Jump to content

Talk:Automotive industry/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Top vehicle manufacturing groups (by volume)

The table "Top vehicle manufacturing groups (by volume)" is, as per the intro, "ranked by 2010 end of year production figures from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA)." Please refrain from adding data that is not in this source. I have removed entries for Aston Martin and Spyker Cars as I could not find them in the OICA list. Also, I would like to caution against too much editing of the "markets" section. Data in this section is completely unsourced, often wrong, and generally in flux. I think we should remove it. BsBsBs (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange color in By Manufacturer section

There's a light blue color in the By Manufacturer chart that isn't explained in the legend key. It seems to be related to Chinese manufacturers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.173.60 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes in the groups after 2010 data

There are some changes in the groups after 2010, that I would like to include in the article:

- Fiat - Chrysler

- Volkswagen - MAN

- Volkswagen - Porsche

- Renault - AvtoVAZ

83.32.166.226 (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that GM is once again the largest automaker, and VW may have edged past Toyota.--24.16.250.232 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that GM fake the sales figures to be the #1 and not #3 after VW (#1 8.3 millin cars) and Toyota(#2 7.9 million cars). GM is counting 1.2 million cars that has sold in China through a 3-way joint venture – in which it does not have a controlling interest. Source: http://www.wbtv.com/story/16516685/volkswagen-to-beat-gm-toyota-global-sales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.210.149 (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Section on safety needs entirely rewritten

Needs attention from an expert on the subject. The section barely mentions safety at all, rather it spends most of the paragraph talking about plastic. There was also an extremely long sentence fragment about blanking process fabrication, which was so poorly done I couldn't even tell what they were trying to say. I removed that portion but there is still lots of work to be done on this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.68.95 (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Safety issues

There is a new chapter titled "Safety." It's needed, safety issues weigh big in the industry. However, the copy in the chapter is mostly about plastics. The information would be better at home in a "materials" section. BsBsBs (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume

For quite a while, there has been considerable confusion in the table headed "Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume." The table says that it "shows the world's largest motor vehicle manufacturing groups, along with the marques produced by each one." In the table, “Marques” (i.e. brands), divisions, subsidiaries, joint ventures etc. are often confused.

Some examples:

  • Jie Fang (better spelled as Jiefang) is not a joint venture. It is a brand owned and operated by the FAW-GM joint venture
  • Baojun and Wuling are not joint ventures, but brands operated by the SAIC-GM-Wuling joint venture (which is responsible for more than half of the sales of what is commonly known as "GM China." )
  • Also just as a for instance, Buick technically is not a division, but (according to GM) “a modern luxury brand offering vehicles with sculpted designs, luxurious interiors with thoughtful personal technologies, along with responsive-yet-efficient performance.” Cars sold under the Buick BRAND are made and marketed by the Buick GMC DIVISION and, separately, by the Shanghai GM JOINT VENTURE.
  • Opel and Vauxhall are not standalone subsidiaries, but brands of Adam Opel AG, which is a subsidiary of GM
  • Lexus is neither a division nor a subsidiary, it officially is a “unit” operating as Lexus International. This unit has its own corporate officers, and it operates divisions.
  • Lexus F is not a standalone division, it is a sub-brand operated by the Lexus International division.
  • Ranz is not a division, it is a brand operated by the FAW-Toyota JV. (Ranz so far has no car on the market.)
  • Venucia likewise is not a JV, but a brand operated by the Nissan-Dongfeng JV
  • Everus is not a joint venture, it is a brand operated by Guangqi Honda, a JV between Honda and the GAC Group.
  • Denza is borderline. Technically, it is not a JV, but a brand operated by the BYD-Daimler JV, however, it is known as Denza.

All of this only scratches the surface, there probably are more problems, I did this off the top of my head. If the information would be properly sourced, as required by Wikipedia, some of these problems could have been avoided. As companies are in constant flux, the actual facts are hard to track.

The information in the "Markets" column is often dubious. IMHO, tracking the sales activities of international automakers is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, and it would be an exercise in futility.

