Talk:Porsche/Archive 1

F1
Success of Porsche in Formula 1 is questionable. The TAG-Porsche engine was a success. But Porsche car in Formula 1 1,5 L were never competitive and the atmosperic engine supplied to Footwork was a real crap.

Something about technical originality and innovation : air-cooling, turbo-charger, 4WD....

That same TAG-Porsche turbocharged engine with only 1500cc generated more than 1,000 BHP....

Pronunciation revert
Reverted to previous edit: changing the pronunciation guide was IMO no improvement, and further information about Ferdinand Porsche belongs on HIS page. &mdash;Morven 21:35, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * It was an improvement as poor-sha is definitly wrong. I choosed pour-sha, but the first e in letter is better than the a in sha. 80.131.61.198 00:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) (de Nankea)

Model list
What do you all think about reorganizing the "9xx" series numbers into subcategories of the more familiar names (911, etc)? It's a little daunting right now... --SFoskett 15:48, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I also think that some articles need merging. For example, Porsche 924, Porsche 931 and Porsche 932 are all articles about different versions of the same model. SamH 09:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Those article names are also against Wikipedia article naming guidelines, which suggest the use of the best-known name. Internal Porsche model numbers definitely do not fall within that category.  They are only known to Porsche insiders and serious Porsche fanatics.


 * The names should of course exist as redirects. As to whether the 924 Turbo, for instance, should have its own separate article -- it depends how much material we have.  If the stuff in both articles would make one reasonably sized article, I see no reason to break it out into another. &mdash;Morven 17:18, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I removed some models which never existed.. I'll try to organise the models list better, and leave only the base models. Different variants should be listed in a particular model's page, IMHO. Brunner 19:55, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good work on rooting out non-existent models, but I disagree that we should list only base models. If someone wants to know what, say, the Porsche 987 is, it would be useful for it to be listed here. Of course we should talk about variants on the main model pages, but I do feel strongly that we should continue to list them on this page SamH 19:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right about that, I just had a different thing in mind when i said 'variants' :) Porsche 987 is a base model, IMHO. So is the Porsche 986, but it has 13 variants(starting from the Carrera 2 and ending with the Turbo S cabrio). It would be overkill to list them all on the same page. I'll try to put together a better structured list tomorrow..Brunner 23:05, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that if Porsche have an offical code name for a model then it should be listed. Otherwise, variants should be talked about on the relevent pages. SamH 22:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ferdinand Porsche worked with his son Ferry Porsche in designing the 356 but died soon after the first prototype was built.

The 356 was introduced in the 1948

car designer Ferdinand Porsche (1875-1952)

this doesnt work...it says he died before the first prototype but the car was done in 1948 and he didnt die until 1952

It would be nice if there was some sort of a family tree that would sort out the numbers a little better and show what lines and models and years/eras they refer to. Naturally this should link to the various pages. How many pages and how divided, IMO, should be decided on how much information there is as well as what the guidelines say. I like the current pages except for the staggering number and variety of models that makes it hard to piece together without a main map of some sort.

Model Linking
Should every reference of a model have a link to its page? I.E. should several references to the 944 on the 924 page be hyperlinked to the 944 page?


 * The Wiki style is to hyperlink just the first reference (and any explicit cross-references).


 * Atlant 01:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The 911 began as the Model 901...but another company already had a 901, so the second '1' was used to replace the zero.

"Correct" Pronunciation
Of course, the word "Porsche" is pronouced as two-syllables in German. No one contests this. But foreign words often acquire different pronunciations when borrowed by other langugages. There is not anything necessarily incorrect about this practice; it is natural evolution occurring in all languages.

The recent insistence that Americans pronounce "Porsche" as two syllables rather than the familiar one strikes me as nothing more than thinly-veiled snobbery. It's an opportunity for people who view themselves as superior to separate themselves from the masses. I suppose this should not be surprising given the nature of the product as a status symbol.

A more accurate way of describing the situation would be to say that the cars are named after a man named "Porsche." This name is pronounced [porsh-uh] in its original German and in many parts of the world. Nonetheless, the word has been pronounced [porsh] in the United States by a majority of the people. Recently in the United States, awareness of the name's original German pronunciation has increased and a number of people have begun to use the two-syllable pronunciation.

(If anyone knows precisely when the [porsh] pronunciation became established in the United States, this would be helpful. Also, any information on when the [porsh-uh] pronunciation became fashionable in the United States would help.  Historical pronunciation in United States "Porsche" advertisements would also be helpful.  I seem to remember the [porsh] pronunciation being used by the company itself in its United States advertisements before the mid-1990's, but I'm not sure of this.)


 * As an American, I've always heard [porsh-uh] (homophonous with the Shakespeare character) and assumed [porsh] to be a slang-y truncated version, akin to "Chevy" or "Beemer." &mdash;Wiki Wikardo

Porsche as a/the car ( ie. Porsh ) Porsche as the brand (two syllables). see above slang- truncated version.


 * In the German language, the pronunciation rule is that an "e" at the end almost any German word is pronounced "uh", including "Porsche". - Ssschulte


 * And most of the people who pronounce it with two syllables in America are taken as effete snobs. So there you go: worldwide, pronunciations vary.


 * Atlant 12:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a good article about the correct pronounciation of Porsche
 * http://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa020401b.htm - Ssschulte 00:50, Wednesday, Jul 19, 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I fail to see how the proper pronunciation can be called 'thin veiled snobbery'. Isn't that hypocritical? There is no good reason to pronounce it incorrectly other than snobbery of an ignorant kind. Neither can it be asserted that the 'majority' of American people had always pronounced it incorrectly. It's not as if a survey was ever taken. Even if that were true, it doesn't make it proper. Americans can't go around making up words for things that already have a name, and expect others to just accept it.


 * There is no such thing as "proper" pronunciation. Americans, and any ethnicity for that matter, can and do go around making up words for things that already have names.  This is why different languages have different words for the same concepts.  The point of an encyclopedia article is to describe reality -- not to prescribe personal notions.


 * noone cares how americans pronounce it. however it is correct with two syllables. An di fits a word from another country, yes there is a correct way to express it. if you dont want to thats another question.--Tresckow 11:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The next idiot who puts in "pronounced porsch - one syllable" will be officially deemed idiot and ignorant. The Porsche family pronounces it in dual-syllable and so will you. -MSFT


 * The British pronunciation is also 'porsh'. 'German' is not the same as 'correct' - how do you pronounce 'Hamburg(er)' or 'Frankfurt(er)'? -- 86.6.5.37 08:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Porsche" is a proper name, and thus there is one and only one proper way to pronounce it, and that's however the person who bears that name pronounces it. Does the correct pronunciation of your name change when you're in Russia, Africa, or China?  No.  Hamburger and frankfurter are both regular nouns, not proper names. Stephen Hui 20:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Standard infobox
I think there needs to be a "standard" infobox for the Porsche car model pages. Please see the work I have done so far: Porsche Carrera GT, Porsche Cayenne, Porsche Cayman, Porsche Boxster, Porsche 997, Porsche 996, Porsche 964, Porsche 930, Porsche 928, Porsche 968, Porsche 944, Porsche 924, Porsche 912, Porsche 959, Porsche 914. They emulate the very uniform infoboxes in the Ferrari pages, e.g. Ferrari Enzo, Ferrari F50, Ferrari F40. Now look at Porsche 993. There seems to be some resistence against unifying Porsche 993 infobox with the others. Please see Talk:Porsche_993 for some more nitpicks. K3rb 01:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Missing History
I think we're missing a HUGE part of the history of Porsche. A lot of this seems to be a revision of history, something that Porsche and many german companies probably don't want to be related towards. But I think its extremely important to mention that Prosche began as a manufacturer of some of the greatest Armoured Tanks of WWII for the NAZI's. In fact, arguably the greatest heavy tank of the war, and possibly the best arsenal of NAZI germany, the Porsche King Tiger Tank.

I think its been a revision of history for the company to not mention these things, but wikipedia is not part of such ideas, and I think the article thus is missing the historical lineage of the company, and that needs to be included.


 * Please check the article on Ferdinand Porsche, where this is briefly covered. Porsche was mainly an engineering design firm at the time, they did not have the manufacturing capacity to mass produce cars, much less tanks. The truth is however, that Hitler held Porsche's engineering talent in very high esteem, which led to a number of defense contracts. Actual manufacturing might have occurred at a number of large industrial contractors such as MAN, Daimler (where Ferdinand started his career), Krupp and others.


 * Also, check the Tiger I, Tiger II and Elefant articles for further info. The value of the Elefant in combat is being disputed and it's quite likely that Porsche's contribution to the design of Tiger I, Tiger II and the Kuebelwagen (Nazi equivalent of the Jeep) might have had more impact on the battlefield. Jbetak 07:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. If you are going to include tractors, then include the links to the tanks. If this this just about the sports car, then remove the tractors.


