers searching for "Bugatti" are expecting to see the content of "Bugatti Automobiles." Speaking generally, pre-war GP racers and concours cars are a much less popular topic than supercars, and multiple discussions on this very talk page suggest this.

As such, I propose that "Bugatti" be turned into a disambiguation page listing all three companies, and that this page be moved to "Automobiles Ettore Bugatti." This will point readers where they want to go, while minimizing confusion. Let's face it, the current title is confusing! Marisauna (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. Per my previous comments in the above-linked RM, the Bugatti (disambiguation) page should be moved to Bugatti, as there is no primary topic.  However, I'll once again note that the current Bugatti article covers both Automobiles Ettore Bugatti and Bugatti Automobili SpA; IMO, these should be split. 162 etc. (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no idea how to establish which of the three is the primary subject, but I think it is good to make a distinction between the three companies: Bugatti (1909-1963), Bugatti Automobili (1987-1995) and Bugatti Automobiles (1998-present). From a viewpoint of tidiness, I support there being three different articles for these three different companies. Because Bugatti Automobili is the predecessor of Bugatti Automobiles I would not be opposed to these two sharing an article, but I am opposed to Bugatti Automobili sharing an article with Bugatti, as they do now, because the two have little or nothing to do with each other apart from the name. Mark in wiki (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree we should have three articles. Andrewa (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. There should be three articles, one for each Bugatti company. Marisauna (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Automobiles Ettore Bugatti was a very significant marque, popularly known as Bugatti. The corporate branding of unrelated vehicles is an image-building exercise which successfully distorts the picture, as do their purchase of the Bugatti home and their failed attempts to buy the original factory building, long used for other manufacturing. But the overwhelmingly greater significance of the historic brand should determine this. Andrewa (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, whether or not the two are related is irrelevant: they could be from two different planets, even, but the point still stands that there are three automobile companies called "Bugatti," and two can make a case for being the primary topic.
 * Also, if the historic brand were overwhelmingly more significant then we wouldn't be discussing this. Some similar revivals, like ATS and Bizzarrini, are clear cases where the new company is more or less irrelevant. Others, like Spyker Cars, are notable enough to warrant their own article, but not enough to snag the original's title (Spyker) or turn it into a DAB: the historic Spyker created the first 4WD car, among other things, and Spyker Cars has done all but nothing equal in significance to this. Bugatti is not one of these cases: the new company is a successful halo brand for Volkswagen, has broken the production car speed record multiple times, and its cars, especially in hip-hop culture, have become a byword for living the high life. This may not be enough to establish Bugatti Automobiles as the primary topic, but in combination with common usage (as detailed below), I think it's more than enough to turn "Bugatti" into a DAB. Here are some metrics:
 * Google Ngram demonstrates that the historic Bugatti has substantial long-term significance: the word "Bugatti" picks up in the late 1910s and has been used at a consistently higher rate since then. After a small 25-year dip the word's use picks up again around 2005, likely in response to the new marque's Bugatti Veyron, but as of yet Bugatti Automobiles is too new to firmly establish its long-term relevance. Worldwide Google Trends since 2004 display related search topics clearly related to Bugatti Automobiles, including the Bugatti Divo, "La Voiture Noire," licensed Lego sets, and rival supercars like the Hennessey Venom GT. I reiterate that its long-term notability isn't established, but at this point in time the most common use for "Bugatti" is in reference to Bugatti Automobiles.
 * Here are |Bugatti|Bugatti_Veyron|Bugatti_Chiron|Bugatti_Type_57|Bugatti_Type_35|Bugatti_Automobiles|Bugatti_EB_110 traffic statistics for eight Wikipedia articles: three related to Automobiles Ettore Bugatti ("Bugatti," Bugatti Type 35, and Bugatti Type 57), three related to Bugatti Automobiles ("Bugatti Automobiles," "Bugatti Veyron," and Bugatti Chiron), one related to Bugatti Automobili SpA (Bugatti EB 110), and one control article (Ferrari). The articles related to Bugatti Automobiles are clearly more popular than the others; additionally, the popularity of "Bugatti" places it alongside the Bugatti Automobiles articles, rather than the other two Automobiles Ettore Bugatti articles. There is a significant rise across all articles (except for the control) in August 2022, which based on a cursory Google search seems to be associated with the unveiling of the new marque's Bugatti Mistral. A substantial number of Wikipedia readers seem to be more interested in Bugatti Automobiles than in Automobiles Ettore Bugatti.
 * Incoming and outgoing traffic on "Bugatti" paints a similar picture. 60 percent of incoming traffic is from search engines: significantly, a Google search for "Bugatti" pulls up content related to both Automobiles Ettore Bugatti and Bugatti Automobiles, though with a clear bias for the latter. The Wikipedia pages for both companies are presented as well, with "Bugatti" taking the front-and-center spot. Back to Wikipedia, outgoing traffic points to all three companies, but instead with a bias for content related to Automobiles Ettore Bugatti (the subject of the article). Still, "Bugatti Automobiles" and "Bugatti Chiron" are the first and third most popular targets, indicating that many readers are interested in these.
 * In conclusion, while the historic Bugatti is a significant piece of automotive history, common use of the word strongly points to Bugatti Automobiles. Traffic on Google and Wikipedia points to both companies. Casting aside current popularity, the two seem to be equally notable, meaning neither can be definitively selected as the primary topic. Marisauna (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am rethinking my position in light of another historic team, McLaren. I feel like whatever rationale was used to establish McLaren's F1 team as the primary topic would be of use in this case. Marisauna (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That discussion is here if you'd like to look it over. 162 etc. (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article currently titled Bugatti is about the whole history of the brand, and Bugatti Automobiles (the modern brand) is split from it. I'm neutral on whether or not this article structure should be changed, and if that were to occur I would be neutral on this suggested page move (of course accompanied by moving the disambiguation page to the base title). A7V2 (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should Bugatti (disambiguation) → Bugatti be added to this RM? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free. It was an oversight on my part not to add it. Marisauna (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Relister's note: manually added notification of this discussion to the associated disambiguation page and its talk. Relisting to ensure they are the notice stays up there for at least seven days per WP:RMCI. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . As this article is structured, this would be the common name for the entire history of the name, and is the name that all version of the brand are known by. To change this name would require a restructuring of the associated articles, which is fine for someone to suggest in a seperate RFC, but as is, this is the only title that fits. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Engine bay design detail is incorrect
Bugatti engine bays did not feature guilloche, the proper name is "perlage" it's a simple mistake, but they are completely different finishes with different purposes. Thefruityloop (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)