Jump to content

Talk:Toyota/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Spring Cleaning

I am patrolling major OEMs for a need of Spring Cleaning. The article looks pretty good AFAIC, but needs a little work. Some of the issues have been mentioned above and have been pending for a year.

As for the Recall issue mentioned above by Bjenks and  Stepho : It really sticks out that this article has Recalls prominently listed as a chapter of the same weight as Finacial Results, and before History, products etc. IMO, that is giving the matter undue weight. I checked some other major OEMs for a complete "Recall" chapter, and this is what I found:


Company Recall Chapter
Toyota yes, prominent
Nissan yes (under current developments)
Honda none
Hyundai none
Volkswagen none
Ford none
GM none

As we know, other car companies also have their share of recalls. This makes it look as if they don't. I think, listing every recall of every company is not what an encyclopedia should do. If we list recalls at all, they belong in a possible "Controversies" chapter that should, in Toyota's case, touch on the UA saga, which should be mentioned as a part of Toyota's history. Also, Japanese automakers should have a short chapter on the impact of the tsunami, the Thai flood, the Yen, and possibly the China riots. Thoughts? BsBsBs (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Such a focus on the recalls really feels like old news by now.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the idea but don't have much time to do it myself. The recalls section can be blown away entirely with a short mention added to History of Toyota instead (with a link to 2009–2010 Toyota vehicle recalls from the history article). Likewise, the tsunami would go in the history article - in 10 years time it will not be thought of as a significant, company changing event (in-spite of the tragedy for those involved).  Stepho  talk  22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I started the belated Spring cleaning and made the edits as discussed above. I moved the recalls to history, with a pointer to the main (and lengthy) recall article. As Nissan would be the lone major maker with a recall chapter, I guess I get rid of that there also.
I agree that the tsunami may not be thought as significant in 10 years, however the tsunami and floods were the most significant item in Toyota's 2011 history, and IMO were more important than the lack of Sirius radios in 2004. Come to think of it, I'll remove that.BsBsBs (talk)

Comment about production and sales data

I have done a little updating of current financial and production data. When editing production and sales data of TMC, please be aware of an oddity that is a source of confusion, and that causes even very respectable (and allegedly reliable) sources to publish wrong data.

In its financial (quarterly, annual etc.) results, TMC reports data on a consolidated basis, i.e. incl Daihatsu and Hino, but excluding joint ventures. Joint ventures are recognized under the equity method. This causes very precise Toyota to NOT recognize sales and production of Chinese joint ventures in their FINANCIAL data. Toyota assumes that journalists know this, this assumption often proves wrong.

Correct GLOBAL sales and production data can be found in TMC's monthly reports. Here is the one for calendar 2012: http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/news/13/01/0128.html

Usually known, but worth mentioning: TMC is on a fiscal year from April to March. Financial data, also for sales and production, refers to the Fiscal Year period, the monthly reports refer to calendar year.

Because this tends to occasionally throw off even most established wire services such as Bloomberg, Dow Jones etc., I recommend to rely only on the proper publications by TMC. BsBsBs (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Japanese-language citation

The sole citation in the "Marketing" > "Japan" section is written in Japanese, so I am inserting a sectional template, as there are no other citations in the section. If non-English citations are acceptable, please let me know with an explanation. Thank you.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOENG says that English references are preferred but non-English references can be used if English references are not available. The section could certainly use more references but deleting the one it had wasn't useful. Another user and myself have some plans to move and expand that section to an article of its own - with proper references from both English and Japanese sources.  Stepho  talk  06:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that translate.google.com and many other translation sites easily translate Japanese websites into awful but (mostly) understandable English.  Stepho  talk  06:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi protection?

Should the current rash of vandalism continue, then I recommend semi-protection of the article. It would allow only registered users to edit the articles, and would lock out IPs.BsBsBs (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Australia

To head off a possible edit war, I added a more concise chapter on the Australian plant closure.BsBsBs (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I agree.  Stepho  talk  13:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
New way much better, kaizen in action! Duomo! BsBsBs (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

>> Toyota Recalls More Than 6 Million Vehicles WorldwideLihaas (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Current new News

Headline-1: Toyota Moving U.S. Sales HQ to Texas from California

QUOTE: "http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/04/28/toyota-to-move-us-sales-hq-to-texas-from-california/" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Toyota Department of Fan Operations

Can someone help link to or AfD this orphaned page? Gbawden (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Toyota's highest volume as of August ....