The table’s sorting by size is outdated; it clashes with the information given in "By Manufacturer" table above. There are some entries where editors obviously had been unable to establish a size position. Rankings are provided by OICA, if a company is not on their list, than it may not qualify as one "the world's largest motor vehicle manufacturing groups" as stated.

Due to the obvious problems of keeping this list up-to-date, and due to the obvious duplication elsewhere in this article, I would not be unhappy if this table is dropped. I am seeking input from other editors. If the desire is to keep the table, then consider suggestions of how to rectify these deficiencies as solicited. I will remove the table if there are no strong voices to keep it and to bring it up to date.BsBsBs (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Safety Section

There have been repeated calls for a total rewrite of the Safety section in the article. No rewrites have been forthcoming. Due to an apparent disinterest, I took the liberty of removing the section.

Safety is an important part of the automotive industry. It is a matter of expensive research, huge progress, and literally a of life and death. The current content that focused solely on plastics was in the wrong place, did not cover or even fit the topic, and frankly, smelled of a SEO exercise.

A proper safety section should be promptly written. BsBsBs (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Strategy analysis

Anyone know where to find a industry anaylsis of the automotive industry? You know, economic information, competitors, market research, etc Thought that would more important than just these numbers. ThanksSevendigits (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oldest in automotive industry

As of 2013, the oldest surviving automotive brands in order are Peugeot, Mercedes-Benz, Tatra, Autocar, Fiat.

I think this list is a big mistake. Three points to say it:

  • And Renault? (Founded 25 February, 1899)
  • Some carmakers begun as different class of companies, then started to manufacture cars and still exists, some of the current list also suffered many transformations.
  • Why stop in the 19th century? There are a lot of key carmakers founded in the first years of the past century, as Ford, which also can be considered betweeen the oldest.

Unless some reliable source can be provided to verify the list, I suggest its deletion as arbitrary. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I relied on piecing together information from the articles by when they started to produce automobiles, since I couldn't find any good or worthy information from a website on the oldest surviving automotive brands, aside from some websites mentioning Mercedes-Benz and Peugeot being the oldest. For Renault being one of the oldest surviving automotive brands, I just forgot to check. Seqqis (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Seqqis. I think is better to keep the list at minimal. I mean, only mantain the two you mention (Peugeot and MB) or even the oldest of them with a source to prove the point. That way, we won't have to worry about where stop the list, avoiding discuss at what point we don't consider a carmaker "oldest" anymore. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I recommend citing sources. There already is way too much unsourced stuff in this article. BsBsBs (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

History stats

Was looking for annual production stats going back to the 1800s. -- Beland (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume - again

Editors: the list “Top vehicle manufacturers by volume” promises that it “is ranked by 2011 end of year production figures” supplied by OICA, but this is not always the case. Apparently in an attempt to reflect post 2011 developments, this list does no longer reflect the OICA list, which is given as the source. Also, there are a bunch of new entries at the bottom that definitely are not on the OICA list.

Single-sourced lists must reflect the source 100%,

Furthermore, I would like to again raise the points made in an earlier comment above. This comment did not get an answer.

As it stands, this list does not reflect the source. The additional information in the list is completely unsourced, and often wrong. In light of this, I would not be unhappy if this particular list goes, especially because the ranking itself is better reflected in the “By manufacturer" list in the same article.

Unless there are strong feelings about this list, along with suggestions for how to address these concerns, then I will go ahead and delete the list.BsBsBs (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I really like this list, so I would recommend just modifying it to fit the source rather than deleting it. II | (t - c) 00:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

By Manufacturer tables

The “By Manufacturer” table is single-sourced on the official OICA production statistics. They get published once a year. Once correct, the table should not need editing. The automotive industry is fluid, it changes daily. This list changes only once per year. Please DO NOT edit this list to adapt it to recent events. If this is done, the list will be wrong, it will not reflect its given source, and it will be exposed to allegations of Original Research.

