Talk:Nissan/Archive 1

Article Title Incorrect
This page title is wrong. Someone with privledges should fix it. It should be titled "Nissan Motors" or "Nissan Motor Co", not Nissan. A new page titled "Nissan" should contain the paragraph below, with links to Nissan Group companies, such as Nissan Motors, Nissan Diesel, etc.


 * Agreed. It should be "Nissan Motor Co., Ltd." as that is the name in many books, brochures -- and also stated on their current web page http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/index.html. It was never named "Nissan Motors" to my knowledge. - Ddgonzal 06:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

official name is a Nissan Motor, not a Nissan Motor's'--Vnoww 07:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (What I writing is start here.) I did something like that in Great Wall Motor. The company (GWM) call itself as Great Wall Motor, without "s" in "Motor". I agree with Vnoww and Ddgonzal. I think its name is Nissan Motor, without the last "s" too. --Love Krittaya (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blathering
"The Skyline gets a mention of course. Ho-hum. Most overrated car in the history of automobiles." hello it was the first to beat the 8 second barrier in the nuriberg although unofficially. the most overrated car is the Mclaren f1. The car is only fast down the strip where as suck in cornering a lotus can beat it.It's overated because of it's ingenious idea of using RWD drive bias while the benefit of 4wd. 4wd is better around the corner but handling wise RWD is mostly prefer and is better and you can induce oversteer. And nissan skyline utilized the best of both drive system. Kind of similiar to the porsche 911 awd but nissan skyline is mostly rwd bias. -digitalzombie

The Skyline gets a mention of course. Ho-hum. Most overrated car in the history of automobiles. 192.197.71.189 17:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Skyline GT-R is Nissan's second most notable performance car line, second to the Z-car (and one could argue the Z-car is the overrated one, as it ceased to be a focused performance car at some point in the 1970s). &mdash; AKADriver &#x260E;  20:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Datsun Name
As for Datsun meaning "Fast Bunny", this is probably due to the Japanese word DAT (as mentioned elsewhere, it was taken from the initials of the three initial founders) translates as "Hare" Vincethod 09:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Datsun was name after three japanese people or so. DAT is actually an acronym of name (i read it somewhere). Some people translate the datsun name as fast bunny. They started to use nissan in 90s. 1970s the imported the 240z. the 1985 300zx til late 80s. So i'm guessing they chose nissan in the 90s because 1991 they have a nissan 300zx fairlady. I'm confused why they are 3rd japanese auto maker. That is wrong they are the 2nd largest japanese auto maker in the world. HOnda is the 2nd largest japanese auto maker In USA compare to nissan. -digitalzombie
 * They used Nissan in 1934. The car was called Datsun, never the company. The Datsun brand name was discontinued circa 1983. For details, see the wiki article Datsun - Ddgonzal 06:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the company has been called Nissan since the 1930s, why were their cars known as "Datsun" in the United States until the 1970s or '80s? Does anyone know exactly when Datsuns first started getting called Nissans in America? The article never even uses the word "Datsun", it just says it was first DATSON and then the second syllable was changed to "sun". --Angr/undefined 17:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The article should make this clearer, but it is explained in the text. The company name was originally DAT Automobile Manufacturing Co., then just Automobile Manufacturing Co. in 1933, then Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. in 1934.
 * Datsun was the name of DAT's first product (and thus Nissan Automobile's first product); the name Datsun survived outside Japan as the brand name of Nissan's entire automobile lineup until 1982 (however the name of the company remained Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.). &mdash; AKADriver &#x260E;  19:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The name Datsun survived inside Japan as well. The Datsun brand name was discontinued in Japan circa 1983. For details, see the wiki article Datsun - Ddgonzal 06:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer the above question, Datsun was the marketing name in the US for Nissan. It was used because it was thought of as more Western (maybe German), and easier to say for Westerners. In Japan, from the beginning, all cars were badged Nissan.


 * Absolute rubbish on every point. The car was called Datsun in Japan. Even when (26 years later) they first named a car "Nissan", most of their Japanese cars continued to use the brand name Datsun until the early 80s. They used the name Nissan in 1959 in America when they introduced the first cars. The US company was named "Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A.", chartered September 28, 1960 in California, USA. See John B. Rae book, page 47 ISBN 0-07-05112-8. See Datsun for more details on the brand name. - Ddgonzal 06:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no official history for the use of "Datsun" outside Japan from Nissan, but I'd guess it has to do with the dissolution of the zaibatsu. The zaibatsu (of which Nissan was one) were supported by the Japanese but considered anticompetitive by the Allied occupation.  Nissan's foreign partners would have preferred a non-zaibatsu brand name.  "Datsun" did remain in use in Japan for the truck line (including the 620, 720, on up to the modern Frontier).


 * That's right -- it is a "guess". Not factual information. For example, The Datsun brand name was used in Japan for cars too long after "the dissolution of the zaibatsu" in 1946. I have at my desk books from from the 1970s, published by Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Tokyo Japan) -- in Japanese, for Japan market cars -- and these books say "Datsun" on the cover - Ddgonzal 06:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge is Irrelevent
Are we really debating over moving one sentence into this article? Give me a break. --Hezzy 22:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First non-Japanese President?
"Carlos Ghosn became the president, the first non-Japanese person to run a Japanese car company. (Similarly an American, Mark Fields turned Mazda around after Ford Motor Company increased its stake to 33 percent. Mitsubishi was run by a German, Rolf Eckrodt)." The above quote has been in the article in one form or another since November 2002. I was under the impression that the first non-Japanese to run a (major) Japanese company was Henry Wallace of Mazda in 1997, two years before Ghosn. Either way, the above quote seems inaccurate and contradictory. I'm being bold and deleting it, but if you disagree, please let me know. -- DeLarge 12:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

^^^ The other companies did not have a non japanese president. They may have had a controlling party, like in Mazdas case, but they still remained to have a japanese president.