I have removed "As of August 2014, Toyota's highest volume of sales has been in the USA, followed by Japan, China, Indonesia and Thailand..." This was done for various reasons:

BsBsBs (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I contribute the article with aim to describe the most Toyota countries sales. Toyota is means all the subsidiaries, including Daihatsu and so on if any. Sales of USA and Japan maybe different by a small amount, so it is difficult to say which one is the most, so I think is better to wait until end of 2014 to see the truth, but position of China, Indonesia and Thailand are predicted fix, because the differents among them are significant. Thank you so much for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I have been reverting vandalsim on this wikipedia article quite often. I believe that the time has come, unfortunatley, to add semi-protection to this article. I would like to ask any adminstrators who happen by to semi-protect this page. I hope this will allow for a better user experience in the Wikipedia name. Thank you in advance,
STJMLCC (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Image for Toyota image

Hi,

I would like to add a image on worldwide presence because it would be nice to include the Toyota Camry into the article. I would be thinking that adding an image to the article will make readers have a clear view of where the Toyota Camry looks like and where it would be made. - 60.224.249.55 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't somebody looking for a picture of the Camry look on the Toyota Camry page? The Camry is only one of many cars made by Toyota. I wouldn't go to extra effort to either add or remove a Camry photo.  Stepho  talk  23:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive mystery

I can only see one page of archive which covers to August 2006 only. Is it true there's no discussion between August 2006 to December 2013? Regards,---Now wiki (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive 2 wasn't named according to standard. Fixed now. Boivie (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Why is there such a standard to block access to archive material?---Now wiki (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There isn't a standard to block access to the archives. Someone just made a mistake (missed a space in the title of the archive). Nothing to get all worried about. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Toyota Caserta

Has anybody heard of the Toyota Caserta from the year 2000? I've never heard of it before and information on the web seems lacking. From http://onlytruecars.com/photo/md/toyota-caserta/01/default.htm I would guess that it's an MR2 with a body kit and maybe tuning by Modi. From http://www.ebay.com/itm/Toyota-CASERTA-Diecast-Model-Toy-Car-Dress-Up-Car-Lawson-Promo-/261879652849 I would guess it's an MR2 with a body kit and maybe tuning by Toyota's Modellista department. There are also hints that it is a concept car. Anybody got any real info instead of my wild guesses?  Stepho  talk  01:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it was only an Italian model? I found this page. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Size

Apparently Volkswagen has overtaken Toyota as the largest car seller. "Volkswagen overtook Toyota as the world's largest carmaker by sales in the first half, achieving its long-held ambition three years ahead of target." http://www.businessinsider.com/r-vw-overtakes-toyota-as-worlds-biggest-carmaker--2015-7 Rune X2 (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem we have with most of these rankings is that not everybody counts the same things. Some count pickup trucks as cars, some don't. Some count all vans/wagons, some don't count vans/wagon sold as commercial vehicles. Some count subsidiaries and investments as major shareholders, some don't (i.e. Toyota+Lexus+Hino+Diahatsu vs Audi+VW+Porsche). Some count complete cars only and some count complete or semi knock down kits. The only way to put this on an even playing field is to use the same source for all the figures. We have settled on using OICA. So now we have to wait for OICA to publish it's 2015 results (usually in August of the following year).  Stepho  talk  04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Unintended acceleration

I know that there was some really big news a couple of years ago about a huge cover-up by Toyota. I think it was the unintended acceleration problem. There were deaths caused by the problem, correct? Toyota of course wants to cover it up but it is an important part of their history. An unbiased history of the company should include more about the problem and the cover-up. I came to this article for the purpose of the details. Sam Tomato (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the article. It has a brief mention at Toyota#Recalls (found by searching the article for the word 'unintended'), which points to a much larger and fuller explanation at 2009–11 Toyota vehicle recalls.  Stepho  talk  01:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I wrote an extensive article about this for Newsvine after lots of Research; the first problem was the Requirement of Toyota U.S.A. to use a large percentage of Made In U.S.A. Parts; the U.S. Corporation (The CTS Corporation, the Indiana-based automotive supplier that makes the gas-pedal assembly) that manufactured the defective parts (not waterproof, brakes and accelerator pedal electronics) also supplied these parts to General Motors (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Recall, the Original NHTSA Recall Included the General Motors (Buick) Vehicles as the Toyota Recall), Chrysler, Honda U.S.A. and Ford. The Made In Japan DENSO Brand brake and accelerator pedals were not Recalled, as manufactured to Toyota Specifications as waterproof (no corrosion and shortcircuiting of electronic components, variable resistors, switches); "NHTSA-NASA Study of Unintended Acceleration in Toyota Vehicles" http://www.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press-Releases/NHTSA–NASA-Study-of-Unintended-Acceleration-in-Toyota-Vehicles (READ ALL THE REPORTS).
The reason that Toyota U.S.A. had to accept the Made In U.S.A. CTS Corporation Brake and Accelerator Pedals was to by U.S. Laws keep the Toyota Made In U.S.A.. The fix to the Toyota (and GM) Unintended Acceleration was to replace the CTS Corporation Accelerator Pedal Assemblies (and attached Electronics) with the Made In Japan DENSO Brand Accelerator Pedal Assemblies.
Based on the NASA Investigations and Reports is why I don't "Like" vehicles with multiple computers (that also can be hacked, driver loses control), electronic power steering assistance, electronic brakes, electronic accelerator, etc. as the old mechcanical linkage or cables, hydralic power steering, hydralic power brakes were more reliable as not susceptable to Solar Flares, Electro Magnetic Pulses, Electro Magnetic Radiation (including Electro Magnetic Radiation given off by High Tension Power Lines and even Cellular Telephone Stations), etc.. Nakamuradavid (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
As stated above, unintended accelerations are dealt with at 2009–11 Toyota vehicle recalls. It would be much better to talk about it on that article's talk page. When you talk about it there, it would be useful if you provide a link to the Newsvine article you wrote. Also be aware that Wikipedia only reports on the facts - it is not our job to lay blame, to judge or to recommend actions.  Stepho  talk  23:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