The table is titled "Rank of manufacturers by production, 2012." However, the recent edits referred to more recent developments. I have restored this list to what I hope is the status of the last published OICA list, as specified in the reference. I have only checked the first column, and done a few additional spot checks. This is senseless work, and it would not be needed if the list would be left alone. Editors, please help patrolling the list.

I appreciate that editors want to draw attention to recent events in the industry, but this table is not the place for it. !BsBsBs (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, someone please check "Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume." The data are unsourced and often wrong. The "Notes" are unsourced, and a mess. Automakers are not operating in certain countries because there are no mutual embassies, but because these countries are embargoed, or for sundry other reasons. In the case of the Iran, the situation is changing as we speak. I recommend leaving it alone, this is a table, and no history lesson. Unless table and notes are brought up to date, I will have to put it out of its misery. BsBsBs (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be sure, I ran the original OICA list through Excel and a Wikitable converter to rule out any errors in the “By Manufacturer” table. It was a lot of work, which I am not eager to repeat. BsBsBs (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the external link to "World Top Ranking Car Companies." That page is hopelessly outdated, and its text reads as if it was written by Google Translate. Once they improve, they can be relisted. BsBsBs (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Not defined

The table sorts by LCV and HCV but no where does it say what those stand for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.178.188 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume - yet again

I had to revert a recent edit to this sub-table, simply because the edit did not comply with the description of the table, which reads:

"The table below shows the world's largest motor vehicle manufacturing groups, along with the marques produced by each one. The table is ranked by 2011 end-of-year production figures from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA)[30] for the parent group, and then alphabetically by marque."

For quite a while, I had serious problems with this table. See here, and then again, see here. This table has fallen in serious disrepair. The problems I raised a year ago are mostly still there. When I recommended to ditch this table, which is largely redundant, some folks said they "really like that list." If you love it, fix it. I won't touch it, I would not know where to start fixing. Well, probably at the fact that the 2011 table is outdated, and that the 2012 table is current.

I move that the table is put out of its misery due to the fact that it is unsourced.BsBsBs (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. Quite honestly, it could be a good overview of world manufacturers, but in fact is plagued with WP:OR and recents developments (as FCA presence) not mentioned in the original source, so I agree with its deletion. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
After having raised this issue repeatedly, after no volunteers came forward to repair this mess of a table, after having received support for a deletion, and after having waited for a while, I finally went ahead and removed this unsourced and often utterly misleading table. If editors elect to revert the deletion, then they automatically inherit the table and must repair it with in-line citations for every entry. BsBsBs (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Gentlemen: The warring over little flags needs to stop. There are worthier issues to get worked up about. If it continues, then I will move that

a.) The list goes back to status quo ante b.) If someone is in love with flag icons, then we will request an in-line citation for every flag, as silly as this may be: This is a single-sourced list. The source has neither countries, nor flags. BsBsBs (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Automotive industry which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.sgs.com/en/Automotive/Electrical-Components/Power-Electronics/Vehicle-PE/Functional-Safety.aspx
    Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Exports

Hi. I don't see any information of exports. As a major industry anywhere in the world, I would have thought that exports woud be an important component.

Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Expand List

I was wondering if it would be good if we expanded the "Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume" list from 10 to 15 since the information already exists in the Spanish page. It would just need a few edits to fit formatting. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AquilaXIII (talk • contribs) 00:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This was dicussed before, but well... The Spanish list is merely a (bad) copy of the previous list used here, before it were trimmed, and has some mistakes. For example, it says the Dacia marque is sold in South America, which is not the case (merely sharing products with its parent company doesn't mean it operates there, as Vauxhall doesn't operate in Germany). Extending the list to 15 is just an invitation to people adding its favourite group, without considering it is probably irrelevant from a volume (not considering things as revenue) perspective. The list focus is volume, and all the major groups relevant under that perspective (volume manufacturers) are listed. Besides, the table simply repeats info and has such questionable things as flags identifying multinational companies. Urbanoc (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Automotive industry. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume - Business unit vs. brand