 * Henry Wallace was president of Mazda. Did you mean chairman? --DeLarge 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Glossarial theory in engine of Nissan Motor Co
Aside from being in dire need of translation to English, I can't find any external references to support this entire paragraph. The Nissan PLSMA engine? The Toyota LASRE engine? The only Google hits I'm getting are to pages reproducing this (complete with misspellings). I'm going to wipe this, if for no other reason than because it's duplicated on the List of Nissan engines page as well, where it's certainly more appropriate. However, I'm going to tag that for cleanup/deletion as well unless someone can provide external verification. --DeLarge 07:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * removed some time ago, I see. DGG (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Controlled by Renault
That's not true I work for nissan and is by no means controlled by Renault


 * People are talking about a corporation control, not as in Renault employees are standing on the Nissan assembly line telling you what to do. For full details, see Nissan's own web site. Nissan calls it an "Alliance". But the Nissan site says Nissan owned 15% of Renault while "2002 Mar 1, Renault increases its stake in Nissan to 44.4%". 44.4% is a controlling interest -- unless one party owns more of a companys shares than that. see http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/COMPANY/ALLIANCE/HISTORY/index.html (retrieved July 3, 2007)


 * Have you seen Nissan's cars of late? Same old unreliable French junk with a Nissan badge stuck to the front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.235.55 (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a section on Office locations?
There is a Manufacturing locations section but not a section for other offices, like Nissan Design offices? —Christopher Mann McKay 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Full Size Van
Recently there has been some rumors that Nissan will introduce a Full Size Van for the North American Market to compete with Ford & GM who have not made much upgrades in the past 10 years. According to some reports Nissan is thinking very much of introducing such a van for todays buyer such as power sliding doors, bucket & reclining seats/split benches with head rests for all passengers, and much more. Many Ford and GM van owners say that because there is no competition in the market, and their voices are not being heard. A Full Size Nissan Van with features and options like the Quest will very likely be a hit and a top seller in the North American market.
 * This is an encyclopedia, is it an appropriate place for rumours? - --Ddgonzal 03:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no longer a rumor. It's a concept.
 * http://trucks.about.com/b/2008/11/25/quick-look-at-nissans-nv2500-concept.htm
 * Nissan says they plan to start selling it in 2010, but in the present economy it could get delayed. So if a concept vehicle fits this article, use it. If not, wait until it comes off the factory line. Greenw47 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nissan Urvan
I have an old Urvan as a farm vehicle, though we have had it since new back in the 1980s. The exterior is silver with a mostly purple/blue decal/pinstripe running the length of the body. It seats nine (in 3 rows of 3), and has the original tan fabric interior. It looks nothing like any of the Nissan Caravans featured in the Nissan Caravan article.

When we bought it the dealership was changing over from being called Datsun, to Nissan, but the vehicle is badged as a Nissan Urvan.

I have found these three other articles (Datsun Urvan, Nissan Vanette and Nissan Van C22 (Vanette)), but I am unsure of the connections between the different car models. The latter two articles are up for merge.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, in clearing up the confusion/making the articles clearer.

I've also included this post on the Nissan Caravan discussion page Tinkstar1985 05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious Datsun / Mysterious Nissan
I've uncovered a some old pictures from the 1970s in the loft. One of them might grace an article on the appropriate model. Trouble is, I don't know what it is. Although the picture was taken in Cambridge, England, I'm >99% sure that it is of a model we never 'officially' saw in Europe - at least not in my corner of Europe. But IF anyone knows what it is, THEN it might grace the appropriate article. Then again ... maybe not. Your call. But thanks (if you can and will) for sharing any relevent thoughts. Regards Charles01 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - I have a dozen other Datsun pics I'm not sure about, so if you help me with this one I may come back for a second grab. Then again, most of the others are more problematic because (1) they are mostly of models that I know were differently branded and marketed in different continents and (2) some of them look like some of the others of them, whereas I think the picture accompanying this para is of a relatively unusual / distinguished looking model.


 * That is an S110 model, sold in the US as a Datsun 200SX and in Japan as the Sivia or Gazelle depending on the version. It was the third generation of Silvia after the CSP311 (first gen) and the S10 (second gen). They were not sold in the UK but we did get it's immeadiate sucessor, the Nissan Silvia ZX turbo (S12 model). Regards --Ratdat (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Very many thanks.  Now I know what it is, I don't think it is needed in the relevant entries, but it's good to know, and I can now categorize it properly.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

ARGENTINA
Removed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND#BATTLEGROUND 209.64.87.68 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nissan Computer Corporation
No mention of Nissan Computer in the article? It doesn't even have an article... Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere here? Nissan Motor vs. Nissan Computer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.190.26 (talk • contribs)
 * And signing talk posts is awesome! If you want nissan computer in here best to find a link not from their own site.  Without outside citation it seems simply like self-important babble on the part of this nissan computer company to me.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of outside citations:
 * http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstemplate.jsp?ArticleId=i100302
 * http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol2/a002Rozsnyai.html
 * It's been a pretty heated battle that got a lot of media exposure, because it's a pretty unique case. Nissan Motors' lawyers are a fierce bunch. &mdash; AKADriver  &#x260E;  13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nissan and its vehicles were NOT known as "Datsuns" in the U.S. in 1994. The references cited (11 & 12) do NOT support the corresponding statement. This fallacy appears to be stated in order to support Nissan Computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoenthused (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user blanked the section about Nissan Computer: (This doesn't really make sense in this article nor section.) Someone needs to find some reliable sources about this conflict in order to put it back. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are just a few links we will find for rulings in this case:
 * Initial denial to dismiss case against Nissan Computer [District court denial]
 * Nissan Computer wins appeal in part "As a result of our conclusion on these and other issues, we affirm in part (on the infringement claim), reverse in part (on the dilution claim), and remand." [Ninth District Court of Appeals June 7th 2004]
 * Nissan Motor requests rehearing in full [Ninth District rehearing denial]
 * These sources clearly validate the claim that the case was entered by Nissan Motor, found against defendant, further appealed, reversed in part, remanded in part, and rehearing denied. There are more documents going back to 1994 if anyone is so motivated to delineate. After the rehearing denial, Nissan Motor then applied for a trademark in the computer field despite a service mark by defendant for Computers in the US. Although no further action has been taken by either side this would normally be seen as a method for Nissan to seek a UDRP process to claim the domain on trademark rights.
 * http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:cn71k5.2.19
 * http://www.nissan.com/Digest/salesmark1.htm