 * I disagree; the Kubelwagen is part of Volkswagen's and Porsche's (the man's) history and the tanks are also part of the man's history, not the company. The tractors are part of Porsche's (the company's) history

This is a very big part of Porsche's history that CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED! They supported the Nazi regime building advanced heavy tanks turrets (for the Tiger and more) which inflicted massive losses on the Allies. Porsche also used slave Jewish labour in their production efforts which is totally appalling. Can anyone comment if Porsche ever paid reparations to surviving slave labourers? The dark side of Porsche's history people just don't know about. http://www.holocaust-history.org/questions/porsche.shtml


 * You should read the above. It really wasn't Porsche AG that forced slave labor (Porsche was just a design agency). It was probably the production firms that produced Porsche's designs. Ferdinand was actually not a member of the Nazi Party. The only reason he made contracts with them was because they were the only design offers available at the time. It was tough for a designer to make a living in Nazi Germany without making those deals. Now I agree slave labor is a horrible thing, but don't be so hard on the production firms. If they didn't produce, they didn't make any money, and everyone need's money. And the only way to produce was to use slave labor (Remember all able-bodied men at the time were forced into military sevice). Also, the Nazi Party supported the use of slave labor for the companies; if the companies didn't do it, they'd be frowned upon by the Nazis. If the Nazis didn't like them, they would never get a contract. And they needed contracts, because that got them money and everone needs money to live. If there's anyone to be mad at, be mad at the Nazis, not the people just trying to make a living in such a horrible world.--Porsche997SBS 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

An editor above refers to "the article on Ferdinand Porsche, where this is briefly covered" Unfortunately, that article is flawed with errors. Daimler-Benz did not exit until 1926 and Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft (DMG) never built a brand named Mercedes-Benz, which was the product only of Daimler-Benz. All automobiles built by Daimler-Benz were required to carry that brand name after the merger of DMG and Benz & Cie. A DMG engine named Daimler-Mercedes was built by Wilhelm Maybach (Daimler had died in 1900) on special order for use in several race cars for Emil Jellinek. By 1902 that engine was the basis for the naming of a series of Mercedes models built by DMG before Maybach quit in 1907. -- Will tackle cleaning up some of the errors in that article soon. Please do not carry over incorrect information to this one. kb - 18 June 2006

Further missing early history of Ferdinand Porsche. It seems he worked on some early electric cars: http://www.carkeys.co.uk/features/classichistoric/2938.asp which seems particularly relevant to get right today  Dan Frederiksen - 20 March 2007

Porsche template has been created
I have created Porsche template. You can look at it here. Please feel free to make it a lot better before adding to Porsche pages. I think Porsche deserves it :)


 * Very nice! Already did a small edit -- something I have picked up from editing the main article. Cheers Jbetak 02:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Shall we put it on all articles? - ManiacK 12:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! This should definitely be disseminated throught all P articles. --K3rb 07:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Currency for Pricing Information
The price of the Carrera GT was changed from EUR to (presumably, based on approximate exchange rate) USD in the recent past. I've changed that back; being a supercar, the company isn't likely to fix the price in a currency that isn't their own, then get caught short when the exchange rates change.

If Porsche really did price the car in USD rather than EUR, the currency code "USD" should probably be used rather than "$" to indicate US dollars, rather than, i.e., Canadian dollars. Patrick O&#39;Leary 13:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite building cars in Germany, the vast majority of Porsche's sales are in the US, so they target price points in USD and hedge the currency risk in the financial markets.

On the Porsche website (USA) they list the price of the Carrera GT in american dollars, $440,000 Since they make the distinction shouldent it be done on the site as well, both EUR and $

Ferrari
Porsche is way better than bike. Please let me know what you think about this! -Ez5698

HELL yah. I would buy a Carrera GT over two Ferraris any day, if I could afford either. Yes I would have to say that Porsche is my favorite car manufacturer


 * Sorry, but they don't make the Carrera GT anymore, and you still gotta' respect some of Ferrari's achievements and history (even though Porsche is my favorite marque). Let's keep it a peaceful rivalry and be sure to know your enemy. You might want to visit Ferrari's article and learn more about them.--Porsche997SBS 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Carl Sagan on the famous owners list
Do me a favor. Look at Steve McQueen and Porsche from google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&q=steve+mcqueen+porsche&btnG=Search

Now look at Carl Sagan and Porsche from google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&q=carl+sagan+porsche&btnG=Search

Other than 1 picture contending to be Carl Sagan's 1977 Porsche at U of AZ, nothing. 77k hits for steve mcqueen and porsche...12k hits for sagan. Steve McQueen and Porsche: notable. Carl Sagan and Porsche: meaningless...even if it is true. ju66l3r 04:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Carl Sagan had more than one Porsche -- I especially remember his red 911 with an extremely distinctive license plate bearing the name of one of the moons of -- perhaps -- Mars, Jupiter, or Uranus -- are you going to make me go ask other friends what planet it was and the name of the moon? The moon was small and pretty beaten up... lots of ice. The last time I saw him in that Porsche was as he took off for the Lincoln Tunnel on his way to New Jersey. Nobody who knew him could miss him -- between the automobile and the plate. I take your word for the number of hits. A comparative analysis of the number of hits in Google for this seems pretty meaningless to me. I get twelve -- pages -- of results in Google searches without extending the search (and without thinking that I am famous), how many thousands of pages does Carl Sagan get? That would determine whether he is famous. The fact is I knew him to be an owner of Porsches. He is famous, precision engineering and scientifically inclined, and had discriminating tastes. I believe he fits into the category and I am allowed to edit in Wikipedia. Hope that gives you my motivation for inserting his name as a famous Porsche owner. I do not understand why you presume to have a proprietary right over the article and the authority to establish only one criterion for this.  kb - 17 June 2006


 * I'm not sure where you think that I have exercised any more control over this article than you are by adding him. That's why I said it should be discussed here on this page.  Welcome to wikipedia...this is how the process works and works well.  The difference between you knowing Carl Sagan owned a Porsche and Steve McQueen or Janis Joplin is that there is numerous discussion and display of each of those owners having a Porsche.  It was part of what defined them in some way.  It was notable.  For example, Britney Spears owns a Porsche ( http://wheels.luxist.com/2006/06/04/britneys-porsche-speedster/ )...but I doubt anyone's going to consider her a "Famous Porsche Owner".  It doesn't define her in any way to own that Speedster just like Carl Sagan's Porsche didn't define him.  This is my opinion on what exactly the article is trying to make known.  With the discussion here, I hope to see if others might also feel the same way. ju66l3r 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay... It will be interesting to see how much concern is generated by the listing and, what its nature might be. Regarding my comment about the exercise of a proprietary right, it is one thing to contribute an addition to an article in a venue where people are invited to participate -- and another -- to delete the contribution of another that is provided with the best of intention -- because it does not fit your personal criterion. Others may see things quite differently, it doesn't make them wrong or unworthy of inclusion. Britney Spears—of the supermarket tabloid covers ? I refrain from discussion of the comparison to Carl Sagan unless you wish to pursue fame vs pathetic notoriety and I choose not to waste time attempting to identify clearly the lack of any enduring contribuion, through looking into her life. I hope that your example was given for this very reason. I perceive a reversal of the logic of the flow of the definition you discuss, from my view. To me, it defines Porsche that these famous people choose to purchase Porsche, not the reverse. Looks as if a couple of Wikipedians already have passed through during their reviews without sharing your view, making any comment, nor choice of action -- time will tell...  kb - 17 June 2006


 * While this gets away from the topic at hand, I do want to hopefully make the means by which wikipedia operates clearer to you. It is the same thing to both add and subtract from a wikipedia article as each person sees fit as long as it is in good intention.  People add items all of the time that end up needing removal or cleanup.  In this instance, an anonymous IP put a name alone into a list, within a page that the name seemingly has no connection, amid other names that have a greater connection and a detailed synopsis discussing their connection.  If we are to use your definition of how an article develops, then if someone else were to add Britney Spears to the Famous People (because, hey, she decided to purchase a Porsche just like you say is the criteria)...then because of their exercise of a proprietary right, you'd have to leave it.  They did it with the best of intention and it doesn't make them wrong or it unworthy of inclusion just because it doesn't fit your personal criterion (pathetic noteriety?  come on, she has numerous musical accolades regardless of her current media image). ju66l3r 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I chose to use pathetic notoriety because I see her name only on the covers of supermarket tabloids to which I am subjected while standing in a queue—that is the limit of my recognition of her name. Now if she were famous... I might know something about her. I would not have put Seinfeld on the list, but seeing him there already, knowing that he is very well known by others (I do hear discussion of him among acquaintances at least), and, although he is another I would consider a celebrity rather than famous, I left it because I believe that the list is not for me alone to construct.  Which brings me back to your point immediately above. Now, if you put Spears' name there I might feel compelled to call for its removal after initiating some discussion about its inappropriateness—I would not merely wipe it out. This seems more the Wikipedian way to me after working with editors on many other articles.   I considered, but did not put Briggs Cunningham on the list (even though he is in the International Motorsports Hall of Fame, owned the most renowned collection of automobiles assembled by anyone in automobile racing—that included porsches—some of which he raced, was featured on a Time magazine cover, and won the Americas Cup in sailing) -- because his fame is unknown to most readers and editors of Wikipedia. Perhaps, as the depth of Wikipedia research increases, its articles will contain more than the very recent and the very earliest information on subjects. There are great gaps in most of the Wikipedia articles, this one included.    kb - 19 June 2006

Carl Sagan was an Emmy award, Peabody award and Pulitzer prize winner. The legacy the man left is tremendous. He certainly deserves to be on this list. Ju66l3r, I'm not sure why you're making such an issue of this. Yes, removing info in Wiki has the same status as adding info, however I do not see the point in removing information that is credible as this is. If your only argument is that "Carl Sagan is not famous enough to deserve inclusion on this list", it's a weak one. I suggest you spend 5 minutes reading up on the man before you compare him to Britney Spears. --Chris 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First, you are commenting under a false assumption that I made "such an issue of this". I, at most, made an issue of the attitude I initially received from kb concerning my deletion.  As for Sagan, I removed him once and then left him on the page after the entry was immensely improved from its initial addition.  At the time he was added, the other listed "Famous Owners" were famous in part because they were Porsche owners, (i.e., some part of their fame was related to their Porsche). Others haven't removed him (showing no agreement with my position) and so I left it for the Famous People section to include individuals because they were famous and own a Porsche, a different but acceptable criteria for inclusion.  Sagan meets the latter but not the former criteria because while his is well-accoladed and most definitely famous, he was not famous because of his Porsche(s).  Finally, you should try a broader world view if you think that it's unreasonable to compare the fame of Sagan and the fame of Spears.  There are many flavors of fame and while Spears' music may not interest you, her influences and awards in the music industry and society are definitely notable.  ju66l3r 19:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true that ju6613r made a gracious concession to collaboration... leaving Carl Sagan on the list right away—thanks—and regarding Spears, I am reminded of the adage, there is no accounting for taste. Some things will always boil down to that. (But if you put her on this list, I surely would be tempted to delete it!) :-}    kb - 27 June 2006

Crest
Isn't the crest a copyrighted symbol that can't appear here?