I have taken the liberty of removing a few entries from the list where brands were mistakenly identified as business units. The linked articles correctly identify them as brands. The joint ventures that operate these brands OTH could be listed as business units, or rather more precisely as joint ventures. I did just a few, please review this list for more. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Corporate relationships

The “Corporate relationships” chapter is flagged as not citing “any sources.” Well, it cites a handful, but the bulk of the information is unsourced. Without the sources, the information is impossible to verify. Off the top of my automotive business journalist head, a lot of the information is plain wrong. - Dongfeng and Nissan do not have a 50-50 JV called Venucia. Venucia is a brand owned and operated by the existing Dongfeng/Nissan JV in China. - Ford/Mazda: Worth checking whether Ford still holds a 3% interest in Mazda. https://auto2014.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/mazdas-ownership-major-shareholders/ lists no Ford interest in 2013, and a 3.5% interest in 2010. - Ford/Aston Martin: I need to check whether Ford still owns a 12.1% share in Aston Martin. Doubtful. - Geely: Lists an unimportant ownership of London Taxi, but omits the very important ownership of Volvo. - Toyota/Daihatsu: Toyota has long converted its prior 51% ownership into full ownership - Renault/Nissan. According to http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/COMPANY/PROFILE/ALLIANCE/RENAULT03/ “Renault holds a 43.4% stake in Nissan,” not 44.3% There probably is a lot more. Sure, it all should be fixed if broken. However: The above very much incomplete spot checks illustrate the importance of sources. Ownerships are continuously shifting. Unless these shifts are constantly monitored, and unless the information is consistently updated, we run the risk of perpetuating false information, even if the information is correct at the time of writing. I would like to open a discussion of what to do with this chapter. BsBsBs (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: As a spot check, I contacted Aston Martin, and inquired about the Ford shares. The answer was that "Ford does not own any part of the company." Aston Martin is a private company, and as such, their shareholders are not readily available in an always updated fashion. For all companies, ownership levels are in constant flux and likely to have changed before cited in WP. I see the following options for this chapter:

    • Removal of all unsourced material, and a note that the remaining entries reflect the status at the time of the source's writing, which may have changed. Material for which sources are added will of course stay.
    • Removal of the whole chapter.

I will remove the false Ford shares, not due to my original research, simply because the claim is unsourced and because no source to back up the claim could be found. BsBsBs (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to clean-up, at the moment the section is just random, outdated and unsourced list (although i think that even unsourced claims were true in some point in past).--Jklamo (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the erroneous entries named above. I have checked on Ford/Mazda. Ford sold the rest of its shares in 2015. Updated Mazda also. There still are a lot of unsourced entries. Editors, please add your sources. Unsourced entries will eventually be removed. The comment below by User:BjörnBergman demonstrates the confusion created by unsourced and stale edits. BsBsBs (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Automotive industry. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Mazda part of Ford?

Is Mazda really a subsidiary of Ford? Then why are their yearly vehicle production listed separately and not together? For example, Hyundai and Kia are listed together, not separately, but why not Ford and Mazda? BjörnBergman 22:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Mazda is not at all a subsidiary of Ford. Ford once held a controlling interest in Mazda. It sold most of it in the wake of the world financial crisis. Well documented at Mazda, except for the fact that Ford sold its remaining 2% in 2015.BsBsBs (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Mazda is Japanese, But in past was Ford was interested , today Ford is busy in other affairs. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

SAIC production and GM production

SAIC production shouldn't be arbitrarly added to GM production, and, if we really follow OICA, GM is the fourth group by production volume already, Hyundai is the third. We can't "fix" the order because either we disagree or we don't like Koreans. The "SG.M.W" listed on the Saic table isn't "SAIC GM", it's another joint venture called "SAIC-GM-Wuling", SAIC-GM production is actually counted in the General Motors table. SAIC is the owner of over 50% of SAIC-GM-Wuling shares, so it's pretty clear that joint venture production should have counted for SAIC from the start, OICA actually fixed a mistake on its counting methods. We can't claim consistency for past reports on a single-source table. Either we follow that single source or we are saying that source is wrong and we shouldn't be using it. If we start to make our own groupings based on personal opinions, ignoring OICA, then we can (for example) claim that Renault-Nissan was actually the third largest in 2016, not GM, not Hyundai. --Urbanoc (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Need a page or link for "domestic automobile"