History during and just after WWII

Wikipedia may report only on the facts – but some articles give attention to some facts more than others. Where, for instance, is any mention whatsoever of Toyota's crucial contribution to Japan's imperial war effort during the "Pacific War" or as many of us know it, World War II? Toyota's factories were saved from scheduled bomber raids only by the abrupt termination of the war. However, the war is completely left out of both the 1930s and 1940s-50s sections (the latter of which begins with 1947).

At a minimum, it seems clear that significant numbers of Toyoda/Toyota trucks and buses were provided for the Empire's invasion & occupation of much of Asia & the Pacific. With such essential information having been omitted for so long, I find it very hard not to see this article as the carefully guarded puff piece of some party seeking to present the company in only a favorable light (present company excepted, of course).  Stepho   , you seem to be a bona fide expert on Toyota history. Would you be able to volunteer some information on this subject? Many thanks in advance, if you could.

--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

KC airplane starter truck, minus the starting equipment
No problem including that information. Although remember that Toyota was supporting its country in the same way that Ford, GM and other American companies supported America in WWII. Also remember that when Japan was occupied by the US after WWII, Toyota supplied vehicles to the US armed forces to be used in other conflicts around Asia. In fact, producing these vehicles probably kept Toyota alive at that time.
Toyota's own history for that time is very scant and the few bits on it are very dry bits about the actual vehicles themselves - and even then only talks about general trucks, not about specified uses of specialised armed forces versions like the airplane starter truck based on the Toyota KC truck (http://www.hasegawausa.com/product-pages/hsgs1817.html) or the Toyota KCY amphibious truck (similar to the US Army DUKW). This is understandable - it's not wise to boast of how you supported your major market's enemy. Luckily Eiji Toyota's autobiography 'Fifty Years in Motion' provides quite a bit of info on this period that is not covered much in other sources. He mentions that after WWII he saw US aerial photos of the Toyota plants marked up for a planned bombing run that was only avoided by Japan surrendering.
I don't have the time to do this myself in the next month or two but I do support your desire to include that period. My plan to was to fill History of Toyota with many details like this but over time I forgot about it :(  Stepho  talk  01:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Toyota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Toyota "Glorious"

http://www.businessinsider.com/toyota-ft-1-concept-car-detroit-2014-1?IR=T --93.38.65.148 (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to say. Large automotive companies often put an attention grabbing concept car on display to bring eyeballs in - and then divert them to the actual models they can buy. Standard, well-known, industry technique.  Stepho  talk  03:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Logo use

Toyota logo

The Toyota logo is the TOYOTA wordmark ([1] | [2]) without any version of oval.

The oval only used by car dealerships as below:

  • Red version in the past: [3]
  • Metallic version currently: [4]

Based on this the wordmark is the most accurate for the infobox. --IM-yb (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Both are logos, so trying to say otherwise is splitting hairs. The oval logo is not only used by dealers, either. It is found on other material put out by Toyota, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
When I look at http://toyota.jp/ I see a silver metallic oval logo with a red "TOYOTA" next to it. Same for www.toyota.com except it has a silver "Let's Go Places" under the "TOYOTA". www.toyota.com.au and www.toyota.co.uk have the silver oval log with a red "TOYOTA" under it. Toyota seem quite happy to use the oval logo whenever possible.  Stepho  talk  02:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The company presents only the wordmark ([5] | [6]). The oval is for other use. --IM-yb (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You have shown that they sometimes use the wordmark by itself and I have shown that they sometimes use the oval and wordmark together. To me that seems like both ways are perfectly acceptable to Toyota. Unless you can find some text somewhere that states explicitly when and where they are allowed or disallowed.  Stepho  talk  06:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The way I understand the situation, the silver logo together with red TOYOTA denotes the Toyota brand, whereas the red wordmark alone denotes the Toyota Group. This is a common source of confusion, also at companies that are in a similar situation, such as Nissan, or Volkswagen. If there is more interest in this topic, I can ask. BsBsBs (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I did ask today. Two Toyota spokespersons told me that indeed, the red TOYOTA wordmark stands for the Toyota Group, whereas the silvery thing (which they called "the bird") together with the wordmark stands for the Toyota brand, as opposed to Daihatsu, Hino, Lexus etc. They doubted that their corporate identity guidelines are published for the public, but they promised to look. As this article is about the Toyota Group, the red wordmark would be the one to pick. The picture above shows Akio Toyoda at a Toyota GROUP press conference. I took the picture. BsBsBs (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Financial results / global ranking

I have put the global ranking reports into a more encyclopedic format and gave a little context. The last sentence will have to be changed later in the year when OICA 2016 is out. I have taken the liberty of removing very outdated references to in today's view arbitrary financial data. If each year's financial data should be noted, then a consistent list probably would be better.