 * It's almost certainly fair use to use the car/company crest in an article specifically discussing the car/company. Plus, do you really think any corporation in their right minds would make a fuss about positive publicity?


 * Atlant 14:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Porsche sales correct?
The article mentions Porsches current sales as something like 3000/month. I believe (based on the latest half year report) that number is only the sales for north america, whereas the sales worldwide are more like 7000 cars/month.
 * This has just been fixed. Thanks for posting your comment and keeping Wikipedia factually accurate!--Porsche997SBS 23:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Club Section
I can only see 3 links to clubs, surely there are hundreds available. Should clubs be only entered at the top level, ie by Country? (No doubt each country club site will have links through to regional sites.) Or add all clubs known to editors until it starts to require better organisation. [Rennsport.ca] Quebec & eastern Ontario, Canada --Aus911 20:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FERRARI VS PORSCHE ~ WARRANTY/MANTAINANCE/REPAIRS
A ferrari f430 comes with a 2 year warranty and about 20k miles.. while all 911's have 4 years/50,000 miles.. how much does an oil change, or brake pad change cost on a Ferrari, and on a 911 on the other hand? i can tell you its A WHOLE LOT MORE on the ferrari.. and i believe Porsches are better build, and will probably break less than a Ferrari.. and when something breaks on a ferrari, you will be paying BIG BUCKS... so its not just the starting price one has to pay that makes a porsche better, its all these things.. maybe some might be worth mentioning in the article..
 * This is an encyclopedia, and what you're suggesting isn't very encyclopedic and won't be mentioned in this article the way your suggesting it. Most people buy Ferraris because of what they are, Ferraris. Ferrari owner buys his car because these reasons: performance, prestige, "the image" (of owning one), and/or he really loves the brand (many of these reasons apply to Porsche owners too). Also, most Ferrari owners have money coming out their sleeves; they don't care about the sub-par warranty, high fuel consumption, or constant maintenance; neither do they care a car 65% their car's price can outperform it, out quality it, and out luxury it (I am refering to the F430 and the 911 Turbo). They have the perfect right to do this too; you may love a car for any reason you'd like, no matter why, its your opinion. Also, please refrain from titling sections with CAPS LOCK; by the way I love Porsche too, but here's a tip: if you want to be a serious editor, you should eliminate bias and arrogance while writing articles (also see the conversation above.--Porsche997SBS 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bargraph
I not a big fan of these bargraph because they need annual update. May I suggest : Aside of this I think its Lorraine-Dietrich not Lorraine. Ericd 17:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * to include the year somewhere,
 * to provide a source file like an Excel spreadsheet if Excel was used to make update easier.

category companies founded...
i included it in the category of companies founded in 1931. however, it wont appear there. any suggestions?--Tresckow 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Added new image from Japanese version
I took one of the Porsche images from the Japanese version of the Porsche article and have added to the American version of the Porsche 959 image. Professional Gamer 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Separate article for motor racing activities?
I propose that the "Auto racing" section of this article be split out into a separate article (called "Porsche (racing)" or "Porsche (motorsport)" or something like that) and that racing-related links to this article should link to the new article instead, in similar fashion to Mercedes-Benz motorsport, BMW Motorsport, Alfa Corse, Renault Sport, etc. Thoughts? DH85868993 07:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. There's enough to talk about Porsche motorsport to fill up 10 articles. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 06:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK then, what's the preferred name for the new article: "Porsche motorsport" (like Mercedes motorsport), "Porsche in motorsport" (like Alfa Romeo in motorsport), "Porsche (motorsport)", "Porsche (racing)" or something else? -- DH85868993 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "x motorsport" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I much prefer "x in motorsport", sounds like the title of an article instead of the name of a company like BMW Motorsport does. Recury 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (copied from WP:Motorsport discussion page): I think that the emerging convention is to go with Porsche motorsport. A la Mercedes motorsport. Otherwise, I would have gone with (name of company) motorsport history, though. Adrian   M. H.  17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Porsche motorsport makes the most sense to me (although it's probably different for each person). Porsche in motorsport sounds a little clunky to me, but it's not so bad. I don't really like the idea of using parenthesis; it just doesn't look right. Whatever it's called, I'm looking forward to the article!
 * Also, should the navbox have the pure competition cars split into their own section, or even a separate box for them?--Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this needs a new article. As for the naming, I would avoid parantheses at all costs, they look clumsy and aren't either correct or descriptive. I would support either Porsche motorsport history or Porsche in motorsport. There is another method as well, as most factory entries prior to widespread sponsorship, in single-seater and sports car categories, were under the Porsche System or Porsche System Engineering banner, which would be in line with BMW Motorsport or Renault Sport, but perhaps doesn't give enough room for icluding the many many privateer and semi-works Porsche entries. As I say, just a thought, but I thought I'd raise it just so we can probably agree not to go that way. Pyrope 11:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll probably go with "Porsche in motorsport" then. Initially I was leaning towards "Porsche motorsport history" but then it occurred to me that the word "history" might suggest to people that the article only contains past motorsport involvement and not current activities. DH85868993 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, and it seems to be at least OK for everyone. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like sound reasoning, I'll go with that. Pyrope 11:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Block anonymous edits?
The article seems to have been suffering a lot of anonymous vandalism recently. Anyone think it should be locked against anonymous editing? Stephen Hui 00:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No more than most other pages get on any random day. I would have to say "no, not in my opinion".  ju66l3r 04:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Still have the same opinion? Of the last fifteen edits, eleven (73%) have been vandalism or vandalism cleanup, and only four were legitimate.  This is a much higher vandalism rate than any of the fifty other pages on my watchlist. Stephen Hui 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Its fine now. It was all one sockpuppeter and I believe his IP got banned so we shouldn't get anymore vandalism here. -I?WSÐg? 22:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Design of La Cie computer hard drive
La Cie hard drive manufacturers claim their design is made by Porsche GmbH. However there is no reference in this article to that. Is this claim valid? Hassanfarooqi 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The company that they are referring to is Porsche Design Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of the vehicle manufacturer, but a separate entity nontheless. I'll add a disambiguation link to that effect. Pyrope 11:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

North American sales charts
Is this information really worthy of inclusion? It seems a bit North American-centric (i.e. why no sales figures for Europe, Asia, etc). Especially when you consider if needs to be updated every month. Just my 2c. -- DH85868993 10:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be interesting to include the percentages (over a period of a year or two) of NA vs Europe vs others, but we certainly don't need a monthly update of only NA. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

2016: http://press.porsche.com/news/release.php?id=1010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.193.126 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect plant name
The plant in Bratislava has nothing to do with Skoda - it's built and owned by Volkswagen. Skoda doesn't have any plants in Slovakia, although it is also owned by Volkswagen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.6.59.74 (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Famous collectors

 * Miles Collier, Jr. - grandson to Barron Collier, purchased the renowned seventy-one car collection of Briggs Cunningham and combined some of the collection with his own, that includes about twenty Porsche race cars—including their class winners at Sebring, the Porsche 904GT in 1964 and Porsche 917K (Kurzheck) in 1970—when he created a museum dedicated to his father Miles, and uncles, Sam and Barron Jr., who founded the 1933 Automobile Racing Club of America that metamorphosed in 1944 into the Sports Car Club of America
 * James Dean - died on the way to a hospital after a crash in his silver Porsche 550 Spyder, caused when he was cut off by another driver, in September 1955 near Cholame, California
 * Bill Gates - was briefly jailed in Albuquerque for racing his Porsche 911 in the New Mexico desert; imported a Porsche 959 which was impounded by U.S. Customs
 * Richard Hammond - Top Gear co-presenter, owns two 911s and a 928
 * Janis Joplin - owned a Porsche 356-C Cabriolet that was extravagantly and psychedelically painted for her by Dave Richards to match her public persona
 * Steve McQueen - raced Porsche prototypes, owned a Porsche 356 Speedster, a Porsche 908, and a Porsche 917, and made a movie dedicated to the 24 Hours of Le Mans
 * Carl Sagan - astronomer, astrobiologist, scientist, and a highly successful science popularizer—remembered for his articulate explanations of astronomical and cosmological research while commenting upon space exploration to the public—whose license plate bore the name of a moon of another planet in our solar system
 * Jerry Seinfeld - rumored to own one of the largest collections of Porsche automobiles in the world
 * Lake Underwood - Porsche's Quiet Giant —so named by Excellence magazine (a magazine covering everything Porsche)—has several historic Porsches among his collection

This list was removed, reinserted, and removed again. Many editors have contributed to this list and it stood in the article for a good length of time. Recently an editor removed it without any justification other than a personal choice. It was reinserted and another editor removed it. The explanation given by the second editor, Stephen Hui, was, ...this isn't appropriate content for an encyclopedia, and it violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY -- I have gone to that article and do not see a parallel to the deleted data among the examples of what would be considered inappropriate using this rule. Unless there is further clarification, I would prefer to reinstate the section of the article again. Please conduct discussion here for consideration. 83d40m 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think WP:NOT clearly speaks against the inclusion of this list in the main article. Specifically:


 * Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List.