As far as I can tell there isn't any sort of page, link or redirect for "domestic autombile". I don't even know what page I would link to if I knew how to make one. The closest thing is a stub page on "domestic market". It's hard to explain to a reader what a "domestic automobile" is without any way to link to a page about it. I could try to find some way of squeezing the explanation into the text I'm editing, but that's awkward, and I'd hate to have to repeat it over and over again. And what happens when someone comes to Wikipedia hoping to find out what a "domestic auto" is?

Idumea47b (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Employment statistics

Would it be possible to add some information about how many people are currently employed in the automobile industry to this article.--Markensoft (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

History section is outdated

Its statistics are up to 2012, and need an update. Forich (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Title “automotive Industry” ; proposal to change to “Automotive Manufacturing Industry”

Reading the first paragraph it makes the distinction that this Wikipedia topic excludes everything after the vehicle leaves the factory.

In real terms the automotive industry is the suppliers of parts, the vehicle manufacturers and the service industries once vehicle is sold. As such the UK Charity BEN.org.uk (Ben - Motor and Allied Trades Benevolent Fund) covers anyone who has worked in the motor Manufacturing industry or its allied Trades e.g. vehicle sales or service, parts manufacturers etc.

Therefore this topic would be more appropriately titled “Automotive Manufacturing Industry”.

It would also be appropriate to add a reference/link to the wider “Automotive Industry” I mentioned above, or a paragraph making this distinction clear.

dbridge276 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

——

Some thoughts....

Auto related industries are in GICS under:

  • Consumer Discretionary > Automobiles & Components > Automobiles
  • Consumer Discretionary > Automobiles & Components > Auto Components

And for example:

  • Consumer Discretionary > Retailing > Specialty Retail > Automotive Retail
    • "Includes auto dealers, gas stations, and retailers of auto accessories, motorcycles & parts, automotive glass, and automotive equipment & parts."
  • Consumer Discretionary > Consumer Services > Diversified Consumer Services
    • I believe this includes auto body shops, auto repair shops, and similar.

https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/indexes/gics

Based on that I'm coming up with articles tiles:

  • Automobile Industry
  • Automobile Component Industry (or Automobile Parts Industry)
  • Automobile Retail Industry
  • Automobile Service Industry (I'm making this this one up but it seems appropriate)

For this article I'm leaning toward "Automobile Industry" with "Not to be confused with" linking to "Automobile Components Industry"" at the top of the page.

  • I personally prefer "parts" instead of "components" but I'm going with what GICS uses.
  • "Automobile Components Industry" would need to be created (or I missed it when searching)
    • I believe this is appropriate based on the fact that this page is dedicated to automobile manufacturers and does not include, for example, OEM parts manufacturers.
    • I'd rename or merge Automotive aftermarket with "Automobile Components Industry"

Related: The lead of this article seems incorrect in the first place. It claims "organizations involved in the [...] marketing, and selling" but the reference does not support this.

Ggpur (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

——

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peng.po. Peer reviewers: SophieTallier, Bandit039, Sydneycampbell724, Zestywalrus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Joint Ventures

I have moved a couple of China joint ventures from Outside China JV to their proper place under China joint ventures. That said, there seems to be little reason to separate China JVs from Outside China JVs. Unless consensus emerges to leave as is, I will merge both sections into plain "Joint Ventures." Please note that this chapter is largely unsourced, so removal may be another option if the sourcing situation does not improve. BsBsBs (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Stake holdings

