Talk:Volvo

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylorverboven.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Volvo Brand Section
Is it just me or does it seem that they way that the whole section is written sounds like a total advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.68.199 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I thought so too. -- oKto  siTe  talk  19:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Volvo inventions timeline.
I have removed the claim that Volvo was the first to introduce rear seat belts in 1967. While Volvo may have been the first to bring this to the market, the year is definitely wrong. Other manufacturers such as Chrysler built cars with rear seat belts prior to 1967. Perhaps someone who knows more about Volvos can come up with the correct year for rear seatbelts and verify whether Volvo installed them first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattCramer (talk • contribs) 12:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________



"Nils Bohlin of Sweden invented a particular kind of three point seat belt for Volvo, who introduced it in 1959 as standard equipment. Bohlin was granted U.S. Patent 3,043,625 for the device." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.61.142 (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "invented"
While I commend Volvo for being among the first to adopt new safety features, I do not think the use of the word "invented" is appropriate. "Implemented" or "adopted" would suffice, and it wouldn't give Volvo more credit than it is due. While I am not familiar with the inventors of every feature in the list, I do know, according to other Wikipedia articles, that the Anti-lock braking system and airbag were not "invented" by Volvo. This section needs some attribution and cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimaera2005 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the freedom to change that highly idiotic sentence. Now the only problem is to sort out the security features that Volvo "really" did invent and mark them, or copy them another list. //Taz0k 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * as to Volvo history timeline Volvo in 1959 pioneered the three-point seat belt that became standard equipment in all their passenger cars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starupryden (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

So, I was wondering why the Volvo logo is a male sign? Osillaj 05:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is also the symbol for iron. // Liftarn

Possible copyright violation
The introduction is a lightly edited copy of http://www.volvo.com/group/global/en-gb/Volvo+Group/worldwide/ - and other parts of the article are suspiciously like marketing, with talk of how the logo is identified with corporate values and things like that, but I can't find direct copies of those phrases in Google. --Closeapple 21:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some wanker was paid to write this article or something...somebody add some controversies or something. 71.68.17.30 18:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing; it's been written out ages ago. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 23:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Markus Brier 450px.jpg
The image Image:Markus Brier 450px.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

sale of volvo
Volvo, which is bigger and healthier than its Swedish rival, may be sold to Geely, China’s biggest privately owned carmaker. is from the ECONOMIST.

so i believe this should be in then article and then some — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermintschnapps (talk • contribs) 23:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Once the sale is confirmed, yes. Not yet. Rd232 talk 10:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Volvo V60
Volvo V60 - anyone want to clean up or merge this new article? Rd232 talk 10:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I think Volvo AB should redirect here and not to Vulva. I don't know enough about wikipedia to change this myself, so I just point it out here. Gr8tmir (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Merger proposal
I propose that Ingersoll-Rand ABG be merged into Volvo. I think that the content in the Ingersoll-Rand ABG article can easily be explained in the context of Volvo, and the BarVolvo article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Ingersoll-Rand ABG will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would fit better in Volvo Construction Equipment. 81.164.106.236 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

THE BRITISH CONNECTION?
Could someone investigate the fact that until long after WW2 all Volvo parts including the engine ,were actually made in Britain at British car plants? Sweden did not have the presses etc to make car parts etc.The cars were designed and assembled in Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.38.208 (talk) 2012-07-09 The only British connection that I am aware of is that Gustaf Larsson (co-founder) spent some time at British car manufacturer(s) in his formative years and (it is said) brought some of that engineering perspective to the Volvo brand. The early P1800 bodies were built in Britain (Scotland actually) and shipped to Sweden because Volvo did not have the production capacity to integrate this model into their regular production line and the production volumes were so low it did not make business sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.24.60 (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Volvo
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Volvo's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AR2011": From Electrolux:  From Nokia:  From Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken:  From Ericsson:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Exploding Volvos
'In early models, Volvos have also been know to explode due to the engine being to close to the gas tank and igniting the tank. This myth was very popular during the 1940's.' - I have spent some time searching on the internet for something more about this, but can't find any references whatsoever. For what it's worth, my conclusion is that this sentence is spurious.


 * It also doesn't make any sense. "Have been known" <=> "This myth": Now is it a myth or did it really happen? Should definitely be taken out unless someone finds references. 188.100.144.230 (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And yet, here I am some 16 months after this sentence "should definitely be taken out" readin the sentence in the article. It's gone now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasley one (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Accidents:
Though Volvo guarantees about the safety standards it has setup in all the buses,45 people were burnt(Hyderabad-Bangalore Highway,India) alive after the emergency response systems and emergency exit failed.Still,volvo was not ready to accept the fault.

