# Talk:General Motors EV1

The current text shows: "as well as a four-model model".
Should this instead be: "as well as a four-door model"? 198.129.217.125 (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

"The California Air Resources Board enacted a mandate in 1990, stating that the seven leading automakers marketing vehicles in the United States must produce and sell zero-emissions vehicles to maintain access to the California market." Which 7 leading automakers are being discussed here? I also don't see a citation directly referencing this. Thoughts? DubiousSauce (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Further down in the article (search for "each of the seven largest automakers"), follow ref 8 to www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-12-05-mn-6000-story.html and search for "seven". Not the greatest reference but there it is.  Stepho  talk  01:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs Thanks! I still think it's a little vaguely worded. I'll think about it and maybe edit it to be a little more concise and all that. DubiousSauce (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the ref said "Before the year was out, the ARB had adopted a zero-emission rule that in essence required 2% of cars sold by the state’s seven largest auto retailers be electric-powered as of 1998." "in essence" is a bit different from "stating that". I haven't looked up the CARB mandate (and probably won't) but I suspect the mandate laid down some rules and the effect of those rules is that the 7 largest manufacturers would have to make changes. Very unlikely that CARB said "these companies c1,c2,c3,c4,c5,c6,c7 must make these changes."  Stepho  talk  01:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs I agree. CARB is pretty notorious for being strict but a complete mandate on at least one zero emissions vehicle is a bit of a tall order today, let alone in 1998. If I feel like it I might go and look at the mandate but it's getting pretty late for me. DubiousSauce (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I have become aware of the friction involving the illusive "Surviving examples" section... now, I'm not one to say a section should be built from an exhaustive list of images, but what I do think is that noting surviving examples is not a bad idea. I would like to advocate that RastaKins gets their Surviving examples tidbit, but that it be expanded to cover more of what can be learned/gathered from these surviving examples, hopefully as a good compromise between both the exclusionist and inclusionist camps of thought.
(I apologize to have referenced this prior to posting it, I thought I had posted it a day prior, but I had to leave my location before I was able to upload the message and resultantly could not provide it.)

TheSaturnLover (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

We should look to WP:GALLERY for direction. It discourages "indiscriminate" collections of images. Since there are so very few survivors, maybe they deserve a text list, limited to those that have a cite. That will eliminate about half of them. We could then include perhaps two pictures along the right margin. I would like to see a picture of that really awful one from 2025 (or equivalent) to show not all EV1s are museum pieces. RastaKins (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
@RastaKins yeah, my initial thought was to show varying conditions of EV1s, that way we use fewer pictures to say equally as much. Beyond that, could there be a way to make a collection of the EV1s we have photography of and link it in a note? TheSaturnLover (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gallery. We need one to two pictures of surviving models and that's fine, not every single surviving model on WM commons. 750h+ 12:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I can see that rationale. Would you be open instead to three? One in best condition, one in average, and one in poor? It seems intuitive that doing so would display a better range of the EV1's life cycle. TheSaturnLover (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
It's a car. One picture is sufficient. – The Grid (talk)  14:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
That's not a standard ruling across articles (see gallery section on Chevrolet Cobalt, Chevrolet Onix, the Saturn Ion page overall... many examples) and so I don't really consider this a good point :( TheSaturnLover (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Cars with multiple editions? EV1 had two. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good point either. – The Grid (talk)  17:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The gallery photography on the Cobalt has a repeat of the G5 GT for multiple angles. Same for the facelift LTZ. Onix does the same for Prisima, ION for the Red Line model...
The common thread here is not that "other stuff exists", it's that in the cases where other stuff does exist, the purpose is the same: to show an alternative perspective not seen in one photo. That line of reasoning can expand to the EV1 for conditions as well, further assisted by the mention of poor condition EV1s selling for high prices, too. I think that's what's of note in the conversation, not just that these other pages exist. I should have clarified that point, sorry. TheSaturnLover (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Images can be grouped together by putting them into categories in WikiMedia. Follow an image to its description page to see them at the bottom.  Stepho  talk  12:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

... that GM killed the electric car?

Reviewed:

750h+ 03:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC).

 Very interesting. The hook matches the source and article. No obvious copyright issues according to Earwig's tool; the biggest things it picks up are just quotes so it's fine. The article looks good. QPQ not needed. Thanks for the easy and interesting review. Approved ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)