 * None of these items appears to be in dispute, so article should stand. Someone should decide if any of this is relevant to insert or reinsert. Eedlee (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Final Note: Some rulings for this case can only be viewed by creating a US PACER account which is common for recent court orders. Final Judgement is here: *https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/doc1/03112766354 Eedlee (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Name
Is there anybody that found this. Nissan if it would not be the abreviation of Nippon Sangyo could mean big brother. Ni-san is often the abreviation of Onii-san, who mean big brother in japanese. I first thought about 23 since 'ni' mean two and 'san' mean three but but it couldn't work since 23 is 'ni-jyu-san'. So that then I thought about big brother.Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Type of Company Incorrect?
Under the overview of the company to the right of the page the first title is "Type". Here it says that Nissan is Public? I'm not too sure myself but all evidence leads to Nissan being a Ltd company, as it's stated in numerous places on the page. Is it a Public Limited Company or is it a Private Limited Company, should this be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.162.157 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was withdrawn, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nissan Motors → Nissan Motor Company — - More precise name in English. "Nissan Motors" is colloquial but not definitive or ubiquitous. See also Ford Motor Company. "Nissan" of course will still redirect here. Facts707 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per COMMONNAME; the proposed move would be excessive precision, resulting in a long and clumsy title. Flamarande (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same common name reasons. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: do you say "Nissan Motor Company Murano" or "Nissan Motor Company Skyline"? In fact I would propose this page be moved to "Nissan" as Nissan is not being used elsewhere. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NCCN.--Staberinde (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Withdraw request - thanks for the feedback. A closer look at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION as well as the disamb. page indicates the name should actually be shortened to Nissan. I will relist as that once this one goes away. Ford Motor Company will have to debate its own future. Facts707 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandalism
Looks like someone has vandalised this page as of the time I'm writing this, 12:52 a.m. EST May 18. Not sure exactly how to properly rever the vandalism, someone who knows how may want to lock this page and fix it. 68.80.174.152 (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Third Largest Manufacturer in Japan?
The opening paragraphs says "[c]urrently it is the third largest Japanese car manufacturer." I dont believe this to be correct. As far as I know, it is the second largest Japanese car manufacturer, behind only Toyota. Nissan is a much larger car manufacturer than Honda (assuming that is what the articles is referencing as the number two), with a very well established truck/SUV division.

If no one has any objections, I suggest changing the line to second largest, or at the very least removing it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.103 (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

^ The Japanese big 3 (Honda,Toyota,Nissan) have gone back and forth as to what order they are in in terms of size and total production. At one time Nissan was the biggest. Most people just consider them the "Japanese Big 3"...currently Toyota is the biggest, but it looks like their losing their grip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.30.74 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Nissan Report
I have a fascinating business book published 1992, with this title. nissan organized a number of intellectuals, including Stewart Brand, Peter Coyote, Kevin Kelly, Mary Catherine Bateson, and Rusty Schweickart, to tackle issues of corporate responsibility, environmental concerns, and planning for new types of responsible consumers. major publisher, ISBN 0-385-42127-3. I think this should be added to the section on Nissans environmental stance.Mercurywoodrose not logged in.76.252.220.43 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

^Anyone have any more info on this? Kind of interesting...

CVT Transmission
When did the first CVT transmissions first appear in the nissan's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.155.194 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

just leaving this here for reference
The plant was completed in 1986 as the subsidiary Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/DOCUMENT/PDF/PROFILE/2012/Pr2012_E_p30-32.pdf just leaving these here to add citations to later. Someone else feel free to do if I do not in a timely manner.

Nichiyo-kai
(nichiyo-kai) was one of Japan's most powerful business grouping, called keiretsu, founded by Yoshisuke Aikawa. It's core business was real estate and insurance, with hundreds of member companies, including fisheries, mining, and is affiliated with Hitachi companies. Although Nissan was primarily known for its car manufacturing outside of Japan, Nissan Motors was a comparatively small side business compared to its core real estate business, until the real estate crash of early 1990's, which dealt a devastating blow to the Nissan Group. Nissan Motors (Nissan Jidosha KK) successful turnaround was attributed by CEO Carlos Ghosn to his ability to detach from Nissan keiretsu connections. Nissan is short for Nippon Sangyo, which literally means "Made in Japan".(unsigned comments added by user:Doseiai (talk | contribs) 13 December 2005)

Austins under Nissan
Nissan Never made Austin Sevens. Period. This if an urban legend that has no factual basis whatsoever so what on earth is it doing on this page? This is WHY stuff like this find it's way into official histories. Gah!(unsigned comment added by user:Ratdat (talk | contribs) feb 2008)

Vandalism
In 1926 the Tokyo-based DAT Motors merged with Adolph Hitler's army of zombies.

I'm not sure, but this seems incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.67 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the changes. I'm new to editing, apologize if I did it wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.67 (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence
The lead reads as:

Nissan Motor Company Ltd (Japanese: 日産自動車株式会社 Nissan Jidōsha Kabushiki-gaisha?) (TYO: 7201), usually shortened to Nissan ( <---This seems strange, by itself. /ˈniːsɑːn/ or UK /ˈnɪsæn/; Japanese: [nisːaɴ]), is a multinational automaker headquartered in Japan.

An improvement is needed, IMO. Thoughts, comments? Tinton5 (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I'm the one that reverted you, I guess I should say something :) I didn't realise what the purpose of your change was meant to do until your comment above. On my computer the automatic line break done by the browser didn't appear where it did for you, so there was no dangling ( at the end of the line for me. This position is highly dependent on how wide your browser window is and the zoom level of your browser - ie different for everyone. Try resizing your browser window to see how it changes the line wrapping. I can rework it a little for you so that it won't break just after a '(' or just before a ')'.  Stepho  talk  06:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh man that makes total sense. Each window is a different size. Well, I would appreciate it if you could possibly change the line wrapping so it is readable for everybody. Thanks! Tinton5 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nissan Motor Co v. Nissan Computer Corporation
The last paragraph in this sub section has some problems. It says "... Immediately following the ruling, Nissan Motors filed a trademark application for Computer Equipment in March 2008,[23] viewed by some as an attempt to acquire the domain through UDRP, an arbitration panel proceeding which often finds in favor of trademark holders."

The first problem is that I'm unable to verify the source provided. The linked reference results in a timeout page on the USPTO Web site. I attempted searching the database, but was unable to find the referenced application for computer equipment. If this is true, then the reference needs to be updated in a way that it will work after the USPTO Search session expires.

The second problem is that the last sentence is dubious and is not verified.

To resolve both of these problems, two citations are needed, or this content should be removed.

Jmstacey (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This has never been resolved. I am collecting notes about a cleanup. There is a separate article about Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer. Maybe we should simply point there .... Comments? BsBsBs (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Spring Cleaning
This article needs one of the usual thorough house cleanings. The intro is overgrown, there is the usual jumble of cars and brands, a lot of unsourced and spurious information, important historical data missing. Any volunteers? Stepho, how about it? I will definitely help, but I don't want to do it all alone. BsBsBs (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the idea but I don't have much time for big efforts.  Stepho  talk 05:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Recalls
We discussed an odd phenomenon a while ago at Talk:Toyota: Only Toyota and Nissan Motor Company had recalls prominently listed. A check of pages of major OEMs for a complete "Recall" chapter brought this result:

Other car companies also have their share of recalls. This makes it look as if they don't. Listing every recall of every company is not what an encyclopedia should do.