Rankings

The ranking of Toyota and GM is being discussed at Talk:General_Motors#World.27s_largest_time_frame. Please add comment to that discussion, not here. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Toyota. 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) 12:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Finance

I'm a bit worried about the new Finance section.

  1. The 2018 figure of US$ 264 billion doesn't match the figure of US$ 261 billion given in the top infobox.
  2. Which financial year is it? July-June? April-March? January-December?
  3. Are the US$ figures for each year converted from Yen at the current exchange rate (october 2018), the July 2018 exchange rate or the exchange rate for each of the years (2005-2018)?
  4. Is Macrotrends a reliable site? They don't say where they get their data from.
  5. Never use "USD$" because "D and "$" both stand for "dollar", giving "United States Dollar dollar".

Thoughts?  Stepho  talk  22:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional source

From Look Japan https://web.archive.org/web/20020201202600/http://lookjapan.com/LBecobiz/02JanCOM.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"Yoshio Ishizaka" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yoshio Ishizaka. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

Large sections of the "environmental record" section make claims that I believe constitute a non neutral point of view.

The opening paragraph is completely unsourced. "Toyota has been a leader in environmentally friendly vehicle technologies[citation needed], most notably the RAV4 EV (produced from 1997 to 2003, then 2012 to 2014) and the Toyota Prius (1997 to present)."

I propose unsourced claims partisan to Toyota be deleted until they can be justified by citation.

--103.42.218.180 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Red square (US only?)
Grey 3D
Red SVG


Can we decide which logo we are going to use. The monthly swapping back and forth is making me dizzy.  Stepho  talk  — Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Toyota 89CV" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Toyota 89CV. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Toyota 89CV until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the hyperlink on the 'Death from overwork' sub-heading should be removed as in my opinion it looks strange to have a hyperlink on a sub-heading. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. But the link should still be in the section somewhere.  Stepho  talk  22:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Organization and Corporate History Issues

In the "History" section of this article, there seems to be an inconsistent approach to covering the introduction of new models of vehicles. Maybe the history of new model launches should be handled as a separate section.

Likewise, in a section called "Logos and Branding", around 2014 there seems to have been a strong desire to tie the model names (which are arguably not "brand" names) to dealership policy. There is not much to discuss about the company logo, if what you mean by "logo" is the corporate emblem. In you mean the badges on the vehicles, then that is another matter. If you mean names of vehicle series, such as "Corolla" then I think you need to say that clearly, to guide future contributors.

Another problem in the article is its ambivalence about using Japanese language throughout the entire article. I read Japanese. How about you? (Wikipedia has no ban on citing foreign language material, if it is reliable. Do you consider Toyota's own web site, with its extensive history of the company and products, to be reliable? If you do, then you should let me add some of it to the current article, especially in the section that attempts to discuss marketing, product names and showroom names in Japan.)

As of today, 8 November 2020, the article remains lopsided, with relatively weak coverage of both products and business history before about 1970. Nothing on World War Two production. Why not?