 * The list is a list of famous people who also own Porsches, as opposed to people who are famous because they own Porsches. Perhaps the list could / should go into an article called "Famous Porsche drivers" or some such, but I don't see how it adds anything substantive to an article about Porsche itself.  Stephen Hui 02:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What would you think of a list that would include the big collections of of Porsche racecars and the drivers who piloted them in competition? I would think of the Cunningham collection which became part of the Collier collection and the drivers, Briggs Cunningham, Steve McQueen, and Lake Underwood -- keeping it related to Porsche and competition connections with the people who made it a significant racecar? Perhaps that would qualify under the "association or significant contribution to the list topic"? 83d40m 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect translation of "AG" changed
The correct translation of the German "AG" is public limited company (US: public company). This applies regardless of whether the shares are listed on a stock exchange or held in private hands. A shareholder may trade his shares as desired, i.e. with any member of the public. However the "public" does not refer to this, but rather that the company has an obligation to publish its annual financial statements.

Competitors
"Ferrari, on the other hand, competes more directly with firms such as Lamborghini, Bugatti, TVR and Aston Martin."

A Ferrari could not be considered a competitor to TVR. The most expensive TVR on sale at the moment costs c. £60000, Where as all Ferrari's cost well over £100000 in the UK. Ref: - [www.carpages.co.uk]

Nice as TVRs are, they're not in the same league. So, I'm gonna delete TVR from the Ferrari competitors sentance. Feel free to delete this edit, but you know I'm right. --86.130.130.18 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why so confrontational?!? Stephen Hui 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He may be confrontational, but he is right on that one. Squash Racket 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, but being confrontational didn't make him any more right. Stephen Hui 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's also true, just noticed the text is modified anyway, so we can move on. Squash Racket 05:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * TVR has gone out of business. A TVR is better compared to a Duesenberg, also out of business.209.29.82.64 10:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone forgot to tell TVR that they've gone out of business; unaware of this fact, they continue to build and sell cars. Stephen Hui 13:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture is not of a 930
I brought this up on a previous discussion page and it was ignored. The green 911 labelled as a "930" on this page is NOT a 930, it's a 964 Turbo, which was a generation newer than the 930, which Porsche discontinued in 1989. Either that or it's a 930 with a 964 body on it, in which case it still shouldn't be labelled as a 930 since it isn't really an example of a "proper" 930 with the original G-Series body. IS SOMEONE GOING TO FIX IT THIS TIME? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.172.23 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Volkswagen
Did Porsche buy a controlling stake in VW? Geoman888 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC) VW brought a controlling stake in Porsche Porsche did not buy a stake in VW Jacob Steven Smith (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC).

Porsche is now an operating company wholly owned by Volkswagen AG. Contrary to what has been posted in Wikipedia, Porsche is now operating as part of Volkswagen AG. Here is the press release from the VW AG website when the deal was completed. http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2012/07/Automotive_Group.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavGreg (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Auto racing section vandalised
Porsche also has a huge fanboy following, rivaled only by that of Ferrari with their all red wardrobes. These people will often claim such things as "PORSCHE'S ARE THE ULTIMATE RACING CARS" and masturbate furiously to that belief, often finishing on their own faces and cleaning up with a genuine Porsche shirt. What these window licking retards don't grasp is that making a claim such as this is very subjective as there are so many different types of racing. Is Porsche #1 in a series such as the Porsche Supercup? You bet they are. Yet how about in spec Miata? Haha touche! I could go on and on, but fact is that there is no ultimate race car or brand. Many are very good, this includes Porsche. This is a fact, then again many people with interior neons do not concern themselves with facts.

Is this appropiate for Wikipedia? I think this is vandalism, and therefore it should be deleted from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.122.81 (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Having this section is a useful idea, but it doesn't explain the right way to pronounce it. It just gives all the wrong ways. It also seems to contradict its own source. The source points out that since it is a family name, it must be pronounced as the family would pronounce it, "PORSH-uh". But the article says "PORSH-eh [as a two syllable word]" and "porsh-uh" are both incorrect.

They do both agree that "porsh [as one syllable]" is incorrect.

The source also supplies an mp3 of several german pronunciations of german words used in english. Porsche is included, so is there any way we could use that part of the mp3 in the article? 99.247.211.44 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite of having the section "Pronounciation", right at the beginning of the article it is stated that Porsche is pronounced /por-sh/. I'm no expert, but isn't this pronounciation that which is wrong, with the silent "e"? Also, the section "Pronounciation" should mention that pronounciation /por-sha/ which is also widely used, e.g. by Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear, is incorrect as well. 141.35.141.190 (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The pronounciation listed at the top of the article,, is most certainly not correct; it uses an IPA transcription template for a pronounciation respelling. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the correct template for the pronounciation respelling is. The other 2 templates, IPA for the native German and the English pronounciation, respectively, should be and. Conquerist (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with IPA but here you can listen to on how people from different countries are pronouncing Porsche.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the common german pronounciation is. You don't hear the "r". As a German I would like to add an appropriate sound file. Agree?

Stick to the facts, please
Some plans have been announced today. None of these plans have been put into practice yet, and the plans may still change in the near future. Please do not edit the article based on your predictions of what will happen. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... By the way, I would have no problem with mentioning these new VW plans, as long as they're treated as plans, not as things that have already happened. 217.149.210.16 (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Porsche / Volkswagen relationship
For the time being Porsche Automobil Holding SE own more than 50% of the shares of the Volkswagen Group. This is discussed in more detail at Talk:Automotive industry. -- de Facto (talk). 13:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is outdated information and needs to be updated.

http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2012/07/Automotive_Group.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavGreg (talk • contribs) 00:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * DavGreg, please pay attention to the dates of post at the end of every comment on this page. You are responding to a comment made in 2009.  Your info, a news dated July 2012, is already outdated.  Currently Porsche 'SE' owns over 50% of Volkswagen AG, and Volkswagen AG owns 100% of Porsche 'AG'.  Please read the article page.  This is the page for discussion on Porsche article.  Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 02:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Garbled sentence in lead
"... is responsible and manufacturer of ..." is ungrammatical. I'd fix it but I'm not sure what it is trying to say. The obvious guess is " ... is responsible for the manufacture of ...", but it's already been stated that Porsche SE is the "manufacturer" of the cars, so it does not appear to make sense to then say that Porsche SG is the manufacturer.

This passage needs fixing in such a way as makes clear the distinction between SE and AG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.244.109 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Founding-Date

 * in Overview: The company was founded as Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche GmbH in 1931 by...
 * in History: Ferdinand Porsche founded the company called "Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche GmbH" in 1930
 * so what? -- Hartmann Schedel  Prost 10:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 25 April 1931 is the correct date. I will change it. Bjmullan (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * thank you, also for the fast reaction -- Hartmann Schedel  Prost 11:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Panamera - a sedan?
'The latest model line, the four-door Panamera saloon (sedan), was launched on Monday, 20 April 2009.'

Isn't the Panamera a hatchback??--North wiki (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Letdorf (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Look at the citations. They generally refer to the Panamera as a sedan/saloon (alternatively, four-door coupe or GT).  No reference that I saw uses the term hatchback.  Stick with the references. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Louise Piëch is dead
Hi. Louise Piëch is listed as a owner. But she died 11 years ago. She had four children, one called Louise, but surely it does not refer to her, would it? It says Louise Piëch and Porsche family. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Anti theft
I have read that as a security against theft, a Porsche is digitaly locked to 30kph when it leaves factory and that it need to be unlocked as it is taken in use. 83.254.79.110 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Parent of Volkswagen?
The article says Volkswagen is a subsidiary of Porsche. But in the Volkswagen article it says Porsche is a subsidiary of Volkswagen! Who owns who?

--And93hil (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Porsche Automobile Holding SE (Porsche SE - the holding company) owns 50.73% of Volkswagen AG's (The Volkswagen Group) shares. Porsche SE and Volkswagen AG currently own 50.1% and 49.9% of Porsche AG (the car maker) respectively. It was announced yesterday that Volkswagen AG will be purchasing the 50.1% of Porsche AG that it does not currently own and will fully integrate the operations into the Volkswagen Group.

This article needs reviewing/splitting, as the holding company (Porsche SE) and the car maker (Porsche AG) are already separate entities, and the ownership of each is not identical.

--Eight.valve (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there is some merit in removing the parent/holding company from the actual car marque, and this article confuses the issue quite considerably at the moment. Not a dissimilar issue with Mercedes-Benz as a marque and Daimler AG as the company. Warren (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we please allow someone to correct all the incorrect information on this page? Porsche SE and Porsche AG have not been related companies since 1st August 2012. VW Group owns Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (the car maker, aka Porsche AG) after Porsche Automobil Holding SE (the holding company, aka Porsche SE) sold it to them. I updated the page to reflect the changes (made it related to only Porsche AG), but it has been reverted and once again now presents a lot of confusing and wrong information. Porsche Automobil Holding SE should no longer redirect to this page, it should be its own page. --Eight.valve (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you completely that the situation needs to be clarified, but it can be done better than the way you did it before. I'm not sure however that there needs to be more than one article. There is a very clear summary on this page. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do it better. The Porsche SE page you reference is correct and shows how this article has been incorrect since 1st August. I believe it would be correct for the large amount of history and information relating to the Holding Company to be off in its own article, as that is really nothing to do with the sports car maker. It is quite similar to how Damiler and Mercedes-Benz have separate articles, as mentioned above. --Eight.valve (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just viewed the German Wikipedia pages, they further demonstrate the merit in having two separate articles and also the urgent need to correct the English language Porsche article. See the German pages: Porsche Automobil Holding SE and Porsche AG --Eight.valve (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversial move reverted
Per WP:BRD I just reverted the move of the common name Porsche to Porsche Automobile Holding SE. A controversial move like this needs further discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the article title Porsche is preferable to the official name per WP:COMMONNAME. 72Dino (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. And if it is to be renamed to anything it should be to a correctly spelled version of the name. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, especially since this page mainly deals with Porsche AG, not the holding company. Neither do I expect most people searching "Porsche" want the holding company.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, and the editor who moved it seems to have ignored the points made in the previous Talk section... Warren (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazi past controversy at Porsche's birthplace
This is an article about the company called Porsche, not the man called Porsche. Nazi insignia are completely out of place here. In addition, this incident has no encyclopedic significance for the company. This seems to be a man-on-a-mission thing. --Lukati (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The statement above represents an opinion and does not present any facts on why that is the case. I want to note two things, 1) the assumption that Porsche's Nazi past is indeed relevant, and 2) the difference in style while dealing with this topic in comparison to the Hugo Boss article. The comment above should be more specific on why the Nazi past is irrelevant and perhaps name a source to support this reasoning. 178.19.210.162 (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the user above. The Nazi past is relevant. The following sentence is misleading "One of the first assignments the new company received was from the German government to design a car for the people, that is a 'Volkswagen'" That makes it sound like any old government contract. Porsche worked under Adolph Hitler's direct orders to design the Volkswagen. Ibnsina786 (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Porsche SE and Porsche AG confusion
This article has gotten confused again about what it wants to be... I think the time has come to split into two: This has been discussed before but never really resolved, but many sporadic edits keep confusing the important difference. The info box is a classic example of being completely mixed up. Warren (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Porsche - the sports car marque and manufacturer owned by Volkswagen Group
 * 2) Porsche SE (or Porsche Automobil Holding SE) - the investment company that is a majority shareholder of VW.