Consensus was reached that the "Recall" chapter should go. Recalls of significance should go into history. See Talk:Toyota, I implemented this at the Toyota page. In order for Nissan not being the lone page with that chapter, I took the liberty of removing it also. BsBsBs (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't it go to the history section rather than remove the whole thing? --Now wiki (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Belated Spring Cleaning
It looks like I finally found some time for the "Spring" cleaning mentioned above. All points above still valid. If there are any other missing points, pls. let me know. Also, as with any cleanup, assistance is always welcome ... BsBsBs (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Miss Fairlady numbers
Can anyone make sense of the Miss Fairlady numbers? It says there were 45 pageants (candidates?) in 2008. Then it says 7 more were added in 2012 to make 48 (26 in Ginza). Then a further 7 werre added to Ginza to make 27. Confusing!  Stepho  talk 22:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Spring cleanup, finally started in fall …
I finally found some time to do the long overdue cleanup. This will take me some time to finish and editors are encouraged to help. This is what I have done so far:

 Intro: 
 * Updated the ranking, referring to new 2012 OICA data.
 * Mentioned Datsun relaunch
 * I could not find a source to back up the vague statement "It was a core member of the Nissan Group, but has become more independent after its restructuring under CEO Carlos Ghosn." The article at Nissan Group is likewise vague and unreferenced in this regard. Removed the sentence for the time being.

Beginnings of Datsun name from 1914
 * Corrected kanji of Aoyama Rokurō
 * Changed "Jitsuyo Motors" to Jitsuyo Jidosha Seizo to limit confusion, reference added
 * General cleanup of naming, removed spurious info that distracted from the quite complicated timeline.

Nissan name first used in 1930s
 * Changed "Nippon" to "Nihon"
 * Removed the controlling(?) part, replaced it with a statement that reflects source

Nissan Motor founded in 1934
 * The “dark years” are shrouded mostly in mystery. Found a new source to clarify. It is unclear whether the  Manchurian company was part of Nissan or rather a separate venture of Aikawa. Help would be appreciated.
 * Corrected years of when the company was called Nissan Heavy Industries Corp.

To Do: 

During the next days (or weeks), I will attempt to clean up the rest of it Here  are some parts where I need help:


 * “From 1934 Datsun began to build Austin Sevens under licence. This operation became the greatest success of Austin's overseas licensing of its Seven and marked the beginning of Datsun's international success. Nissan began building Austin Sevens in 1930, though the legitimacy of their license at that time is debated.” This is convoluted, mostly unsourced, and quite possibly not true. There are voices (http://www.earlydatsun.com/datsun13.html ) that say that the Datsun 13 and the Austin 7 were similar, but not copies. Input?


 * The “Relationship with Ford Motor Company” part should be expanded to relationships with other car companies, such as Volkswagen (Santana), Alfra Romeo (Arna). More?
 * The Nissan/Renault part should reference the main article at Renault–Nissan Alliance
 * Often discussed (see above): The Nissan Computer Corporation part lacks evidence and should most likely go.
 * Current developments need cleanup and updating
 * The Marketing and especially Typography parts need serious pruning. And encyclopedia can’t possibly delve in to arcana such as the type size in HTML documents, or track TV commercials in New Zealand.
 * I cannot find any sources for "Financial difficulties (approaching billions) in Australia in the late 1980s caused Nissan to cease production there... Assembly of Nissans in New Zealand ceased in the late 1990s, following the removal of import tariffs on cars." Anybody? If none found, I will strike.

Once the factual changes are clarified and made, I recommend a general revamping of the article structure. Suggestions? The “Old Datsun” and “New Datsun” parts should most likely go into one (or two?) main articles, so that both Nissan Motor Company and Datsun could reference the same main articles. Currently, there is too much duplication and confusion.

Any other suggestions? BsBsBs (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The cleanup continues ....

As noted above, the "Austin Motor" chapter reads very confusing. First they have a license, then they don't, then they do. The claim that they copied the Seven was unreferenced. I searched for references, and could not find credible ones. http://www.earlydatsun.com/datsun13.htmlm which was quoted in the next para, says the cars were similar, but no copies. I therefore removed the sentence "Nissan began building Austin Sevens in 1930, though the legitimacy of their license at that time is debated." (In any case, they did not build Sevens anyway ...)

I also removed "After the success of Nissan, Hino and Isuzu followed to partner with Renault and Hillman respectively" as this was a tangential statement. Cleaned up the next para a bit.

[Nissan A engine] says the engine came in 1966 for the 1967 model year. No references ... I removed the six year old citation needed for the Z car. Found a reference in Motor Trend.BsBsBs (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe (but dont have any reference for) the A series engine started with the A10 engine in the Datsun 1000, which was introduced in 1966 (see Nissan Sunny). One of my first cars was the Datsun 1000 van.  Stepho  talk 22:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Now THAT would be original research :) ... want to help with the cleanup? BsBsBs (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The cleanup continues at "Foreign Expansion"


 * Fixed a few erroneous years and supplied sources for the corrections.


 * Got rid of the sentence that they would sell their building. Long sold, and hardly International Expansion ....


 * As discussed above, eliminated the para about Australia and NZ assembly. I looked really hard and could not find anything on it. If sources are found, it can be brought back.


 * Performed other cleanup and copy editing.

I am not happy with that chapter. It needs rewriting and updating. To be done after the write-through.BsBsBs (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup proceeds to relationships with other carmakers

As mentioned above, the “Relationship with Ford Motor Company” needed expansion to relationships with other car companies. I did that. I referred to the respective main articles, which helped keeping the chapter even shorter than the alliances.BsBsBs (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the reversed pipes, Stepho! I did suck you into helping after all :) BsBsBs (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Need help with current developments Tried to attack Current developments today. It is am unsorted grab-bag of information. I honestly don't know what is important and what should go. Opinions?BsBsBs (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to wait for my work computer to do a 2 minute task about 20-30 times a day, so I get 20-30 opportunities a day to do 1-2 minutes of work on WP. Which limits me to doing lots and lots of very simple tasks (like correcting small boo-boos with pipe links) instead of doing really complex re-organisations. But I can give an opinion here and there. For 'Current developments', I'd say that it should be a very simple and short summary of the last 2-3 years at most of topics that are still in peoples minds (ie recent and important). The rest of the section can be deleted or shifted to the 'History' section. I'd also put 'Recent developments' above the 'History' section so that it is easier to find for casual readers (who have a habit if not reading more than the first page of info). Otherwise you may as well just make it the last paragraph of the history section. The topics should also be of a global nature - events about S.African and UK factories are irrelevant to an Australian like me but tie-ups with Daimler affect the whole company.  Stepho  talk 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I shall follow your advice, if that's OK with the other editors.BsBsBs (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup continues

Back from a trip, I found some time to work on the cleanup.