KabochaKabocha (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

We aim for a balance of providing information but providing it in a form that readers can digest. If we pack too much information into one article then it becomes unreadable to a large proportion of our audience. So, we try to make this article more of a summary article that touches only the main points. Further details are split into other articles that we link to from here. Articles such as History of Toyota and List of Toyota vehicles. Much of what is in the history section here would be better in History of Toyota. The introduction of significant models would also go well there. We need to consider how the reader will digest this article, rather than how much we want to squeeze in.
Since Japan lost WWII, they are not keen to mention anything about it. Practically all Japanese companies gloss over that part of their history. In reality, they supported their country's war efforts every bit as much as Ford, GM and Chrysler did in the US and for the same reasons. Eiji Toyoda went into a lot of detail about it in his autobiography "Toyota: 50 years in motion" but other sources are not quite so forthcoming. Personally, I see no shame in it.
This is the English Wikipedia. We assume that our readers can read English. We assume nothing about any other language. Therefore, references in English are preferred to references in other languages. You can read Japanese quite well. I can read Japanese at a very basic level. The majority of our readers cannot read Japanese at all. So, if we have 2 sources that say the same thing in Japanese and English, the English source is the one to use. For the reference that I changed a couple of days ago, your source pointed to Toyota's 75 years history page in Japanese. Toyota also published the exact same information in English. Since both are written by the same company and contain the same information (I checked), the English version is far and away the better source to link to. If the information is not available in English then a Japanese reference can be used but it should be considered a fall-back position because the majority of our readers cannot read it. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources is the official policy.
Primary sources are often used by academia but WP prefers secondary sources. Primary sources often white wash their history and have a vested interest in presenting themselves in the best light. I read many history books about technological subjects (histories of particular planes, cars, spacecraft, etc). Practically all of them have a disclaimer at the front saying that their sources differ in the "facts" (due to vague memories from long ago, strong opinions, pride, ego, etc) and that they have tried their best to choose the most likely version. So we use primary sources with care and try to find secondary sources with less bias to back up the claims. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources.
For the Japanese dealership groups, Toyota (and most other Japanese car companies) had a policy of giving one dealership sole rights to a certain area. When they wanted to open a second dealership they had to call it something different and offer different vehicles - eg one for cars and one for diesel trucks. That kept the franchisee happy. They then extended this by creating variants of a single chassis and offering them at different dealerships. So one dealership got the Corolla while another dealership got the Sprinter. Never-mind that you could transform a Corolla into a Sprinter using basic tools to swap parts. So, the list of which dealership was able to sell which models was vitally important. It's become quite a large section that probably should be carved off into its own article, with just a single paragraph covering it here (and a link to the fuller article).  Stepho  talk  23:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
Since Wikipedia has a separate article for the history of Toyota, then possibly there should not be any company history in the basic article titled "Toyota", and just a link to that sub-article on its history, saying "For the company history, please see ____." It is odd to see a brief comment about a labor problem early in the 21st Century in the "Toyota" article, but nothing there about the much more serious labor problems of the late 1940s. Since you are not going to let me make any major changes to the article, then maybe you had better. It needs a good pruning.
Wikipedia at least received some material on Toyota truck production in WWII and put it into its sub-article on Toyota's company history, but stated overly broadly there that their army trucks had only one headlight. That is not correct. Toyota's army trucks had two headlights well into WWII. I could give you citations, but it would be to Japanese books showing such trucks, and you apparently shun certain Japanese references because you can't vet them, because you can't read them, and also when they are first-hand accounts.
Where does Wikipedia imagine that the data on Toyota vehicles comes from, if not from Toyota itself?
You state that everything on Toyota's Japanese-language web site is repeated verbatim in Toyota's English-language web site. If you cannot read the business history on Toyota's Japanese web site, then how did you conclude that it is translated fully and faithfully in their English version?
Regarding branding, "Toyopet" was once used for passenger cars, the Crown and Corona, and Toyota states in Japanese that it was also used for the Masterline. "Toyopet" is the brand name for early Crowns and Coronas. As I think you know, it appears IN ENGLISH on some early Crown sedans that remained in Japan. Yet in linking to its article on the Crown, Wikipedia has implied that the 1950s Crown was called "Toyota Crown". It wasn't. It was called "Toyopet Crown". That distinction needs to be clearly maintained at both articles.
If Wikipedia is going to treat Japanese dealership history, then I think you will want to clarify if and when the Corona came to be displayed at showrooms devoted exclusively to Corona. I hope that there is no conflation of "Toyopet" with "Corona" in determining that. I don't see a reason to think that the first "Toyopet" showroom was devoted exclusively to the Corona.
Kabocha (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a paragraph and a link to History of Toyota is the right way to do it. The {{main}} template is how we do it. The labour problems of the 1940s can go in that branch article.
The Toyota G1 article covers the early truck details, including WWII. It does have examples of twin headlight trucks but it also has an overly broad sentence saying that the KC truck only had a single headlight - in spite of the pics of a WWII trucks around it (the model of the KC truck was built by me). Feel free to correct both of those articles and expand as needed.
English references are preferred whenever possible because readers can more easily verify them. Japanese references can be used if the information is not available in English - knowing that only a minority of readers will be able to verify it.
Dry facts are usually ok to copy from the primary source (Toyota). But we have to take care about many claims. Many car companies claim to have the world's fastest, most powerful, most economical, etc car but all such claims need to be backed up. It's too much like asking a child "Did you eat the cake that I told you not to eat?" The child will often say no, even when their face is smeared with cake. Facts that come from books are often more likely to be unbiased.
I did not say that everything on Toyota's Japanese web pages are covered by equivalent English pages. Sometimes they are but not always. Luckily, the 75 years stuff is covered equally well in both languages. Therefore, for that stuff, the English pages are much better for our purposes. Always choose English references whenever possible. Use Japanese references when English is not available. I also said that I can read Japanese - just not very well (spent a few weeks backpacking around Japan in 1998, happily reading Kanji signs but unable to speak). I can generally get the gist of the text and can often extract technical details but then run it through machine translation to double check. Fluent readers are of course welcome additions to the team.
Many of the early cars (eg Crown) were branded as both Toyopet and Toyota, depending on country. It's awkward to write articles that cover both, so we generally settled for the Toyota brand. But yes, each vehicle article should give a quick explanation that in Japan they were usually branded as Toyopet. When the Japanese dealership article gets split off we can go into far more details than possible in this article.  Stepho  talk  12:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the Japanese dealership information to a Toyota dealerships (Japan) and left just a simple list of the current stores in its place. The new article needs some rearranging and formatting but it has plenty of room to add more details. It also has plenty of room to clarify the difference between Toyota and Toyopet. Please feel free to improve it. I have also adjusted the redirects like Toyopet Store to point to it.  Stepho  talk  00:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Founded date is different between Spanish and English articles.