122.178.211.233 (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Inclusion will need to be based on sources for (a) the incident itself; (b) where the fault lies; (c) how the fault arose; and (d) any comment that Volvo (and/or other potentially involved parties) have made on the record. We can't include statements about things like this unless they are supported by reliable sources. --Stfg (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide?
How's the word pronounced? Thanks. 24.215.188.243 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Swedish Company
It has been sold to the Chinese company Geely, it is then a Chinese company and not Swedish anymore, or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:51:4b58:18cd:d4d:1c15:5196:fc64 (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. This Volvo wasn't sold to Geely. The company owned by Geely is Volvo Cars, a former Volvo's division which was divested in 1999. Volvo Cars it's similar in a certain way to Volvo-owned Renault Trucks, being it a former Renault's subsidiary. Besides, Volvo Cars, although owned by a Chinese corporation, continues being a Swedish company, because its registered office and headquarters are still in Sweden. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Owned by Geely
Volvo is now owned by Geely of China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.52.13.15 (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliable source? - BilCat (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

disruptive edits
I've had a word with the apparently "official" editor. I've watched the page, but if the disruption resumes, please let me know.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Volvo. 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/20070729195627/http://www.nedcar.nl/content/view/19/34/lang,en/ to http://www.nedcar.nl/content/view/19/34/lang,en/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316204702/http://www3.volvo.com/investors/finrep/eng/html/thevolvobrandname/ingress.html to http://www3.volvo.com/investors/finrep/eng/html/thevolvobrandname/ingress.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717231302/http://www3.volvo.com/investors/finrep/eng/index.html to http://www3.volvo.com/investors/finrep/eng/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ownership
I won't immediately accuse people of being Geely sock puppets, but listing them as "Owner", even when including the very small percentage of their share ownership is flaky at best. Reverting my removal of said misleading information not once but twice is extremely dubious.

The only thing that comes even close to a coherent argument supporting that appears to be "If company law requires significant shareholdings to be disclosed in annual company reports (and it does), then (even) wiser folks than we think it matters.)". First of all, I'd prefer it if people speak for themselves when calling other people wiser. I, for one, do not consider many people wiser than me and would certainly never make such a claim about anonymous people I know next to nothing about. Perhaps more importantly it is also totally irrelevant, because company law doesn't prescribe what should and should not be listed on Wikipedia and in what form. Furthermore, the argument fails to be self-consistent. We cannot obtain our information from the 2017 annual report yet because it has yet to be released, but I believe this is the next best thing:

http://www.volvogroup.com/en-en/investors/the-volvo-share/largest-owners.html

As you can see, Geely is not listed here. I believe they will be listed as part of the next quarterly update, essentially replacing Cevian as largest shareholder (at least economically - as far as I can tell they are not even the biggest shareholder in terms of voting rights). Apparently AB Volvo is not in any hurry to list Geely here. Why, then, are some Wikipedia editors in such a hurry to add them to this article's Owner section? Cevian wasn't listed. None of the other shareholders are listed. Nobody provided a rationale for having the Owner section consist of Geely, and Geely only.

In my opinion the Owner section should list the only shareholder of a corporation if there is one. If there is no single shareholder, but there is a majority shareholder, then listing said majority shareholder (and the percentage of their ownership) is defensible. In case of joint ventures, it makes sense to list the various owners and the percentages of their ownerships if they are not equal. An even more degenerate case is listing several major shareholders along with the percentages of their ownerships, preferably along with a best-effort enumeration of the other groups of shareholders. This is not really ideal and frankly I think the section should be renamed from "Owner" to "Shareholders" in those situations, but at least one can come up with some kind of coherent reasoning to defend this scenario.

None of this applies to Geely's shareholding in Volvo, however. They aren't really extraordinary in any way. By one metric they are the largest shareholder, but someone has to be biggest and the percentage of their ownership isn't particularly large. They are just primus inter pares, nothing more. Therefore, the way they are listed now, as the sole shareholder listed in the Owner section, is indefensible. The Owner section should either be removed completely (which is what I prefer), or be filled with all shareholders that meet a certain objective criterion. If the latter option is chosen, ideally both economic ownership and voting rights should be included for all listed shareholders.

