Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster

First car to orbit the sun
I think the piece about how it is the first car to orbit the sun should be removed as every production car ever produced orbits the sun. 38.15.228.177 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While you make a good point, and a funny one at that, this is technically the first car to orbit the sun IN SPACE. Therefor, I think it is the first car to orbit the sun, though "in space" should be added. Dwightol102 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of stuff that makes Wikipedia difficult to read without LOL and closing the window. Not the kind of thing that should be the last sentence of the lead section. We don't need to be overly clever, "yeah but.." like it was some kind of trick question. -- Green  C  20:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Car idea and VIN
Returning to an earlier discussion (paging !; see also Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster/Archive 2), Elon Musk has commented again in a recent interview. Gives credit to Jonathan Nolan for the source of the car idea:



—Sladen (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Great info! Both bits should be in the article for historical posterity. Straight from Musk. -- Green  C  19:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Followed up with Gruber Motors and got a swift reply noting that US Roadster serial production ended at #1459; followed by the final five #1460‒#1464. Will inquire if Gruber have any photos (most US Roadsters have visited Gruber at some point).  #686 appears to still be correct; but we don't have a cite, yet. —Sladen (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The serial number is 686 per (watch the attached video) but it was deleted from the article after I tried to add it -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason given was that it was trivia and the policy WP:NOTEVERYTHING was cited. I am thinking it was a good call, but I am willing to be wrong about it. The video cited by the ip just above is a CNBC video post on YouTube and the relevant part can be directly access with this: . There are already several identifiers on the page. The VIN number would seem to be useful to roadster aficionados. Other then that it does seem to be trivia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The name of this article was debated and found wanting, what with Musk having multiple Tesla Roadsters, The key distinguishing identifier is the VIN and S/N, with the make and model uniquely distinguishing this Roadster from the several others used by Elon, and from the alternate name of the article SpaceX Roadster also having problems with the prototypes with cold gas thrusters and the new package that will ship with the new Roadster. Also the changes mandated to the original Roadster design were pushed by Elon, so the change from the Elise+Tzero test mule to the finalized Tesla design could also be referred to as the Musk version of the Roadster, unlike the Eberhard version. Thus this "cherry red" Roadster is Tesla Roadster 686, as a unique name -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The key identifier of this Roadster is its location in interplanetary space. Who cares about the VIN. Even if Musk has other Roadsters - I don't know if he does - only this one got large-scale press coverage. --mfb (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Article issues
-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutrality: long quotes instead of summary style, without evidence these views are eminent enough to be quoted in such length; it's really suggesting that Advertising Age agreed with Business Insider that the Roadster space launch was the "greatest ever car commercial without a dime spent on advertising", demonstrating that Musk is "miles ahead of the rest" in reaching young consumers, where "mere mortals scrabble about spending millions to fight each other over seconds of air time", Musk "just executes his vision." is totally neutral and not trying to suggest partiality?
 * Bad sourcing: tons of primary sources used, violating due weight (why is a random fan suggesting something on Twitter worth mentioning? If secondary sources didn't significantly cover Easter eggs or stuff Musk tweeted about, Wikipedia shouldn't be either); blatantly unreliable sources such as Bored Panda, questionable ones such as Mashable.
 * Sourcing choices: I've read through the archives, and I don't see any evidence of any consensus that issues raised with the article were down to "Musk-haters". I do think it's interesting which sources discussed were left out.