The year founded is different between Spanish and English articles. The found date or start date (which could be different) should be consistent between languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.132.222 (talk • contribs)

From the English article: "The production of Toyota automobiles was started in 1933 as a division of Toyoda Automatic Loom Works devoted to the production of automobiles under the direction of the founder's son, Kiichiro Toyoda.[28] Its first vehicles were the A1 passenger car and the G1 truck in 1935. The Toyota Motor Company was established as an independent company in 1937." So, the foundation date of the company is correctly stated in the English article as 1937 but wrongly stated in the Spanish article as 1933.  Stepho  talk  01:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Greenwashing?

https://www.electriciancourses4u.co.uk/blog/environmental-damages-of-electric-cars/ Whoever added that needs to read this first imo. Whatamidoingwithmylife30 (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeh, it's a mug's game trying to determine who is green and who is outright evil.
If you use petrol then you are evil by almost everybody's definition.
If you use diesel then you are double evil.
If you use LPG,CNG,LNG, then you are still evil but at least only evil lite (the Diet Coke of evil).
If you go electric then you are still making the Earth bad (as per URL above) and are therefore still evil.
Hydrogen is usually made from methane (aka CNG), so that's evil too.
I've never met you but I can say that you are probably evil too unless you never leave you house. :)
All sides cherry pick the data, choosing as many bad parts from the other side while listing only some parts from their own side.
Counting up the costs of oil wells is hard - including fighting wars over them, drilling, transporting, refining, distribution, inefficient engines (due to broad power bands), idling in traffic, use in worn out old engines, etc, etc.
Counting up the costs of electric is hard - mining rare earth materials (poisoning rivers), using coal power plants to refine aluminium, use of coal power plants to make electricity, then inefficient transport, storage and re-use over wires and batteries. Etc, etc.
At the moment nobody knows the true costs of any of them.  Stepho  talk  10:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Toyota concept vehicles

I've made a formatting change proposal for Toyota concept vehicles articles at Talk:Toyota concept vehicles#Massive format change proposal. Leaving this message here to get some discussion there since this is the main article. Thanks. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Political donations

I am a Toyota owner and I am rethinking that due to the fact that you would donate to the Republican party. They are trying their hardest to destroy our democracy and you donate to them. The 2020 Election wad not stolen from them. Trump is a criminal and should be locked up not returned to power. I will speak loud and strong against any co.pant or person who aids this lie to continue to be told. Please rethink your donation 2604:2D80:F086:D200:A581:D042:4F1E:9FE (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Um, you're trying to protect democracy by telling people who they are not allowed to vote for? I'm no fan of Trump but I thought democracy was people having free choice. That aside, corporations choose whichever side helps them make more money - sad but no surprise. Anyway, this is not an article about politics. At most, we mention they donated to the Republic party and then move on.  Stepho  talk  00:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

2000s

I am surprised that the wrong information that was written in July 2006[7] has remained the same until now in 2022. Toyo Trust and Banking (東洋信託銀行) was not part of Toyota (トヨタ or 豊田). Toyo Trust and Banking was established in 1959 by Sanwa Bank (三和銀行), Kobe Bank (神戸銀行) and Nomura Securities (野村証券).[8] The name is similar, but it has nothing to do with Toyota. Of course, the additional sources did not mention Toyota at all. In fact, incorrect information written on Wikipedia has spread all over the web. Please do not use them as sources.--Tiretire (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.  Stepho  talk  18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Claim towards toyota egypt

14/2/2022 . I have booked toyota corolla 2022 from toyota egypt and paid 150000 egyption pound .. after 105 day . Toyota egypt want to pay back my deposit and terminat the contract without any rights .. refain from car delivery unjustly.Without the advertised price .. thanks 196.152.18.195 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not the complaints department. This talk page is only for discussion on improving the Wikipedia article. Unless your experience has appeared in some reliable publication (eg, newspaper, magazine, book or a government website) then we cannot mention your experience in the article either.  Stepho  talk  00:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a free webhosting service. Wikipedia is not a place to post personal content, host personal websites, or do things that are not directly related to adding to or improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. 78.174.182.186 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Logo

I want to settle the logo issue before making any further edits on that. The logo I restored wasn't really the American logo (at least not the current one), as the current American marque logo uses combinations of red and black and/or white wordmark/logo. It's more an old corporate logo. Stepho-wrs thought I was re-adding the logo because I'm American, and I can assure I'm not, I just thougt it was a good compromise (but apparently not, my bad...). The problem I have with the black T logo is that, while it's used by the Toyota marque in most markets, the Toyota company has kept the red Toyota wordmark at the corporate level (ie, when speaking of all its operations), without the T. While I think a red wordmark would be better as this article isn't just about the marque, I'll accept keeping it à la BMW if there is a consensus to do so like in that article. Urbanoc (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A little late for a reply but here's my 2 cents. Wasn't concerned about you being American or not, just trying to stop a logo that was only used in N.America (ie, white with red box) from being applied to the international scene. As for a red or black bean-in-a-hat, I have a slight preference for the red logo due to familiarity but I'm not overly fussed either way. I can see a good argument being made for either colour, so to me it's a coin toss.  Stepho  talk  11:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Stepho-wrs, I'm also sorry for responding you so late, I didn't see your comment until today (I suppose I wasn't paying attention to my watchlist). Thanks for taking time for clarifying your points (I thought you were referring to the red wordmark, I apologise for mixing things up...). As I'm the only one concerned with the logo at this point, you don't have a preference either way, and no-one else has voiced any caveat, I suppose we can say there is a working consensus to keep things as they are, at least for the moment. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
No problem.  Stepho  talk  20:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Falcon2023 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: FoldingClient97.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A sewing machine that Toyota made