84.105.175.225 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There's something fishy here, but I'm not sure if it's about promoting Geely, especially pointing out Chinese influence or questioning the "Swedish-ness" of Volvo's brand. There's been something like this at Volvo Cars where someone insists that it's a Chinese company.
 * Anyway, I think that 84.105.175.225 makes a compelling argument for not including Geely (or not only Geely) in the infobox. Especially, the argument about Cevian having held on to the shares for years and it only becomes an issue when Geely buys them. Also, those who argue about what company law requires should know that the good accounting practice (in Sweden) requires mentioning owners with more than 10 % of capital or votes, which means that it's an argument against including only Geely.Sjö (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The Scalable Product Architecture
The all new SPA platform is created after VOLVO has become part of the Geely Corporation. It fits various of new techniques such as hybrid system and new form of rear suspension on Volvo's new products. Due to the SPA platform, Volvo enabled the advanced technologies on its new products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.249.112.72 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's your point, the SPA has nothing to do with this Volvo but Volvo Cars which was spun off from this company a long time ago and it's indeed (at present) a consolidated Geely subsidiary. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Article expansion proposal
I'll let these proposed changes to the article for a few days, if anyone wants to make proposals/objections:

I plan to create a new section ("Corporate") and convert others (as "Business") into subsections.

The next bit is to be added to "Business":

"According to the company, in 2021 almost two thirds (62%) of its revenue came from trucks and services related to them. Second came construction equipment (25%), and the rest was from buses, marine engines, and minor operations, each of them below 5%."

To be added to "History":

"In the 1970s, Volvo started to move away from car manufacturing to concentrate more on heavy commercial vehicles. The car division focused on models aimed at upper middle-class buyers to improve its profitability.

Between 1978 and 1981, Volvo acquired Beijerinvest, a trading company involved in the oil, food, and finance businesses. In 1981, those sectors represented about three quarters of the company revenue, while the automotive sector amounted for most of the rest.

In the 1990s, Volvo also divested from most of its activities outside vehicles and engines."

To be added to "Production facilities" ( a new "Corporate" subsection):

"Volvo has various production facilities., it has plants in 19 countries, with other 10 countries having independent assemblers of Volvo products. The company also has product development, distribution, and logistics centers. Its first plant for vehicle assembly, on the Hisingen island, was owned by SKF until it was made part of the Volvo company in 1930. That year, Volvo acquired its supplier of engines in Skövde (Pentavarken). In 1954, Volvo built a new truck assembly plant in Gothenburg and, in 1959– 1964, a car assembly plant in Torslanda. The first trully branched away plant of Volvo was the Floby gearbox plant (100 kilometers to the northeast from Gothenburg), incorporated in 1958. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Volvo and its assembly partners opened plants in Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Australia. In the early part of that period Volvo also started to venture into vehicles other that passenger cars and road-going commercial vehicles by acquiring the Eskilstuna plant (Bolinder-Munktell). From the 1970s onwards, Volvo set up various facilities (Bengtsfors, Lindesberg, Vara, Tanumshede, Färgelanda, Borås ), most of them on a 150 kilometer radius of Gothenburg, and gradually acquired the Dutch DAF car plants. It also established its first South American plant in Curitiba, Brazil.

From the mid-1970s onwards, Volvo began building assembly plants with smaller assembly lines, more worker-centric and with better use of automation, leaving Fordism. These were Kalmar (car assembly, built in 1974), Tuve (truck assembly, 1982) and Uddevalla (car assembly, 1989). Kalmar and Uddevalla were closed down in the early 1990s, following yearly loses. The Tuve plant (called the LB plant) replaced the Gothenburg plant (X plant) for truck assembly through the 1980s, as the former could produce more technologically complex models. In 1982, Volvo got its first plant in the United States, the New River Valley plant in Dublin, Virginia, after acquiring the assets of the White Motor Corporation. Starting in the late 1980s, Volvo expanded its limited bus production capabilities through acquisitions in various countries (Swedish Saffle Karroseri, Dutch Aabenraa, German Drögmöller Karroserien, Canadian Prévost Car, Finnish Carrus, American Nova Bus, Mexican Mexicana de Autobuses). In the late 1990s, after a short-lived joint venture with Polish manufacturer Jelcz, Volvo built its main bus production hub for Europe in Wroclaw. In the 1990s, Volvo also increased its construction equipment assets by acquiring the Swedish company Åkerman and the construction equipment division of Samsung Heavy Industries. In 1998, the company opened an assembly facility for its three main heavy product lines (trucks, construction equipment, and buses) near Bangalore, India.