 * Agree, article needs to be splitted into these two articles, as it is on dewiki (de:Porsche and de:Porsche Automobil Holding. --Jklamo (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with a split, especially in light of a user's attempt to create Porsche-Volkswagen SE article today 10 days ago, but with no sources or content. "Porsche Automobil Holding" would probably be the better title, as it's clear as to what the page is about, and as pointed out above, matches the title on de.wp. - BilCat (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't speak German, so I can't tell how dewiki deals with it, but the difficulty in clean separation comes from the ownership of Porsche AG by VW came into reality as a consession by Porsche SE to VW management's strong resistance against the take over of VW by Porsche SE. As Porsche SE is the majority shareholder of VW, VW cannot do anything to Porsche AG (except for the delay from the implementation of change till the firing of the person responsible at the next shareholder meeting) against the wishes of the Porsche family.  So VW may 'own' Porsche AG on paper, but VW does not (cannot) 'control' Porsche AG.  If this complicated picture can be understood by the Porsche AG article after the separation, I am for the split.  Could someone tell us how dewiki describes this point?  "Porsche AG is a part of VW group" and "Porsche AG is a subsidiary of VW" are, while being legally correct, very misleading statements.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 01:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * " As Porsche SE is the majority shareholder of VW, VW cannot do anything to Porsche AG…against the wishes of the Porsche family." As written, it sounds like that would also apply to any other division of VW. If so, it really doesn't seem that unique or noteworthy. If it is a situation unique to Porsche AG, it would need a reliable published source that explains it as such to be included. (Assuming it isn't in the article already, as I haven't read it word for word of late.) - BilCat (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that logic, but Porsche AG is unique in that Porsche SE was born from (established by) Porsche AG and the Porsche family has active interest in it. For example, if VW management decides to sell Bentley with good enough management justifications, then the sales wouldn't cause (in my view) a dismissal of the VW directors responsible as the purchase of Bentley was initiated by the VW management without Porsche majority ownership.  On the other hand, sale of Porsche AG by VW management is unthinkable in that the family wouldn't tolerate.  This is just one extreme example of the difference.  So it is unique among the VW subsidiaries, and I would oppose a split without depicting that clearly (if the misleading statement is left alone and the uniqueness is not described well).   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 06:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is that Porsche AG and Porsche SE are two separate legal entities, and the article does a poor job of distinguishing between the two, more so because VW is legally in between them. That is more misleading in my opinion. And without a reliable published source that states what you want to be ncluded, it would just be speculation. It's also doubtful that VW could sell any part of its holdings without approval from Porsche SE, as it is the controlling shareholder, if I understand the situation correctly. - BilCat (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that point. But another point is that the legal structure does not represent the actual power structure because of Porsche SE's majority ownership of VW, and Porsche AG's close ties with the family.  Porsche SE's purchase of VW could have ended up with VW joining Porsche AG as another subsidiary of Porsche SE, if there wasn't the strong resistance by the VW management.  The VW-in-between structure could be described as a window dressing only on paper to ease the feeling of VW management.


 * If Subaru or Citroen (both customers of Porsche Consulting, a Porsche SE subsidiary) article describes something to be a "Porsche technology", and the reader looks up 'Porsche' and ends up on the article that describes Porsche AG, I'd say it is a very misleading situation as well. The current article at least avoids that.  May be it is not time to split just yet.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 10:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, I am fielding a RfC on one of the problems this split would have to overcome at Wikipedia talk:Article titles Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 09:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Only 35 employees...
...produce 150000 cars in one year? Wow, very assiduous.

217.225.248.112 (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * They must use a lot of robots. Actually, per page 56 of their annual report, 35 is the correct number of employees for the holding company. Perhaps the workforce is included under Volkswagen Group which has 572,800 employees (page 68 of annual report.) Bahooka (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet another reason to split off the holding company to its own article. - BilCat (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Porsche SE and Porsche AG split
As a preparation for the article split between Porsche SE (parent company of Volkswagen AG) and Porsche AG (subsidiary of Volkswagen AG), I have added info and polished Porsche (disambiguation). Please take a look at the disambiguation page and Wikipedia_talk:Article titles/Archive 47 before you form an opinion on this issue. Yiba (talk &#124; contribs) 10:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the RfC discussion eas closed with the conclusion that this article should remain primarily as Porsche AG, the car company most closely associated with producing the actual cars. I take that to mean that Porsche SE, the holding company, can be extracted from this article and moved to its own article. Warren (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Warren, I probably owe you (and everyone interested in the issue) some explanation of what happened with the RfC and what I learned in the process. (The closing statement by the closer on the RfC has been revised as a result of my discussion with him on his talk page and in private emails.)


 * I understand your position that 1. Porsche is a car brand, 2. The company that produces the cars has been split into two (Porsche SE and Porsche AG), 3. Porsche AG is the maker of the cars after the split., therefore 4. The current article should be split and the representative 'Porsche' title should be on the article on Porsche AG. (If I'm wrong or I left out some important aspects, please point it out.)


 * A part of me wanted to do exactly what that logic says. However, as you may see in the discussion, most car brands have grown out of just car manufacturing into other areas, and in Porsche's case, Porsche brand covers Porsche Design Group and Porsche Holding, where the latter is the largest car distributor in Europe, and is a larger entity than Porsche AG in terms of number of employees.  Moreover, Porsche AG and Porsche Holding GmbH (Salzburg) has been acquired by Volkswagen AG, while Porsche SE has become the controlling owner of Volkswagen AG, thereby becoming the top-tier company in the group of companies including Audi, Volkswagen, Bentley, Ducati, etc.


 * Probably you could see the difference among "Porsche as a corporation", "Porsche brand" and "Porsche car brand" is one of the important issues here. The current convention on articles on a collection of cars/ brand/maker is to balance the views of WikiProject Automobiles (which takes the "car brand" view), WikiProject Brands (which prefers 'brand' view) and WikiProject Companies (which takes the 'company' view).  Because the brands have grown into totally different areas, and because brands often span over several companies/ownerships and definitions/boundaries on licensees, makers, etc. are often not published and difficult to ascertain, the present convention uses the articles on a 'company' to be the representative article for the collection of info on the cars, the manufacturer and the car brand, because it is easier to get grips on (partly for ease of assembling info, and partly for avoiding disputes) as it is a legal entity.


 * This is the background on why the current Porsche article is primarily a 'company' article, and uses Infobox Company in describing the cars and a company that has been split into two. Partly because this is a rather complicated and abstract issue, many of the arguments I received in the RfC took the position "Porsche should point to the article on the car brand rather than the article on the company" with or without realizing the current article is primarily a 'company' article, and the current convention is to let the 'company' article be the representative.  (Please read the RfC's closing statement on this point. I know you didn't read it that way probably because some may have used "Porsche AG".) This is also partly because the RfC was not about the convention or the current article, and I didn't see it to be appropriate to refute/discuss that particular point in sufficient detail or as repeatedly as it seemed to require.


 * So an argument can be made according to this view to split the current article into "Porsche SE" and "Porsche brand" (including Porsche Design and Porsche Holding), or, "Porsche SE" and "Porsche car brand" and let one of the brand articles to have the 'Porsche' title. But the result of the RfC was "no consensus" and if we push it further in that direction, we will need to build good cases for WikiProjects Automobiles, Company and Brands why Porsche article needs to go against the convention, and more importantly, we need to establish "Porsche brand" or "Porsche car brand" is justified on WP:TITLE and WP:DAB for the term 'Porsche'.


 * This seems nearly impossible to me (I'd welcome if someone has a good argument for it) because 1. It fails the Precision criteria (WP:NC) in that the term 'Porsche' could describe "Ferdinand Porsche", "Porsche SE", "Porsche Holding", or even one of the Porsche car models, and 2. It fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, because it says in the usage criteria that "Porsche brand" (or "Porsche car brand") in this case needs to be the likely target of the readers' search for the term 'Porsche', and that it is "more likely than all the other topics combined" which we can't say is true especially in light of many Porsche car models. (The "other topics" are listed in Porsche (disambiguation).)


 * Another argument can be made to split the current article into Porsche SE and Porsche AG, and let the Porsche SE article have the Porsche title because 1. it is the current convention to let the 'company' article be the representative article, 2. Porsche chose Porsche SE to be the successor company in the renaming of the old entity into Porsche SE, 3. As a 'company'(as opposed to carmaker), Porsche SE is far more significant than Porsche AG because it owns Volkswagen AG(as opposed to Porsche AG being a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG), 4. Porsche SE is the owner of 'Porsche' brand. But this fails the Precision criteria and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the same reason as stated above.