I have left everywhere for a emdeko Model LT-72 sewing machine manual and I was told Toyota made them 74.50.240.109 (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There is one currently for sale on Mercari if you're still in the market. https://merc.li/3Ek8Vsj5b?sv=0 2600:1700:E310:1F80:B122:A2A1:CFC1:4FDD (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Toyota and climate change

The section on toyota and climate change was clearly an amalgam of press releases by the company. It was so inconsistent with recent headlines, and so inconsistent with the section, "Greenwashing", that I felt it necessary to point out the criticism of Toyota on climate action. I was careful to reference all the statements. I then retained all previous material on this, in a section called, "Toyota's arguments..."

In the first paragraph of Toyota's arguments, it says Toyota promises to de-carbonize by some year, then it says it pledges to be 90% fossil-free by the same year. Is this logically inconsistent, or am I missing some fine detail here?ThePirateCaptain (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

@Mr.choppers: Could you clarify which section exactly do you think looks like NPOV? Carfan568 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I saw lots of citations being removed, most of it unassailable although perhaps it can be pruned a bit and clearly the references need proper formatting. Personally, I believe that EVs are not the entire answer and Toyota may be proven right in the long run, but I do not think that gives me the right to remove cited content - and there is a LOT of (possibly misguided) commentary suggesting Toyota is not green, from the White House to Tesla stans to various environmental groups. I will just include the very first section, which uses one citation from Bloomberg and one from Citizen.org: Toyota as of 2023 sells only a miniscule proportion of battery vehicles, even in its long-term, optimistic projections there are negligible; Toyota has therefore been strongly criticized by environmental and public interest groups for not adopting battery electric vehicles fast enough and not making strong commitments to switch to battery vehicles.[1][2] In a session in parallel with the G-7 Meeting 2023 May, Akhio Toyoda said that battery electric vehicles are not the future, instead offering a mix of fossil-fuel powered cars, some battery vehicles, and hydrogen cars.[3]
Anyhow, I welcome others' comments.

References

  1. ^ https://www.citizen.org/news/biden-administration-must-push-toyota-to-make-stronger-public-commitment-on-evs/
  2. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-01-06/toyota-nissan-risk-status-loss-as-tesla-vw-byd-top-global-electric-car-market?cmpid=BBD061523_hyperdrive&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=230615&utm_campaign=hyperdrive#xj4y7vzkg
  3. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-01-06/toyota-nissan-risk-status-loss-as-tesla-vw-byd-top-global-electric-car-market?cmpid=BBD061523_hyperdrive&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=230615&utm_campaign=hyperdrive#xj4y7vzkg

 Mr.choppers | ✎  21:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The BEV information from the "Toyota's Influence on Climate Change" section was already covered at the "Battery electric vehicles" and "Greenwashing controversies" sections, and I think any new information that was added on this topic should be integrated into the already existing sections with a neutral tone instead of creating an unbalanced new section, a significant part of which was just copied from this rejected article. The misleading marketing stuff in the "Controversies" section needed a lot of pruning and rewriting to have a more neutral tone, and there were some clear errors, like stating that "emissions from hybrid vehicles were, on average, over two and a half times those of official test values" when the sources were talking about plug-in hybrids, which were not even the topic of the section. Many of the sources also had an obvious EV bias. I didn't really delete the core information from the misleading marketing/self-charging hybrid section and I think my rewriting did make that section more neutral, so I would appreciate if at least those edits could be reinstated, potentially with some changes. Carfan568 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
That sounds better than just deleting things. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll move the relevant information from "Toyota's Influence on Climate Change" to the other sections then. I'll also reinstate the changes to the misleading marketing/self-charging hybrid section since you didn't seem to have particular objections against them, but if you think I may have deleted some relevant details, please mention it so we can add them back. As it stands, however, I think these sections clearly need improvement. Carfan568 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Toyota History page?

@Stepho-wrs brought up an interesting point in one of his edit summaries. The history section on this article is longer than the History of Toyota article, which begs the question, what's the point of having a standalone history article?

As far as I see it, one of two things should happen:

1) We decide the more extensive history section on the Toyota article should be merged into the History of Toyota article, and a shorter summary provided on the Toyota article.
2) We decide the history section on the Toyota article is acceptable and the History of Toyota article is deleted.

