Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production

message: Taken from: 
*Group,Total,Cars,LCV,HCV,Bus
*GM,8926160,5708038,3156888,43838,17396
*Toyota,8036010,6800228,1049345,122569,63868
*FORD,6268193,3800633,2386296,81264,0
*VOLKSWAGEN,5684603,5429896,219537,29175,5995
*Honda,3669514,3549787,119727,0,0
*PSA,3356859,2961437,395422,0,0
*Nissan,3223372,2512519,570136,134874,5843
*Chrysler,2544590,710291,1834299,0,0
*RENAULT,2492470,2085837,406633,0,0
*Hyundai,2462677,2231313,966,145120,85278
*FIAT,2317652,1753673,450544,89071,24364
*Suzuki,2297277,2004310,292967,0,0
*DAIMLERCHRYSLER,2044533,1275152,378278,340296,50807
*Mazda,1396412,1169640,223995,2777,0
*Kia,1381123,1181877,197060,0,2186
*BMW,1366838,1366838,0,0,0
*Mitsubishi,1313409,1008970,296431,8008,0
*Daihatsu,1084721,905932,166667,12122,0
*AVTOVAZ,765627,765627,0,0,0
*Fuji,587274,507552,79722,0,0
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeFacto (talk • contribs) 10:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But is it really correct to list GM before Toyota? Toyota is larger than GM if including Hino and Daihatsu, or should that two car companies be separated? Why are they separated from Toyota despite being subsidiaries of Toyota? 81.230.149.213 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:OR and WP:SYN we can't decide how to combine the results based on our own knowledge/understanding.  We need to find external sources that make the claims.  Currently most sections in this article are based on OIAC data.  Since that is the only source the article should reflect that source including it's groupings and rankings.  If other sources can be found that group things differently then we have a WP:WEIGHT issue that could be balanced by presenting both the data as presented by OIAC as well as grouped as suggested by a RS.  Springee (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What has happened to the reference ? Has it become deleted? I wonder if this reference was replacing this older, as the older included errors such as wrong numbers of produced vehicles for G.M. and Ford, as well as wrong rankings (with Volkswagen ranked as 3rd and Ford as 4th despite Ford's production which was larger than Volkswagen's), which were corrected in a new revised version. Besides this, I wonder why Toyota isn't listed as the 1st, before G.M., despite that Toyota actually had larger production than G.M., if including Daihatsu and Hino. Was it because OICA had a norm to not include subsidiaries if those were not owned to 100%? 212.100.101.104 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OICA no longer have that URL. archive.org has a single entry at https://web.archive.org/web/20070809142844/http://www.oica.net/htdocs/statistics/tableaux2006/Ranking06-2.pdf (9 August 2007) and after that it just lists the page as "ERROR 404 - NOT FOUND". archive.org lists https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/world-ranking-2006-july-08.pdf as first seen in 2009 - whihc is after the other one was removed. I can only assume that the remaining PDF for 2006 was meant to replace the missing one.  Stepho  talk  05:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source data for 2007-07-31 version 

message: The article lists the top 15 manufacturers from 2004 to 2008, then some arbitrary large number from 2009 to 2011 (with a different format), then the top 20 for 2012, top 30 for 2013 and again top 20 for 2014 and 2015. For the sake of consistency, and to avoid bludgeoning the page with relatively smaller manufactuers, I suggest to make the cut at the top 20 for every year. Opinions? — JFG talk 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely support moving to a single format for all the tables.  I prefer the 1-15 tables use for 2004-2008.  I think the bar graph things are somewhat harder to read even if they do provide a level of magnitude.  They also are rather bulky.  Springee (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I definitely agree with single format. But disagree with cutting, as manufacturer with 500 000+ motor vehicle is simply not small and maintaining list based on single source updated once a year is not so hard.Jklamo (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If we cut at 500,000 vehicles, this gives roughly the top 30; if we cut at the top 20, that's roughly 1 million+. I don't mind either way, as long as we are consistent. I do have a slight personal preference for 20, so the page doesn't get too long. — JFG talk 16:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are largely aligning here.  I'm ok with more than 15.  20 seems like a nice cut off but I'm also ok if we say production volume over x/year.  The same format for all is really my preference in this case.  I would like to keep the break out of cars, trucks, buses etc.  I'm still going to say I think we need the tables to rank the same as the source.  When I get a chance I'll put together a sample table as a proposal to address alternate groupings. Springee (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make top 20 the standard cut? 