This chapter is largely unsourced, incomplete, and often outdated. As share holdings are subject to fluctuations, it is doubtful that this chapter can be kept current. BAIC for instance holds a nearly 10% share in Daimler, and not 5% as stated. BAIC doubled its Daimler holdings in 2019, and it was disclosed only two years later. [1] FCA doesn’t hold stakes in anything anymore, because FCA is part of Stellantis. Fiat Industrial no longer exists. Geely Holding doesn’t own anything of Daimler, its Chairman Li Shufu, through Tenaciou3 Prospect Investment Limited, holds 9.69% of Mercedes-Benz Group, because that’s how Daimler is called. And the list goes on. This could be a very interesting chapter, if it would be properly sourced, and if it would be continuously updated, which apparently is an unpopular chore. Please discuss. BsBsBs (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/daimler-reveals-chinas-baic-doubled-stake-years-ago

Manufacturer rankings

Sadly, OICA has ceased publishing manufacturer rankings in 2018, and hence, the rankings in the article are heavily outdated. Allow me to suggest to annually create a ranking of the top 10 automotive groups (not brands), based on their annual reports. BsBsBs (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Outdated information

I noticed this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#Top_vehicle_manufacturing_groups_by_volume PSA and FCA are just one giant company now. What you're gonna do with all of this?

20chances (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The ranking is from 2017, many years before PSA and FCA were merged into one Stellantis. That listing properly reflects the status as per 2017. I see that footnotes were added. Please also see my Manufacturer rankings notes below. BsBsBs (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Production by country

I have brought the ranking to 2021 status, based on OICA BsBsBs (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Market capitalization

Market capitalization is subject to severe swings, and a ranking by market cap is outdated a day after it is published. A year-old ranking by market cap is very unhelpful. This is a page about the auto industry, and not about the stock exchange. Please discuss removal of this ranking. BsBsBs (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@BsBsBs: I added it, and I have have no problems if you wish to remove it. You're right in most of your criticism of it, except for your claim that the auto industry and the stock exchange have nothing to do with each other, as most big auto companies (and their suppliers) in the world (except a few state-controlled ones, mostly in China) are for-profit businesses, and a significant percentage of them (almost all) are stock-listed. Both things, the stock and the automotive industry, are closely conected. The other points (highly volatile and changing almost daily) are on point. It was one of the few solutions I came up with (the other being sales rankings) to replace the old OICA ranking for production by manufacturer with up-to-date and easily verifiable rankings. The reason I added it is because people keeps insisting on updating the production by manufacturer by either making their own rankings through original research or using sales numbers and calling it "production" (sales≠production), so I included alternative rankings to dissuade that. The truth is there's no more a somewhat reliable ranking for production. Maybe a sales ranking is enough to cover people's interest in up-to-date rankings. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Not saying that the auto industry and the stock exchange have nothing to do with each other, au contraire. I'm saying that this article has nothing to do with the stock exchange :) I'll start compiling the sales data based on the annual reports. BsBsBs (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Note: The research will take a while. Some (especially JP) OEMs only publish production on a monthly basis, but not global sales. Those are in the annual reports, and because they are on a fiscal basis (April - March) we have to be patient. We need to rank by "sales" aka "deliveries" aka "shipments" because most non-JP OEMs no longer disclose production on a regular basis .... BsBsBs (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I removed the market cap table, thank you for your understanding. BsBsBs (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
No problems from my part with you removing it. As for sales rankings, if you're interested there were various online ones in the past which may reduce the need for gathering data and potentially finding roadblocks, but I don't know if there are many now.This for example, although for this particular one I don't know if the site itself is reliable. I'll let you decide how to proceed as you're doing the hard work, not me. In any case, virtually all carmakers publish sales in some way while not all do the same for production (Americans, for example, don't do it). Thanks for caring about this article. --Urbanoc (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

2017 data

212.100.101.104 and I have a disagreement about how OICA groups companies. Since this disagreement is essentially the same one that we have at Talk:List_of_manufacturers_by_motor_vehicle_production#2006_data_(again), I suggest that we discuss the 2006 data there first instead of duplicating our efforts.  Stepho  talk  04:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Automotive_industry/Archive_6&oldid=1255171231"