Alliance chapter:


 * Added hat note pointing at main Alliance article


 * Added a few badly needed references


 * Tried to find a reference for “which does not give Nissan a voting or board representation due to legal restrictions in France.” Could not find one, removed.


 * Removed Nissan 180. That plan is history. There is another in place (Power 88, if I recall right), however, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to track management plans.


 * Moved the Daimler part into the Alliance chapter. Got rid of the unreferenced "The alliance with Daimler is believed to have a focus on battery/electric technologies." No true anyway.

BsBsBs (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nissan Motor Co v. Nissan Computer Corporation - a removal of this chapter has been requested many times, see above. Contains unreferenced claims, and frankly is no longer relevant, if it ever was. Removed.
 * Current developments - after discussing this chapter with other editors, I reviewed it again. As also noted by Stepho, the chapter contained much irrelevant information. The only relevant part, the Kerkorian/GM saga, could be moved elsewhere. Chapter removed for the time being. Following Stepho's suggestion, a better chapter should be written.
 * Environmental record - Info mostly outdated, some irrelevant. Removed for the time being. A new one should be written. BsBsBs (talk)


 * Marketing - As discussed, this chapter was a collection of superfluous information. It is not the job of an encyclopedia top track fonts or point sizes, or advertising campaigns (unless they are historically relevant) and their agencies. Removed. Kept the Miss Fairlady chapter - this is part of Nissan's heritage. Moved it to hiostory. Would love to have a picture.

This pretty much concludes the first stage of the cleanup. I am still unhappy with a few parts. After having cleaned up, it may be time for a new restructuring. BsBsBs (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Marketing - As discussed, this chapter was a collection of superfluous information. It is not the job of an encyclopedia top track fonts or point sizes, or advertising campaigns (unless they are historically relevant) and their agencies.
 * 'As discussed'? Really? Last time I checked, only YOU have proposed and made the changes. How can it be a discussion when no one else has issued feedback throughout the process? Lack of discussion aside, your reasoning of marketing materials being 'superfluous' is incorrect. Typography is much of a process of communicating corporate images as logo, slogan, and advertising campaigns. Why else did you think Daimler have spend time on protecting Corporate ASE font if it is superfluous? Companies have spent billions on how to sell products and services just as they have provided products and services, so whether they are effective or not, marketing processes are part of a company's heritage. Besides, some marketing campaigns have made into cultral landscapes (eg: See the USA in Your Chevrolet), so a general dismissal of marketing efforts counteracts the goal of compiling encyclopedia. Judging from your edit, it seem when you say something is 'superfluous', it means 'I don't care about certain contents being presented in the encyclopedia, so it should be censored.' -- 128.100.123.158 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Bs made a proposal and asked for people's opinion. Nobody felt like answering (or at least nobody had a strong opinion about it), so he implemented the proposed changes. Sounds like the actions of a reasonable man working with the community. The fonts are not an Earth shattering piece of information. If Nissan changed their fonts it is likely that nobody would notice unless it was changed to something really radical.  Stepho  talk 06:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Busan
I took the liberty of moving the part of the Nissan production in Busan from the lede into "foreign expansion." Where it fits best, AFAIC. We should definitely be trying to keep the lede short and crisp.

Frankly, I am not enthusiastic about mentioning something that will happen in 2014. WP is not a newspaper etc ... BsBsBs (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Currencies
There has been a flood of conversions of yen to dollars. Exchange rates fluctuate. Wikipedia is not an exchange rate notice board. Editors are requested to cite only the currency as originally reported, and to refrain from on-the-fly conversions. If the cited source converted the currency for reference purposes, this data point may be used, but it needs a year reference. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I fully agree.  Stepho  talk 07:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article suffered a series of generally puerile vandalism attacks. Please be advised that if the attacks continue, a request for semi-protection will be made. Thank you for your cooperation.BsBsBs (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Leadership change
I have edited the infobox to reflect a recent leadership change. Toshiyuki Shiga is no longer COO. The title has been abandoned. This role is divided among Hiroto Saikawa, Andy Palmer, and Trevor Mann. Now, Hiroto Saikawa is redlinked, Andy Palmer points to a punk rock guitarist, Trevor Mann points to a professional wrestler. Bios for all three are urgently needed. Assistance will be appreciated. BsBsBs (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Having (finally) some time on my hands, I took a stab at Andy Palmer. Work in progress in my sandbox User:BsBsBs/sandbox. I will set it free when finished noodling. Suggestions welcome. Saikawa and Mann should be next. BsBsBs (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I finished noodling and put the page up at Andy Palmer. BsBsBs (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Corporate Identity and branding
I added a new section on corporate identity and branding. Note that this is a situation like with Volkswagen or Ford, where there is a company that has different brands, and where one of the brands has the same name as the company. Meaning that we must keep apart Nissan, the company, from Nissan, the car brand. From a past life, I have a little experience in that matter, and it is complicated.

I am not entirely happy with the chapter. Public history of the logo is fuzzy, and there are many logos. Apparently, only recently a clear distinction has been made between Nissan, the company, and Nissan et al, the car brands. Also, I just noticed (see Ghosn picture) that I had been in the room snapping pictures when that new logo was introduced, and the introduction was so low key that I did not even notice it at the time ... BsBsBs (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nissan manufacturing plants around the world
The map has Iran colored in. But the article does not list Iran... so do they or do they not build cars in Iran?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pioneeranomoly (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither Nissan's facility list nor the list of production sites in their financial report appears to list any production in Iran. I will remove the coloring once I have figured out how. FYI, this can be done by any editor ... BsBsBs (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection, that wasn't the only error. A comparison with Nissan's facility list showed:
 * On map, but bogus: Pakistan, Iran
 * On list but not on map: Morocco
 * Neither in list nor map: Vietnam, Australia
 * I have updated both list and map, which was a lot of work. I hope I did it right, and I could use some help.BsBsBs (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Shiro Nakamura
I wrote a short bio on Shiro Nakamura, Nissan's star designer. It could use a lot of more work, help will be greatly appreciated. The article needs a picture badly. There is none in Commons, and I don't have one in my otherwise rich collection of auto execs. If anyone is at the Detroit show, please snap a picture and upload it, thank you! This might be the beginning of a small series on Nissan's C-suite ... Again, any help and input will be most welcome. BsBsBs (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The logo
I restored the correct logo for Nissan Motor Co.