message: * Option 1: Take the production numbers directly from the (highly reputable) source OICA, which may in some cases not accurately represent the current market as the production numbers of subsidiaries are not (always) included in the parent company's numbers.
* Option 2: Add the numbers of all the subsidiaries of a parent company together and provide the sum, thus altering the original source material.–rayukk | talk 18:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The devil is in the details. Some of the published summaries exclude double counts (see 2004–2010), some don't (2011 onwards, see SAIC figures). We must read the sources carefully and apply logic. The overarching goal must be to correctly inform readers. — JFG talk 12:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your reasoning for Ford / Mazda, which OICA has never shown grouped. However, what do you think of the other cases, where OICA alternates between grouping and ungrouping depending on years? — JFG talk 07:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is we don't know why they are and aren't grouped at various times.  We can guess but then we are both generating OR and misrepresenting the information from a reliable source.  Hence the argument for simply reproducing the tables and adding comments backed by reliable sources. Springee (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Quick follow up.  I sent a note to OICA on their feedback form.  Hopefully someone will come by and help us understand their methodology. Timtempleton (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

text: There are no third-party sources: all numbers are traced to various OICA reports. — JFG talk 08:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on including production numbers of subsidiaries in the parent company's numbers 

message: * Option 1, because I believe option 2 to be original research. –rayukk | talk 18:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The devil is in the details. Some of the published summaries exclude double counts (see 2004–2010), some don't (2011 onwards, see SAIC figures). We must read the sources carefully and apply logic. The overarching goal must be to correctly inform readers. — JFG talk 12:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your reasoning for Ford / Mazda, which OICA has never shown grouped. However, what do you think of the other cases, where OICA alternates between grouping and ungrouping depending on years? — JFG talk 07:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is we don't know why they are and aren't grouped at various times.  We can guess but then we are both generating OR and misrepresenting the information from a reliable source.  Hence the argument for simply reproducing the tables and adding comments backed by reliable sources. Springee (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Quick follow up.  I sent a note to OICA on their feedback form.  Hopefully someone will come by and help us understand their methodology. Timtempleton (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

text: There are no third-party sources: all numbers are traced to various OICA reports. — JFG talk 08:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There has been a back and forth in regards to the sales volume plot that was in the article (removed here []).  I agree with the concern regarding the way the numbers are grouped.  I also liked the addition of the graph to the article.  
Two questions:  First, do people like the graph in general?  (regardless of smoothing or the debate about how to group companies?)  Second, if yes, can we discuss what we think it should look like?
As for question 1, yes I like it.  As for question 2, I prefer the non-smoothed version since it's really just a year by year total plot, not continuous (month by month or finer) data.  Also, I think it would be best to display the raw numbers (ie grouping based on the source data) then include notes to explain when groupings changed.  Noting when a grouping changed is not OR since it only calls attention to the year by year changes in groupings.  I think such a plot would be very informative.  Springee (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the graph (I was the one who added it in the first place). I think it's the most valuable piece of information in this article, because in my opinion visual information is way more potent than written information. I think we should add the numbers directly from the OICA into the graph, in accordance with option 1. IMO we should use the non-smoothed plot. When I added it, it was non-smoothed and I have even "unsmoothed" it once, but someone keeps reverting it. rayukk | talk 09:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trend plot in article 

message: I updated the 2016 results following the OICA table. I suggest we should proceed that way from now on. Why? Various reasons, I'll try to summarise them:
a) We are putting in OICA's voice things the OICA didn't stated: We can disagree with the production numbers and the counting system of OICA. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem if someone add alternative tables using other sources. However, at this point in time we're saying OICA is our only source to establish the rankings here, and we keep on adding notes and fixing them because we don't like how they work. That's bad on at least two levels. Firstly, we're saying OICA doesn't know what it's doing, and therefore seriously questioning it as a reliable source. Secondly, we're making fixes based on information that is not present in this article and expecting the reader be aware of what we're talking about. 
b) We are making original synthesis: There're a lot of tables that cherry-pick OICA reports and combine them based on the personal feeling of each editor. While some of them are understandable, they're all making assumptions on how things should be depicted and misusing OICA info. 
c) We are misinforming: We shouldn't take sides for any manufacturer here, that's the reason we should be stricter on following OICA. At the moment, the 2015 production says it includes (in small letters) the production of "SAIC-GM" because, basically, OICA shouldn't have stopped counting them for GM. That's wrong at various levels. As I already said at the automotive industry and Wiki car talk pages, the joint venture that was excluded is SAIC-GM-Wuling, not SAIC-GM that it's still being counted for GM. Given that GM has only a 44% stake and SAIC is the majority owner, it seems a sensible decision to start adding SAIC-GM-Wuling to SAIC production. GM can still claim the sales (as it does) because it has a participation in that company, but we must trust OICA countings for production, especially if we want to avoid double-counts. At the moment we've inflated and misleading numbers in 2015, because we add SAIC-GM-Wuling for both GM and SAIC results. It goes without saying that we can't use those numbers to say GM is "3" as an editor insisted if we don't sustract them from SAIC, and SAIC would be gone of the ranking...
As fixing all the tables would be a very difficult task, I propose we keep them as they are (this will never be a featured list, but well...), while being more faithful to sources from now on. Any change should be based on OICA fixes, not ours. Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. We either follow the source or we don't follow the source. Following the source but amending it is really slyly doing our own thing under the pretense of following the source (also called lying). The most you can do is to say that other (specifically listed) sources include or do not include certain groupings to get different rankings.  Stepho  talk  23:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your updates. I have further removed SAIC-GM numbers from the 2015 GM total in the graph, as the OICA has continued in 2016 their 2015 change of practice. — JFG talk 23:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't participate in Wikipedia those days, but my opinion is to follow OICA whenever possible, even if it seems wrong at first sight. If that leads to inconsistencies, so be it. The alternative is to admit OICA is a shaky source and therefore we shouldn't be basing a whole article on it. I saw the opposition to OICA is widespread, that's the reason I think alternative rankings (if there are out there) should be introduced. I'm against a ranking or production numbers made by a consensus of editors against OICA, but I'll accept it if that's the case. Urbanoc (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and original synthesis in tables 