 * Another argument would be to split into Porsche SE and Porsche AG and giving 'Porsche' title to Porsche AG because 1. it is the current convention to let the 'company' article be the representative article, 2. it is also the convention to let the car maker article be the representative for the cars and the brand, 3. Porsche AG is the least surprising subject to appear on Wiki readers' search for 'Porsche' (apart from "Porsche car brand", and my argument against this opinion in the RfC, so 'I' can't accept this #3. If you want to add something please let me know.). But this also fails the Precision and PRIMARYTOPIC.


 * So, if someone finds out the above and gives (transfers) 'Porsche' title to the current Porsche (disambiguation), then we (at least I) can't argue against it, because it is the current Wiki policy.


 * I could be convinced otherwise, but my current position is to keep the status quo of having 'Porsche' title on the current messy article that sort of covers two companies, until someone (you?) says 'enough' and agrees to transfer 'Porsche' title to Porsche (disambiguation) and splits the article into Porsche SE and Porsche AG, which is the right thing to do according to the current Wiki policy. In many ways, I want someone to convince me otherwise with good reasons, because I have spent hours on this issue to split the article into Porsche SE and Porsche AG.  But I will oppose strongly if someone tries to split and keep the 'Porsche' title on one of the resultant articles.  Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 23:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope it is ok that I chime in here -- I think it would be right (and necessary) to do as Yiba said in the last paragraph and to split Porsche SE and Porsche AG and to link the Porsche page to Porsche (disambiguation), mentioning that one is the parent company of Volkswagen and that one is the automobile maker. Thus, there will be a page for Porsche SE and Porsche AG and people can find whichever they're looking for. I'd be happy to do it. User:Jaredclce (talk | contribs) 23:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. It is perfectly OK for you to comment here, but please don't edit yet.  This issue has been in discussion for a long time, and Warren, User:Jklamo and User:BilCat participated in the most recent one.  Consensus is always a worthwhile article to keep in mind.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 07:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In general, articles about the car manufacturer are also where the "brands" are covered. As I've said from the beginning, German WP covers the manufacturer/brand at Porsche, and the holding company at Porsche Automobil Holding. Despite the various TLDNR discussions that Yiba has held in multiple locations this year, I still seen no valid policy arguments for not doing it that way. Porsche should cover the manufacturer/history/brand. The holding company should probably be at Porsche Automobil Holding to make clear what the article is about, rather than the more-obscure Porsche SE, but that is a minor point to me. The DAB page would remain at Porsche (disambiguation). Most of the other users whove commented here have also supported such a split, ie. that is what the consensus is leaning towards, as Warren pointed out, both in February and this past week. Doing it any other way, in my opinion, is just far too confusing, and that is clearly against policy. - BilCat (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * TLDR critisism I would have to accept. That is why I summarized them above although it still is long.  The Policy argument for not doing it that way is clearly stated above that it violates WP:TITLE and WP:DAB ('Porsche' in the separation 'Porsche'/'Porsche Automobile Holding' or in any other separation does, which is the point of the above summary).  What policy are you referring to in your last "clearly against policy"?   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 09:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That confusion is against policy. - BilCat (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * After thinking that over, I think it would be the best choice to do as the German page does, and as User:BilCat said. Thus, the piece at the top would say that this article's about the brand and manufacturer, not the Volkswagen parent company.


 * Also User:Yiba, I forgot to mention that when I wrote that Porsche's shareholder's are majority shareholders of Volkswagen, I was referencing that, due to the nature and structure of the holding company, and the fact that its shareholders were the shareholders of the old Porsche before it became Porsche SE and Porsche AG was completely owned by Volkswagen, the shareholders of Porsche own 50.76% of Volkswagen AG through their holding company, Porsche SE. As a result, Porsche essentially purchased majority stake in Volkswagen (for the shareholders through the holding company -- so, yes the holding company owns the stake in Volkswagen, but the way that it was designed was that the shareholders of old Porsche own VW through Porsche SE) the shareholders essentially own that part of Volkswagen), and then allowed VW management to take over the company (but the old Porsche shareholders still own VW through their holding company). Then, as you know, Porsche AG was separated to be completely owned by VW. User:Jaredclce (talk | contribs) 12:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a hatnote is effective in making an article title in complicated situations more understandable. But a hatnote can't change the fact 'Porsche' title on any article (but dab) violates WP:TITLE and WP:DAB because 1. It cannot describe the topic precise enough so that the topic is the only thing 'Porsche' could mean, and 2. The topic can't be the most likely search target for 'Porsche' to the degree that it is more likely than all other Porsche topics combined.

As to the ownership, I would recommend some further study in the field of Corporate finance. Yiba (talk &#124; contribs) 23:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I suppose it would be better to send it to the disambiguation page.


 * And with reference to Porsche's corporate finance, what I'm saying is that, through the structure and function of a holding company (in a pass through manner), the shareholders of Porsche SE own (again, in a pass through manner) majority share in Volkswagen AG (through Porsche SE). I would advise you to check the definitions, function, and structure of a Holding Company, as I just asked an attorney earlier today, who confirmed this for me. I also have studied corporate finance. Jaredclce (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, 'pass through' is the key concept here. Your understanding is correct if, and only when, it is described that way.  But please be careful as the concept of pass-through can be applied like "Volkswagen AG controls Porsche SE (in a pass through manner) because members of VW AG management serve as Porsche SE executives".  As it complicates the picture so much, we try to stick to the narrow concept of "voting rights" through equity ownership.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 02:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand what you're saying. Jaredclce (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I do think that the discussion regarding the designation of the dominant article for Porsche as getting somewhat pedantic! Yes Porsche SE might be more important from a company structure point of view, but I do not believe that in the spirit of WP that this trumps the common usage, which is the car company Porsche AG. A top hat easily deals with any potential confusion; such as this article is about the car manufacturer... for all other uses see disambiguation page. And no doubt the updated lead (and info box) can deal with corporate parent and overall owner. I do not see what is to be gained by forcing Porsche to automatically go to the disambiguation page. Warren (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I revoke my earlier statement and now agree with User:Warren Whyte. Jaredclce (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I again concur with Warren. I've seen no credible reasoning for Porsche not being the primary topic for the main maunufacture/brand, as is done with most automobile manufacturer articles on EN.WP, in spite of the tainted result of the RfC. For a closely-related example, Volkswagen is about the primary manufacturer "Volkswagen Passenger Cars", and covers the history of the marque, while Volkswagen Group covers the parent company.

I think it's quite clear at this point that Yiba is unlikely to ever support this, but consensus does not need to be unanimous, and in most cases never is. Since Yiba does appear to support separating Porsche AG (company/history/brand) from Porsche SE (the holding company), I propose that we split the parent company info immediately to Porsche SE or Porsche Automobil Holding (the exact title can be discussed in a move discussion later), while leaving the manufacturer/brand/history at Porsche, with "Porsche AG" as the Lead and infobox title. Yiba can then hold a formal move discussion on moving Porsche to Porsche AG and moving Porsche (disambiguation) to Porsche, if he so desires. - BilCat (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to do that... Shall we organize who's doing what? Jaredclce (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not that good with writing copy from scratch, and am slow writer, so if you're comfortable doing that, it's fine with me. I've done splits such as this before when I've little familiarity with the topic, as in this case, as long as the info is in the original article. I'm better at copy editing/clean-up, and I can do the infoboxes too, though not the financial info in the boxes. - BilCat (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Warren, I might have to accept the pedantic description, but I am being forced into the discussion of more technical details. Spirit of wikipedia is "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.", and not the articles to serve typical Wiki editors who may be young males in the former Commonwealth.  The "Wikipedia readers' being quite different from "typical Wiki editors" is the point I raised in the RfC, and I disagree that common use of the term 'Porsche' points to the "car company".


 * My opinion that the term 'Porsche' may point more to Porsche SE (as the owner of Porsche brand and VW AG) than Porsche AG (as the car maker) for the general readership aside, I'd think "Porsche is a brand of cars" (not a car company) is the common use among the typical Wiki editors. This is one of the reasons why the title 'Porsche' on the article on Porsche AG fails PRIMARYTOPIC.


 * To me, the biggest 'gain' in placing 'Porsche' title to the dab page is the improved service to the general readership. But to others, a larger gain may be conformance to Wikipedia policies.