As stated in the article, Nissan changed its corporate identity to reflect the fact that there is one entity, Nissan Motor Co., that owns three brands: Nissan, Infiniti, Datsun. Also see http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/NEWS/2014/01_03.html

The red logo is for the CAR BRAND Nissan. This article is about Nissan, the company, and it needs to reflect the correct signage. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nissan Model 70 Phaeton, 1938 - should it be Datsun?
Title above first picture says "Nissan Model 70 Phaeton, 1938" but in 1938 there was no Nissan Motors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.71.66 (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Both earlydatsuns.com http://www.earlydatsun.com/nissan70.html and the Toyota Museum http://www.toyota.co.jp/Museum/english/a03_08_3.html have the car as "Nissan Model 70 Phaeton." BsBsBs (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Date etc formats
Gentlemen: I see a lot of date etc. format edits. I am all for consistency. I do not want to create extra work. Please define the formats FOR THIS ARTICLE, and I will stick to it. (At least I will make a serious attempt ...)BsBsBs (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Until yesterday, it was a mix of mostly 'dd mmmm yyyy', a modest number of 'yyyy-mm-dd', a handful of 'mmmm dd, yyyy' and some abbreviated forms. So I converted them to the most common (in this article) format of 'dd mmmm yyyy' (eg '28 January 2014'). I probably missed a few that need to be mopped up. For prose, either  '28 January 2014' (if the exact date is important) or 'January 2014' is preferred. '28 Jan 2014' or 'Jan 2014' can be used in tables where conciseness is required but abbreviations should not be used in normal prose or references. Of course, if there is a consensus then we could use the US format instead.  Stepho  talk  13:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hai, wakatta! I will comply! BsBsBs (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "abbreviations should not be used in normal prose or references"—actually, they may be used in references—see Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Revamp
Small cleanup:


 * Intro: Streamlined the intro a lot. The intro is NOT the place for complicated detail. It should give a quick "executive summary" of the company. The place for detail is further down! Please let's keep the intro crisp and lean!


 * Other alliances etc: Pulled together spurious detail that was all over the place. Structure, structure.


 * Brands: All in one place.


 * China: Missing China locations! How could I ...


 * Nismo shop: Added rare self-shot picture from my personal collection .... BsBsBs (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting sources
With regards to the 2013 total Alliance sales, there appears to be a conflict between the data of two sources. Both sources should be authoritative, but they differ. media.blog.alliance-renault-nissan.com says (at least it did when I checked on Feb 8, 2014): "The Renault-Nissan Alliance sold a record 8,264,821 vehicles," whereas http://media.renault.com says: "The Renault-Nissan Alliance sold a record 8,266,098 vehicles..." Having to pick one, I picked the latter. This goes to show that one can't be too careful with numbers and sources. BsBsBs (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Trying to beat up little guys in court about the DOT COM Nissan name
A company called Nissan Computer Corporation kicked Nissan Motor's ass in court when the car company tried to bully them and steal the domain name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * See Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer for more details and references.  Stepho  talk 14:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

U.S. intro
I took the liberty of removing "and sold a few that year in the United States in California." Neither ref 10 nor ref 31 specify where in the US the cars were sold. Ref 31 says "US sales for 1958 were barely a squeak at a total of 83." No state mentioned. If that number is deemed important, then "and sold 83 in the first year in the US" could be added.


 * Well, it did say they were first shown at the 1958 Los Angeles Auto Show. Since LA is in California and they weren't shown elsewhere, then it is a fair bet to say that the majority (probably all) were sold in California.  Stepho  talk 14:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not speculate. BsBsBs (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Key people
I noticed that EVP Trevor Mann was linked to this Trevor Mann, a professional wrestler. I can imagine that Mr. Mann occasionally must wrestle with serious challenges, but I doubt he will do it bare-chested ....... I removed the link to the wrestler. While I was at it, I also removed the redlink to Hiroto Saikawa.

I think that both deserve their own WP article. Anyone willing to lend as helping hand? Also, once Mann has his own article, any idea how to avoid a situation like this in the future?

Thank you! BsBsBs (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nissan Motor Company → Nissan – As per WP:Common name and in accordance with other page names like Honda, Toyota, Suzuki, and Mazda. "Nissan" already redirects here anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ?? I'm very surprised to not see the article there already. Support unless there's a very good reason to ignore WP:CONCISE. Red Slash 02:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per common name.  Calidum Talk To Me 04:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, very much so. Also, because the "Nissan Motor Company" may be a thing of the past. I have seen logos for Nissan Motor Corporation. Could not find announcements though ... BsBsBs (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - See: Nissan (disambiguation)... there are several topics that could take the unadorned title "Nissan"... and so the addition of "Motor Company" is a useful disambiguation. That said, I think there is a good argument for saying that the car company should be considered the "primary topic" for the name. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While very much true, the arguments are moot as "Nissan" already redirects to this page. Similar arguments could be made for Honda, Toyota, Suzuki and more. Nevertheless, they all get their short name. Only Nissan has this monster - which is not quite correct anyway. The correct name of the company is NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. (no, I am not suggesting to use this name :). What's good for Honda, Toyota,and Suzuki, should be o.k. for Nissan, too.BsBsBs (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per common name. '''(Regushee (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and . --В²C ☎ 23:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as this is the name of the company, and "Nissan" is not more concise than "Nissan Motor Company". It's only shorter. Omnedon (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Logos
Now that Nissan has received its proper short name (thank you), I updated the logo. It was quietly changed from "Nissan Motor Company" to "Nissan Motor Corporation." As per Nissan's press site, this is the currently official corporate logo. Until it is changed again ... BsBsBs (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Trevor Mann
I had the opportunity to snap a picture of Trevor Mann at Nissan's annual stockholder's conference. This reminded me that his bio is long overdue. I started to work on it. The beginnings are in my sandbox. Any contributions are very much welcome. Could not find any controversies so far. Is that possible? BsBsBs (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

100 Day Strike
I have commented-out the complete chapter of the 100 Day Strike. This was done for various reasons:
 * The chapter is written in tortured grammar, for instance "Nissan was major vehicle producer for the U.S. Army and after the war strong anti-communist sentiment existed in Japan."
 * Due to the bad grammar, facts are becoming murky. For instance, "a new union ... was formed by Nissan's management which signed a deal accepting wage cuts and agreeing to prioritize productivity over workplace relations." Who accepted wage cuts? The union? Management? The deal agreed to prioritize???
 * The chapter about a 1953 strike is in the wrong place, and it breaks the timeline of Nissan's history.
 * The chapter is solely based on the Multinational Monitor, which has a strong anti-corporate and pro-union stance. Alone, the Multinational Monitor is not a reliable source.