Thoughts? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I was hoping that would strike a chord with somebody ;)
My vote would be option 1. Merge it all into History of Toyota and leave only one (maybe 2) paragraphs here. Mainly because the history section takes about a third of an already large article.  Stepho  talk  01:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I wanted Toyota Company to know that my daughter and her family bought a Toyota Camry in 2009. She is a nurse and she drove it for years. Her and her husban have two daughters one in College and the other will be a Sr. in high school next year. After my daughter bought her a new Toyota her husband drove the Camry for more years. Now the youngest daughter is driving the Camry with way up in the 300 thousand miles on her. I call the Camry a her because they named her Cammy years ago. I just thought you needed to know that this family will never buy anything else but a Toyota.We are all praying she (Cammy) has another year of life in her before they have to start another college tuition. Oh they bought the oldest daughter a Toyota also. I don't know how they will afford another car payment and these girls daddy is going to have another vehicle to. If I could buy a new vehicle it would be a Toyota also because I'm a believer 107.122.109.12 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This article's history section in its current condition is deeply problematic and in dire need of improvement, as it contains vast swaths cited only to primary sources — usually web pages administered by Toyota. Any statements for which independent secondary sources cannot be found should be removed because it violates WP:NPOV. Accordingly, if there are any independent secondary sources (i.e. automotive magazines such as Motor Trend, Car and Driver, etc.) that can be referred to for historical information, that would be a major asset to this article. Left guide (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sports Sponsorships Section

Is the section on Sports Sponsorships meant to be exhaustive of either Toyota's sports sponsorship activities or their sponsorship of sports venues? Because if it is designed as such, then there seem to be examples where the article misses some specific, notable examples; for instance, Toyota Field (Madison, Alabama) is not included on the list. EEEcon5761 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It is just the more notable ones. Considering that the list is already US heavy, do we need to list more US based sponsorships?  Stepho  talk  10:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
That’s fair. I was mostly interested in whether or not the list was designed to be exhaustive. I have since found the list, List of sports venues with the name Toyota, which serves as a more exhaustive list of venues. EEEcon5761 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The section (like any other section or article on Wikipedia) is meant to be as exhaustive as the independent sources deem so, but as it stands now, most of the sports sponsorships section is inappropriate for an encyclopedia because it is cited to primary sources — publications authored by the involved companies. It should be supported by independent secondary coverage such as these two sources for Cricket Australia. Left guide (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources

There are lots of primary sources, just finished sweeping the whole article for them. I spent some time checking and tagging the affected statements and sections to make them easier to identify. I plan to supplant some of the statements with secondary sources as my time, interest, and ability allows. Anyone else who is willing to assist with this endeavor would be much appreciated, thanks. Left guide (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said in the history section above, we should delete the entire section and leave just a single paragraph pointing to History of Toyota.
Much of the information deleted from here can be copied to there - with the referencing issues you found being addressed there.
Some useful sources are:
  • "Against all odds - The story of the Toyota Motor Corporation and the family that created it" by Yukiyasu Togo and William Wartma
  • "Lexus - The relentless pursuit" by Chester C. Dawson III
  • "Toyota - fifty years in Motion" by Eiji Toyoda (close to the company but still displays some of its dirty laundry, especially during WWII that most others skip)
  • "The Wheel Extended", issue 3/4, 1987, sanitised company mag but handy background
  • "Toyota - A History of the first 50 Years", company book but also handy as a sanitised background
  • "75 years", sanitised company website but quite detailed and will help you to research further
Obviously the lower items on the list are less desirable but provide helpful background and provide items to do further research on.  Stepho  talk  05:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs: thanks for the thoughtful response. I think the best way to hash this out would be to follow the (secondary) sources in terms of their scope and breadth of coverage. So if they talk a lot about history, so should we, if they talk a lot about hybrid vehicles, so should we, if they talk a lot about sports sponsorships, so should we, etc etc. I’m not too sure I agree with the idea of gutting almost the entire history section, because so far I’ve found that many of the details are actually covered in secondary sources, and history is generally an important and well-covered aspect of an encyclopedic topic. I’ll probably have more thoughts on this matter (and dig into your sources above) at some point soon, but much of my on-wiki attention right now is devoted to working on some music articles, though please feel free to respond with additional thoughts or ideas if you wish. Left guide (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed that history is important. That's why we have a whole article on it at History of Toyota. We should not duplicate our effort in maintaining both of them. And by having all the history in History of Toyota (and none here) we can make this article less verbose without losing any information. Of course, History of Toyota should be updated from this article before we delete stuff from here and should have better (non-company) references too.  Stepho  talk  08:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, that makes more sense now, I wouldn't mind if you start trimming excessive undue content from this article and transferring it to the History of Toyota article. If I think something that you remove in an edit should stay here, I’ll restore/revert and we can continue discussing, but in general I trust your editorial judgment on this. Left guide (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Hello I have a 14-year-old son and we live in Iran My son is very creative and intelligent and he has only one wish to work in the Toyota car factory to invent the best and most modern car in the world. Can you fulfill my son's wish? Mar.kian465 (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this talk page is only for improving the Wikipedia article. We have no connection to the company.  Stepho  talk  08:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"Totoyotata" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Totoyotata has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 22 § Totoyotata until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toyota/Archive_4&oldid=1240087601"