 * BilCat, consensus is something we build, by listening carefully to others and explaining your position and explaining why your position may make more sense on each position held by others on a point-by-point basis. Before and after your your statement that you "still seen no valid policy arguments", I have not received any policy argument supporting your position, or against my position.  Just insisting on one's opinion does not build a case, or a consensus.  If we agree to disagree AFTER honest efforts in consensus building, then Wikipedia has established procedures to resolve a dispute, so that is what we might have to do, but not BEFORE it.    Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 07:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yiba, these discussions were originally about splitting off Porsche SE to a separate article. That is the most pressing problem with the article, which is that it contains info on the two separate companies in a confusing manner. I assume you are in favor of that from your latest comments, as you refer to Porsche AG and Porsche SE. So let's do that split. If you want the DAB page moved to Porsche, then we can hold a formal move discussion to do that, one that will also move the content remaining at Porsche to Porsche AG. That is within WP policy regarding how to deal with naming disputes, which is the primary issue you have here.  Does that sound agreeable to you?  - BilCat (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have stated my position in the last paragraph of the above (long) summary. As probably you could see from it, I do not agree to that, especially not yet having your policy arguments against the points in that or preceding paragraphs, or supporting your position.  As long as you keep not reading my comments carefully, and not explaining why your position makes more sense than mine with a valid policy argument on each point raised, your opinions and comments start to lose weight.  Please contribute to this discussion.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 09:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was hoping that you might be willing to move forward on what we do agree on, and am saddened to see that you are not willing to compromise even to do what you already agree needs to be done. - BilCat (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like there is general support for the split of AG and SE, and this will certainly help this article, and the clarification of SE as the holding company. I will certainly by able to assist on this later this week. The more prosaic debate on primary subject can continue (if needs be) but it does appear that Yiba's suggestions are not agreed at this stage, and I would suggest that for this article splitting stage, Porsche remains as Porsche AG, and Porsche SE is split out into the new article. Warren (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In checking the German WP, I see no reason not to follow suit, and call the SE article Porsche Automobil Holding - a page already exists but is currently on redirect. The redirect on Porsche SE and Porsche Automobil Holding SE would also need fixing. Warren (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirects are easy to fix. I agree with you on the proposed name Porsche Automobil Holding, and the new article can be created there. It can always be moved later if the need arises. - BilCat (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The first words in the current article, and the title on the info box is "Porsche Automobil Holding SE", so "Porsche article remains as Porsche SE" might make sense, but you are twisting it to your convenience. As I have stated repeatedly, I do not agree to the split between Porsche SE and Porsche AG (without an agreement on transfering 'Porsche' title to the dab page).  I have given you the very clear reasons why we shouldn't follow the way German Wikipedia names their articles.  So it seems we may have reached a point requiring dispute resolution process.  Agree?   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 12:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no need for any other dispute resolution process, as the only issue remaining is the title of Porsche AG. The naming dispute can be easily handled according to policy by a formal move discussion to move Porsche to Porsche AG and Porsche (disambiguation) to Porsche, as outlined in Requested moves. Meanwhile, Porsche Automobil Holding can be created to cover Porsche Automobil Holding SE, and that can be moved back to Porsche if that is what the move discussion decides. - BilCat (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, I have been stating the split as you are describing is the wrong thing to do. A split will result in two articles, and I am saying that giving 'Porsche' title to one of the two is wrong, and that it should be given to Porsche (disambiguation), which is the issue we've been discussing.  Your ignoring that as if my comments and all the discussion above do not exist does not make the issue go away.  I would think it is far better for us to move to a mediation BEFORE your ignoring my statements and split the article, my reverting it back, and THEN going to a mediation.  Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 13:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reverting the split isn't a good idea, and could well get you blocked for being disruptive against consensus. It would far easier to compromise before that happens, and follow the move discussion route. The dispute will be solved much more quickly that way. DR tends to drag on forever, and frankly I'm not that interested in spending much more time on this issue. - BilCat (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If we follow the pattern of the German WP articles on the content of each article in the split, which it seems we will, the article on Porsche AG will be much longer than the one on Porsche SE. The history of the current article has to be retained somewhere for attribution, and since Porsche AG will retain most of the content of the original article, it makes sense to keep article edit history with Porsche AG. Porsche cannot be moved to Porsche AG except by an admin. Porsche SE would be created over the existing redirect, and have attribution on the talk page to explain that the content was originally at Porsche/Porsche AG. It is light of these procedures that I have recommended carrying out the split first, and the holding a move discussion to determine the final resting place of the Porsche AG content and the DAB page. In no way will splitting off Porsche SE prejudice the move discussion. Further, trying to have a move discussion before making the split is only likely to confuse editors participating in the move discussion, as the Porsche SE content would still be in the article, and would make judging whether or not Porsche AG is the primary topic more difficult for other editors. That's partly why I do not believe doing the split first is "wrong", or "against policy". If the community believes that Porsche AG is not the primary topic, then it will be moved at some point in the process. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope you are not saying it is a good idea for en.wiki to follow the decisions on German topic articles by de.wiki. Jaguar has been acquired by an Indian company, and Ferrari is an Italian company.  We need to follow our set of rules on foreign topics, not Hindi or Italian Wikipedia.  If we follow the pattern of Hindi Wikipedia, for example, Porsche AG info is a part of Volkswagen AG article, which makes a lot of sense as it is a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG.  So the length of indivisual "Porsche AG" article in this case is nil.  The current article, as it is clearly stated, is primarily about Porsche SE.  The "splitting off" you are talking about will make the current article primarily about Porsche AG, so it not only does prejudice the move discussion, but is a move (transfer of title) in disguised format.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think that's what I said, you're the one that needs to read the other more carefully. I'm done arguing with you. BilCat (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it's now completely clear that Yiba is not interested in any sort of compromise that he didn't devise himself, are the rest of us in agreement on moving forward with splitting off the holding company's content to Porsche Automobil Holding? - BilCat (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do not change the content of the current article which is primarily about Porsche SE, to primarily that of Porsche AG. This, in effect, is a transfer of title.  Moreover, changing the name of an article at the same time further confuses the issue.  As it seems BilCat is not saying it is a good idea to follow de.wiki naming decision, "Porsche Automobil Holding" has not been established, or even implied to be, as a good name for the article.  On WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, it fails the Conciseness criterion over 'Porsche SE'.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 03:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If enough of the other editors agree with your position, then fine, but to this point no one else has consistently done so. While consensus isn't a vote, it does usually require more than one person holding to a position. By the same token, consensus can exist when one person disagrees with the consensus, and that usually is the case. In most cases, those in opposition to consensus are congenial and gracious enough to accept defeat, and do not adopt disruptive means to impose their way. I've done just that (accept defeat) on many occasions, even when I very strongly disagreed with the consensus. In some cases, I have appealed the decisions, while in others I felt it was not worth further pursuit of the matter. Also, I already made clear that I am in favor of following the German WP's choices in this case, but not because I believe we should follow all their choices. I've already made my reasons for doing so above, and others have similar reasons as mine. I still hope that Yiba will choose to work with us to achive a decision we can all accept. If not, he has avenues of appeal open to him, and he is welcome to do so without being disruptive to the process of carrying out the split. - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Concise" isn't the same thing as "short". WP:NAMINGCRITERIA states "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". In my opinion, Porsche Automobil Holding is more clear on what the article is about than Porsche SE, but as I stated above in several places, I'm open to either title. The article can always be moved from one to the other if the community so desires. - BilCat (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * When the core of my position is within my discretion, I agree with the need for the attitude to accept a compromise, and it is the attitude I take in that situation. However, when an action is proposed and the action is against Wikipedia policies, asking for compromise is like saying "Please agree to break the rules." to someone who sees the problem and does not have the capacity to change the rules at will, in this case WP:AT and WP:DAB.
 * I understand why you want to do what you propose and wish if there is room to give in, but I am saying what you are proposing (which apparently is supported by one other consistent participant only) is against these two Wikipedia policies which I cannot change.
 * Concise can be different from Short, but in light of "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects", it is clear that "Porsche Automobil Holding" is longer than necessary when 'Porsche SE' can identify the subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
 * I agree to go to mediation process, given the seemingly unresolvable differences in opinion. At least this is something I could do stepping away from the discussion without breaking Wikipedia rules.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While WP:AT is policy, WP:DAB is only a guideline. Further, it is only your interpretation of policy that I am proposing to break, not policy itself. Policy does not in and of itself determine what is a primary topic, it only lays out guidelines for doing so. The main point you have is that there is no primary topic, and thus Porsche should be the DAB page. So try to get the DAB page moved. But you won't do that, because only your interpretation of policy is correct in your mind, and thus that would be breaking the rules. Go seek mediation if you want. I think in the end they'll tell you the same thing I have: follow existing policy on how to determine a primary topic, and that's through the formal move process. - BilCat (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As I have stated, 'Porsche' in the split you are proposing fails Precision criterion on WP:AT. If that title is given to an article primarily about Porsche AG, it is not "sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects" because 'Porsche' could mean Porsche SE as the current article says, or it could mean one of Porsche cars, which is closer to the common use by typical Wikipedia editors.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 14:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Does Porsche as it is currently written meet Precision criteria? Is an article covering both Porsche AG and Porsche SE, as Porsche currently does, the clear primary topic? From what you've written before, I would think your answer is "no", but you've been content with the status quo for at least six months, even though by your own standards the situation is clearly "wrong" and against policy. So you've already compromised with your own interpretation of the "rules", in spite of the fact that you could have formally proposed moving the DAB page, per WP:MOVE, to Porsche at any time in the last six months. You're already doing breaking the rule, by your own standards, and seem content to keep doing it indefinitely, per your over-long "summary". So pardon me if I don't take seriously your insistance on not breaking the "rules" to reach an acceptable compromise. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am glad I finally got my message across. Yes, I am saying the current article/title does not conform to WP:AT and WP:DAB, so does a split without transfering 'Porsche' to the dab page.  Though I don't agree, I do see your criticism to be at least logical.  Let's take a break on this discussion on Porsche SE and Porsche AG split for now.  I don't see much to be gained by continuing.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 01:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

DAB page move proposed
Since this issue has been ongoing for over 6 months now, and shows no signs of ending soon. I see only one way of clearly establishing whether or not there is a clear primary topic for Porsche. This can be done by moving Porsche (disambiguation) to Porsche, and moving Porsche to Porsche AG, and then splitting off new content to Porsche SE. After a few months, page view statistics can be used to help determine whether or not there is a clear primary topic sought when a reader searches for "Porsche". I've made the move request at Talk:Porsche (disambiguation), so comment there please. Note that I still support "Porsche AG" as the primary topic, and I hope the page view statistics will show that I am correct. If not, then at least we've settled the issue one way or another. - BilCat (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Due to the nature of this discussion, I agree with BilCat's proposition of moving Porsche (disambiguation) to Porsche, and splitting Porsche into Porsche AG and Porsche SE. Then, we can indeed see the statistics. I do believe though that Porsche should be about Porsche AG. Also, Fiat for example does go to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, but that is a bit of a different circumstance as it owns the Fiat Group (the group that everyone thinks about when thinking of Ferrari, Maserati, Fiat, Alfa, etc's owners), whereas nobody thinks about Porsche SE, but rather thinks of Volkswagen AG when talking about the parent company/owner of Porsche, Audi, etc.