The chapter was not removed, but commented-out, in the hope that the chapter can be improved. I tried, and failed. BsBsBs (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The following single line was originally inserted by Monopoly31121993 just after BsBsBs's first point above - which unfortunately made it look like part of BsBsBs's comment.  Stepho  talk 00:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not the full sentence at all! You forgot the first 4 words "During the Korean War". Does it make more sense now? Monopoly31121993 (talk)


 * I put this back into the article. The grammar is far from incomprehensible, see my comment above. If the source is disagreeable then others should be added, it's certainly not okay to remove the text from visibility because you believe an author from a text from 30 years ago was biased. Furthermore I'm wondering why this was done in this fashion rather simply reverting and why the comment for the change didn't include any mention of the 100 day Strike. As always, Wikipedia is a place for adding other sources and new POVs so feel free to do so but don't blank away sections that are well referenced.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that if BsBsBs really hated that section he would have deleted it altogether. Instead he has highlighted its problems and asked other editors to fix them (after attempting this himself). Note also that he says the Multinational Monitor is a biased reference but still gives other editors an opportunity to supply other references that are more likely to survive a challenge in the future. What could be more fair than that?  Stepho  talk 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The author of the article from 30 years ago was Tim Shorrock. He has been a writer for several highly reputable newspapers and magazines. Just because the article appeared in a source which this one editor claims was biased without giving any indication of sources to support such a claim does not mean he can remove the content from visibility on the page. The fact that he did this is a manner that was not obvious to other editors strikes me as surreptitious (no malicious but certainly stealthy). When someone removes some critical or controversial subject from the page of a large corporation it should be for a very good reason and since BsBsBs did this in a way that wasn't and then misrepresented what was actually there on the talk page I saw a big red flag go up. Anyway, I have now added three new references to the section. This was a major event in Japanese Labor history so BsBsBs' claim that he couldn't find any other sources is just absurd. A New York times Archives search alone turns up 15 results to say nothing of simply googleing the topic.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While the grammar of the chapter improved, it still is pretty bad.
 * The chapter about a 1953 strike continues to be in the wrong place, it breaks the timeline of Nissan's history.


 * As for the sources, it is the job of the editor who adds a chapter to provide the proper references. It was not claimed that no other references can be found. It was simply stated that proper references were missing, and that the Multinational Monitor alone does not satisfy the requirement for reliable sources. There was nothing "surreptitions" or "stealthy." The edit was properly and obviously documented, as this talk shows. Editors are asked to refrain from making blanket accusations.
 * Please bring the grammar to the standards required by the world's largest encyclopedia, and please find a place for the chapter where it does not break the timeline. If this is not done, the chapter can and will be removed. BsBsBs (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The grammar issue should now be fine. I don't agree with lots of things you have stated here but there's really no point in going into all of that. Suffice it to say that Wikipedia has no rule that says you can remove (make invisible) any well referenced material, especially if there is a wealth of other sources within easy reach to back it up. I can see that you've been very active on this page and I appreciate your desire to keep it in a good state of repair but I'm concerned that you might be making it difficult for other, new editors to contribute to the page and going after someone's edits after they add something about a labor dispute 60 years ago that casts a rather different light on the Nissan company than is currently portrayed in the article is worrying.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As per WP rules, you are to assume good faith. The chapter was not removed, it was not reverted, it was simply commented out to (successfully) trigger needed revisions. There were big notes that said what needs to be improved and why. This was a plea for improvement, not for removement. The history of the labor movement and the history of the automotive industry are tightly intermeshed. We are not doing the cause a big favor if the history of the labor movement is badly written, and if pleas for improvement devolve into accusations of ulterior motives.BsBsBs (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I edited the chapter and (hopefully) fixed a few remaining grammatical errors. Other edits:


 * The quoted source called Nissan's union "strong and militant." The chapter said Nissan's management called the union "strong and militant." Brought in congruence with the source.


 * According to both the Multinational Monitor and the NYT, Shioji Ichiro was not the new union leader at the time, but a leading figure. Edited. Added a reference to his subsequent career.


 * According to the sources, there was a trade of wage cuts for jobs. Added. It was Ichiro's idea. Added.


 * I took out "a strategy that helped to make Nissan extremely successful over the following 20 years," and replaced it with a direct quote from the source. BsBsBs (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you BsBsBs. I really appreciate what you added to the article and that you took the time to work through it. I think the article is now greatly improved. Thanks again.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Identification question
Does anyone know what this is, please?

According to the British government car tax database website it was manufactured in 1994 and imported to the UK in 2007. The engine size is given there as 3000cc. As far as I can make out the steering wheel is on the right of the car, so it was most likely originally registered in Japan. Or maybe Australia.

Thanks if anyone has thoughts and/or insights to share on this. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Nissan 300ZX Z32 with a custom body kit.  Stepho  talk 22:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Stepho. I was clicking around the ZXs, but nothing seemed to match.   I guess I was stumped by the custom body kit.   (I think of you as Australian, so presumably the verb "stump" means approximately the same to you as it does to me, though it's many years since anyone bullied me successfully into pretending to understand cricket enough to want to wield a bat.)  Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Cricket: You go out when it's your turn to be in. Then you come back in when you're out. :)  Stepho  talk 08:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes at the top
Andy Palmer will leave the company to become CEO of Aston Martin. . At the time of this writing, Palmer is still on Nissan's payroll. We should edit his departure when he has officially departed. Likewise, Philippe Klein should be added when he has arrived.