Volvo sold all its car manufacturing assets in 1999.

Following the acquisition of Renault Véhicules Industriels and Nissan Diesel in the 2000s, Volvo gained various production facilities in Europe, North America, and Asia."

Urbanoc (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This weekend, I plan to introduce a version of the above (with minor tweaks) into the article. You can still revert me, but please explain your reasoning here when doing so. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work on the expansion! TylerBurden (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Financial Data on Infobox
Refer to latest revert of my edit, whereas disagree to my edit to put all reference on footnotes paramater and his argument is The references do not even show up in the attached note, nor are they anywhere in the body. I don't think this is helpful for readers.

The rationale of my edit are as follows:
 * 1) Generally reference is not required on the infobox per WP:INFOBOXREF, however when the reference is required, we should refer to how the infobox is designed in the first place, in case of this article it's Template:Infobox company.
 * 2) Template:Infobox company (documentation on footnotes) explicitly says Use to list citations that validate the data in the infobox or to note information about the terms, names, and figures used. Hence all citation on the infobox should be place on footnotes parameter.
 * 3) The exactly same practice can be found on all other company article that uses Template:Infobox company, such as Alphabet Inc., Toyota, Tesla, Inc., Amazon (company) and many more.
 * 4) Lastly, Template:Infobox company also support "year" of the financial data, for example assets_year parameter will put the year of assets data and there will be no need to put "(2022)" on assets parameter.

Therefore, IMO, there is no reason to put multiple same reference on the infobox the way as it is right now. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ckfasdf I am not aware of any policy that templates need to be followed to the letter, other articles may have revenues listed in the body as well, in which case there would not be a need for them in them in the infobox itself per the first guideline you linked. The problem is that here it is not, and therefore by removing them you are making it more difficult for readers to WP:VERIFY the content than it should be. The whole point of inline citations is to make it easy for readers to verify information, removing them means readers need to scroll down and manually find the references themselves. TylerBurden (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it's true some of other article may have "revenue" in the body of article, but none of them have complete with financial data (income, assets, equity, etc) inside the article and it is common practice in article about company to put current financial data in the infobox with reference listed in the infobox. Secondly, reference for financial data usually are annual report of the company (and that's the case for this article) and all annual report is not only consist of financial data. Most of the time, annual report can also serve as reference for almost all parameter in the Template:Infobox company, hence no need to put needlessly to put multiple reference. It also still fulfil WP:VERIFY.
 * Also per WP:CITEDENSE Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule and Everything in that paragraph deals with the same, single subject from the same source and can therefore be supported by a single inline citation, I believe that guideline can applied to infobox as well, esp. financial data since they are all have same source.Ckfasdf (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please address the last part of my reply here? How are readers going to easily verify the information if you remove its inline citations from the infobox (given that they are nowhere else to be found in the article)? TylerBurden (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reference is still in the Infobox, specifically in footnotes parameter as suggested by Template:Infobox company documentation. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify,the footnote parameter is NOT used on all other company articles that use the infobox. I have seen it both ways, despite what the template guidelines say. I have also done it both ways depending on what has been easier at the time; and, have never seen this brought up in any discussion in my nine years of editing. If we follow the guidelines outlined for the infobox, the references belong in the footnotes. Like I said, this is my first time seeing an objection to them being in the footnotes. I would reject the claim that it makes it "more difficult for readers to WP:VERIFY," however. Being "more" difficult to find the footnote does not mean it is more difficult to verify. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's true that footnotes parameter is currently NOT used on all other company articles yet. It's just that per documentation in guidelines, as you said, the references belong in the footnote. That's why I actively change those articles to conform to the Template:Infobox company. And there were some objections from other editor, but usually they can accept those changes when I pointed out on documentation in guidelines. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ckfasdf Okay thank you, I didn't see it at the very bottom of the infobox. But there are still other references in the infobox, so why only move the revenue ones? Either they should all be moved into the footnotes or just be displayed as they are. TylerBurden (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes... Every citation on infobox will be moved per Template:Infobox company. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks nice and consistent now, thank you for the civil resolution. TylerBurden (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Urbanoc The discussion was on whether to move all the references in the infobox to the footnotes at the bottom, so your edit is all good since that's what was ultimately agreed upon. :) TylerBurden (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. If that was it, I guess my edit is fine. I was afraid of missing a point as I lost all the debate and the reference had removed for a reason. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)