 * So I do agree 100% with BilCat in this circumstance and due to the nature of this debate. Ideally, Porsche would go to Porsche AG we'd have a line/header on top of the Porsche AG that says something like "This is about the automobile brand. For the parent company of Volkswagen, see Porsche SE." Jaredclce (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe we should start working on this immediately. BilCat's idea will allow us to make a choice based on fact, instead of what we think, while maintaining the ability to find each page. I see it as, before, we had a consensus -1, but now we have a full consensus. I'd be happy to do the work on all the pages. Jaredclce (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I see from the discussion on Porsche (disambiguation)'s talk page, nobody agrees with moving Porsche to the disambiguation page. Thus, since we have a MAJORITY consensus for moving Porsche to Porsche AG, creating Porsche Automobil Holding SE and adding a piece on top that clarifies the Porsche AG page vs the Porsche SE page, I'm going to start doing this.


 * I would also like to highlight BilCat's statement of "If enough of the other editors agree with your position, then fine, but to this point no one else has consistently done so. While consensus isn't a vote, it does usually require more than one person holding to a position. By the same token, consensus can exist when one person disagrees with the consensus, and that usually is the case. In most cases, those in opposition to consensus are congenial and gracious enough to accept defeat, and do not adopt disruptive means to impose their way. I've done just that (accept defeat) on many occasions, even when I very strongly disagreed with the consensus. In some cases, I have appealed the decisions, while in others I felt it was not worth further pursuit of the matter." I would hope that, because we have a general consensus/majority of editors in agreement, there will not be any disruption to the move -- as doing so without achieving a general consensus here would be wrong, and if I'm pretty sure, against policy. Jaredclce (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So, we need an admin to delete Porsche AG and move Porsche to a new Porsche AG, so I can then finish by taking the part about Porsche AG and put it there, and SE on the SE page. Anyone know any admin who will be willing to do that? Jaredclce (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's probably best to wait until after the DAB page move discussion is closed. Then an admin might be willing to make the move, depending on the result of the close. The broad concept article idea seems like a good alternative, and will need to be discussed here if the DAB page isn't moved. - BilCat (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should do that (moving DAB page) just to satisfy one other editor. I think there is a clear consensus, and the discussion on the DAB page isn't really relevant to the entire merger. I completely agree with what you want to do (Porsche move to Porsche AG), I just don't think the DAB page thing is necessary to satisfy one other editor -- but rather that we should do what we believe is correct, which is also the general consensus.

The Porsche AG page is marked for speedy deletion so I can move the Porsche page there. I've already pre-written the articles for Porsche AG (essentially what is removed from the old page) and for the new Porsche SE, with proper hatnotes on each page. I just have to wait for Porsche AG to be deleted and Porsche to be moved there. I really do think it is OK to go through with this, granted we have a general consensus. Jaredclce (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There's two problems with the way you've done it. First, the delete tag needs to go on the article.page, not the talk page. Second, I included Porsche to Porsche AG in tbe move discussion on the DAB page, so an admin isn't likely to make the ma o ve until the DAB page discussion has closed. One question: What were you planning on doing with Porsche after the history is moved to Porsche AG? I'm unclear on that. - BilCat (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops -- I'll move that now. I think we should clarify the part about the actual splitting on the DAB talk page (as discussed here), instead of talking about moving the DAB page to Porsche, because there it isn't really a discussion on splitting these two the way that we have a consensus for on the DAB talk page, but rather a discussion about the DAB page being the landing page for "Porsche" (and that idea was already been opposed there, and will probably continue to be). So I think we should clarify there that the idea of the DAB page move isn't on the table anymore, and show them what we have a consensus for. There should be full agreement. As a result, Porsche was going to forward to Porsche AG (because truthfully we had a consensus on that, and the DAB page move to satisfy Yiba was being denied). Jaredclce (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, I guess I'll wait on moving the speedy deletion until we clear everything up with the DAB talk page. Jaredclce (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The move discussion has closed with No consensus to move. Therefore, I've gone ahead with the article split that we have a consensus here to do. Porsche AG is covered at Porsche, with the holding company at Porsche Automobil Holding SE. The latter can be moved to either Porsche SE and Porsche Automobil Holding if there's a preference for one or the other, but an admin will have to perform that move. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no such consensus. Porsche article to cover Porsche AG is not in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because the common use includes 'Porsche' to mean a Porsche car or Porsche brand, precluding Porsche AG to be more likely target of a reader search than searches on all other topics combined.   Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 05:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * PRIMARYTOPIC just means it's the one that a majority of readers expect to find at a given title. That was upheld in the recent discussion to move the DAB page to Porsche, which closed with no consensus to move. - BilCat (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the result of your move request was "Page not moved". You ignored it and moved the pages in effect by swapping of content despite my forewarning.  Yiba  (talk &#124; contribs) 08:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The result of the discussion was that the DAB page will not be moved to Porsche. No content has been "swapped". Stop being disruptive - you had your chance to participate in the move discussion, but chose not to. - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you BilCat for executing this! I see you used the articles from the split I did. I agree, the consensus here was to split the pages, and the consensus on the disambiguation page was to not move it. Splitting the pages and keeping the DAB page where it is was certainly the correct decision, and the consensus. Thank you! Jaredclce (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Unfortunately, Yiba has decided to file for mediation after refusing to participate in the move discussion. I've declined, of course, as promised above, as the issue can be settled by alternative methods. At least the articles are now separate, which has been our goal here all along. Where the article for Porsche AG is located is a minor issue compared to that goal. Alternatives for Porsche were mentioned during the move discussion, as I mentioned above, such as a "Broad-concept article" (see WP:DABCONCEPT), which may well be a good solution moving forward. - BilCat (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Porsche (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015
2014 sales numbers here: http://press.porsche.com/news/release.php?id=897

184.2.141.3 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jamietw (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Porsche. 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/20110611040446/http://www.atlantaga.gov:80/media/nr_porsche_051211.aspx to http://www.atlantaga.gov/media/nr_porsche_051211.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111008202612/https://www.audi-mediaservices.com/publish/ms/content/en/public/hintergrundberichte/2011/03/08/der_audi_standort/the_history_of_the.standard.gid-oeffentlichkeit.html to https://www.audi-mediaservices.com/publish/ms/content/en/public/hintergrundberichte/2011/03/08/der_audi_standort/the_history_of_the.standard.gid-oeffentlichkeit.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715104425/http://www.porsche-se.com/pho/en/news/?pool=pho&id=2009-11-20 to http://www.porsche-se.com/pho/en/news/?pool=pho&id=2009-11-20
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080530022645/http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2006082b.pdf to http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2006082b.pdf

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 10:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources that do not work
just a small tip, source number 8 does not work any more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.174.146 (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2016
Yo whats happenin!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.38.21 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2016
Dear community,

please take a look at the box with the main information about Porsche. In my opinion, the figures need to be modified as follows:


 * Revenue 	       from €14.326 billion (2013 annual report) to €21.533 billion (2015 annual report), p. 127 and 128
 * Operating income	from €2.579 billion (2013 annual report) to €3.404 billion (2015 annual report), p. 127
 * Profit 	       from €1.939 billion (2013 annual report) to €2.335 billion (2015 annual report), p. 128
 * Total assets 	       from €24.560 billion (2013 annual report) to €29.143 billion (2015 annual report), p. 130
 * Total equity 	       from €9.039 billion (2013 annual report) to €10.700 billion (2015 annual report), p. 130
 * Number of employees  from 19,456 (2013 annual report) to 24,481 (2015 annual report), p. 138

Please use https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/annual-report/downloads/en/Porsche_AnnualReport2015.pdf as reference link.

Thank you for taking my request into consideration.

Regards,

Elephantissimus

Elephantissimus (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Updated the numbers and included the provided source. -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk 21:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dane2007, for updating the figures. Do you think it would be helpful to put the provided source in the form "ref name" (see below) after every single figure in order to clarify where the respective information comes from?


 * Like this (Please see source code for correct text):




 * Regards,


 * Elephantissimus

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2017
please add the base prices for models 718 Cayman $ 55,300.00 718 Boxster $ 57,400.00 911 $ 91,100.00 Panamera $ 85,000.00 Macan $ 47,800.00 Cayenne $ 60,600.00 per http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/ Porschefan30093 (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Information would not be encyclopedic, as these change with time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"Consumer model" list
The list of consumer models is a confusing mess, because it mixes model names and Porsche type numbers. Since that separate type number page exists, this list should logically be a list by model name, perhaps with type numbers listed for each model. For instance, there are entries for 911 as a model, plus for at least five of the type numbers of the 911 model (964, 993, 996, 997, 991), but no entry for the Porsche 911 (classic) and only one entry for all types of the Boxster model. brian&#124;bp 04:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian abp (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2017
Change this source link back from:


 * https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704122904575314062459444270.html

To:


 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704122904575314062459444270.html 138.117.98.10 (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —72 talk 00:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017
Error in computation of % increase in number of units delivered in 2013 over 2012. Currently reads 17%, should be 21%. 69.243.101.50 (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. WP:CALC. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2017
in the motorsport section the total number of Le Mans wins needs updating to 19 (as of 18 june 2017) Amoffat20 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Porsche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091101143217/http://www.automotivehalloffame.org/honors/index.php?cmd=view&id=4&type=inductees to http://www.automotivehalloffame.org/honors/index.php?cmd=view&id=4&type=inductees

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2017
In the Relationship with Volkswagen section USA is used and should be changed to comply with MOS:NOTUSA. 96.54.57.109 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Minor edit only. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)