While looking at Nissan's C-Suite, I noticed that Trevor Mann's bio has been lingering in my sandbox. I took the bio live. Improvements very much appreciated. Nissan article links to the proper Trevor now. BsBsBs (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, now would be a good time to start doing research for a Philippe Klein page ... There is a short bio on the French WP. Any French speakers to assist? BsBsBs (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I made a start, with a little help from Google.
 * Feel free to improve / expand / correct etc.  There seems to be a bit of a "to do" around these latest appointments, but maybne that's just the journalists needing something to write.   I need a coffee.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Will tweak it a bit over the weekend. Great start! BsBsBs (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

engine support of 2.0 liter RS 20 engine
hi i want to see the original engine support of RS 20 engine all of them the 2.0 liter  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.154.156 (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble understanding what you are asking for. Can you rephrase and expand on your request? Thanks.  Stepho  talk 09:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nissan Motor Company Ltd vs. Nissan Motor Corp.
According to this, the legal name of the company remains Nissan Motor Company Ltd, not Nissan Motor Corp. - the title of this article. Suggest to rename the article. ---Now wiki (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The "Co." acronym can also mean "Corporation", as there is no clear rule in this regard. Besides, "Nissan Motor Co., Ltd." is not really the legal name of the company, it is called 日産自動車株式会社 (Nissan Jidōsha Kabushiki-gaisha). Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. is not more than an "official" translation for a non-English denomination. We need to take the company's word for the meaning of "Co." and, according to them, it means "Corporation." Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, 'Corporation' is usually shortened as 'Corp.' not 'Co.' I took a look at Nissan's site and found these: 1) from its 2013 annual report, 'Nissan Motor Company' Annual report; 2) search result page. ---Now wiki (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Co. usually (but not always) means "Company" in English. As I say, that is not clear cut. During 2014 a lot of documents and the official logo were rewritten and the word "Company" was replaced by "Corporation." You can see it clearly on the Nissan's worldwide site. However, I agree it is pretty confusing and there also are sources, especially third-party coverage, still using "Company". My view is that we must use the most common translation of the Japanese name, which is Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and avoid "Company" and "Corporation." Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nissan / Datsun
Due to historical reasons, the history of Datsun parallels in large parts that of Nissan. Currently, there is a lot of duplication between the Datsun and Nissan articles, especially when it comes to history. I am seeking comments for how these chapters can be somehow consolidated. In doing so, perhaps the criticisms voiced on the Datsun talk page can be addressed. I have posted this both on the Datsun and Nissan talk pages, but I hope, we can discuss this all in one place. Thank you! BsBsBs (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nissan management
Further in our project on Nissan managers, I started a bio in Nissan's CMO Roel de Vries. It's in my sandbox. I would appreciate it if other editors could look over it for improvements/corrections/amplifications before we take it live. No pics in commons. I will try to snap a picture at an upcoming press conference - if he's there.

Also, Hiroto Saikawa needs a bio. My Japanese is nearly non-existent. If Nihongo-speakers could put something together, then this would be appreciated.

In return, I shall translate the excellent Philippe Klein bio, started by Charles01 (thank you!) for the German WP. That I can speak and write :) BsBsBs (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Charles01 for the edits. Anyone else? Unless there are objectioins, I plan to take it live over the weekend - when I will make good on my promise to Charles01, and will adapt Philippe Klein to German. With that name, he deserves it. Any Nihongo-speakers for Saikawa? BsBsBs (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With no further corrections coming, I released Roel de Vries from the sandbox. Please have at it with improvements. I also made good on my promise to Charles01 and translated his excellent article on Philippe Klein into German. It's there . BsBsBs (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Global sales figures
The unsourced numbers on this table are an utterly nonsense:

According to the company report for the fiscal year 1999, sales for Nissan totaled 2,541,736 units in 1998 (FY) and 2,415,433 in 1999 (FY). Companies don't usually reduce their own sales figures, quite the contrary. And, even if we consider that at the time Nissan was the owner of UD Trucks and (perhaps) the sales of the heavy vehicle manufacturer are not present, numbers are still wide off the mark. Sales (as production) are in a generally upwards tendency since 1998, and the biggest car manufacturer by sales, Toyota, [http://www.cnbc.com/id/102354829#. has just hit the 10.2 million mark in 2014].

I was thinking on replacing the fantasy numbers for the company reports ones, but that would be confusing as later (and sourced) numbers in the table follow the calendar year, not the fiscal year. If there's not opposition, I will be deleting all the unsourced info. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed all the unsourced numbers, they can be re-added with a source. --Urbanoc (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You might find OICA useful ( http://www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/2013-statistics/ ). The advantage of using OICA is that it is consistent in how it counts passenger cars, light commercials, heavy commercials, buses and the grand totals across all manufacturers and also in how it handles subsidiaries. But it only goes back to 1998.  Stepho  talk 07:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Stepho-wrs. I also think OICA is the best source avalaible for production statistics. However, when we talk about sales their information is incomplete to say the least. They only have sales from 2005 onwards (Ward's and Fourin numbers) and there's no data for single manufacturers. Sadly, I don't know a good, alternative source for sales numbers. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nissan. 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/20100516170843/http://www.jama.org:80/about/industry12.htm to http://www.jama.org/about/industry12.htm

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 07:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Since When is Nissan Its Own Company?
Have some people missed the last 10-20 years? Nissan hasn't been its own company since it went bankrupt - having been at one point the leading car manufacturer in Japan... This article completely misrepresents the actual reality of the car company... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph in the intro explicitly states the 1999 partnership with Renault and gives percentage ownership. The merger with Renault is spelt out in more detail in the history section Nissan, which also points to the even more detailed article Renault–Nissan Alliance. Did I miss something?  Stepho  talk 06:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Nissan. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150716032501/http://www.city.musashimurayama.lg.jp:80/machi/000940.html to http://www.city.musashimurayama.lg.jp/machi/000940.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Mitsubishi
利用しゃ@undefined and myself have a disagreement over whether Mitsubishi is a subdivision of Nissan. My reference http://europe.autonews.com/article/20161020/ANE/161029998/nissan-takes-control-of-mitsubishi-with-ghosn-as-chairman from October 2016 says Nissan owns 34% of all Mitsubishi shares. 利用しゃ just keeps deleting it and the reference altogether. Comments?  Stepho  talk 10:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Protection request for this article about Japanese company with emphasis on Japanese references rather than Wall St.
There are glaring misrepresentations in several leading foreign "news" media which have tainted the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.3.11.147 (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

IPA
Can we make it clear to the reader that the /ˈniːsɑːn/ pronunciation is a regional one specific to North America? Currently it misleadingly suggests that it's the default/standard global pronunciation, since it's not marked as a regional variation, while the UK pronunciation /ˈnɪsæn/ has "UK" marked next to it. People outside of North America don't call it "knee saan"; for example, official 2019 Australian television advertisement for the Nissan Leaf, official 2002 Australian television advertisement for the Nissan X-Trail where /ˈnɪsən/ ("NI-ssuhn") is used. -- benlisquare T•C•E 02:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Since this issue has been left unopposed for 3 months, I've WP:BOLDly modified the IPA within the lead paragraph as per above. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)