message: We need to understand whether production figures of SAIC-GM-Wuling (SGMW) are counted twice in OICA statistics, and whether they should be included in General Motors total production. Here is a table of relevant numbers as published by the OICA:
Year	SAIC Motor                                                           	SGMW  (Liuzhou)                                                    	SAIC-GM  (Shanghai)                                                       	GM total
2000	not listed                                                           	not listed                                                         	30,067http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/GM_2004.pdf          	8,133,375
2001	151,591                                                              	151,591                                                            	57,874http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/gm-prod2001.pdf      	7,582,561
2002	201,191                                                              	201,191                                                            	111,623http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/GM-prod2002.pdf     	8,325,835
2003	222,726                                                              	222,726                                                            	168,991http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/gm-2003.pdf         	8,185,997
2004	308,665                                                              	308,665                                                            	191,327http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/GM_2004.pdf         	8,066,536
2005	518,353                                                              	518,353                                                            	346,697http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/gm05.pdf            	9,097,855
2006	178,024                                                              	842,078http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/gm.pdf       	842,078http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/gm.pdf              	8,926,160
2007	313,002                                                              	989,118http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/gm.pdf                   	989,118http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/gm.pdf                          	9,349,818
2008	282,003                                                              	1,026,887http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/gm1.pdf                	1,026,887http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/gm1.pdf                       	8,282,803
2009	347,598                                                              	1,769,275http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/general-motors-2009.pdf	1,769,275http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/general-motors-2009.pdf       	6,459,053
2010	346,525                                                              	2,265,702http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/general-motors-2010.pdf	2,265,702http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/general-motors-2010.pdf       	8,476,192
2011	1,478,502http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/saic.pdf     	                                                                   	1,274,184http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/general-motors.pdf	9,031,670
2012	1,783,548http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/saic-2012.pdf	                                                                   	1,372,216http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/g-m-2012.pdf      	9,285,425
2013	1,992,250http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/saic-2013.pdf        	                                                                   	1,550,942http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/gm-2013.pdf               	9,628,912
2014	2,087,949http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/SAIC-2014-22-July.pdf	                                                                   	1,731,325http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/GM-2014-22-July.pdf       	9,609,326
2015	2,260,579http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/Saic.pdf             	2,005,248                                                          	1,728,919http://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/GM.pdf                    	
2016	2,566,793                                                            	2,144,368                                                          	1,876,256                                                                 	
The production of SAIC-GM in Shanghai is always counted in GM total production. The production of SGMW is counted in GM total until 2014, then excluded in 2015 and 2016 (as noted in the article footnotes, discrepancy marked in red here). In the detailed production tables by country for GM, SGMW and SAIC-GM are conflated from 2006 to 2010, and both are counted in GM total. The production of SAIC Motor includes SGMW until 2005, then excludes it from 2006 to 2010, then includes it again from 2011. Specific production counts of SGMW are not available before 2011. Therefore we have four years 2011–2014 (marked in yellow) where SGMW production is counted both in the SAIC total and in the GM total.
What can we do with this state of affairs? GM shows an abrupt decrease in 2015 due to the removal of SGMW from group stats. We can either:
* add SGMW vehicles again to GM total in 2015 and 2016, for consistency with prior years;
* or subtract SGMW vehicles from GM total between 2011 and 2014, because they are already counted in SAIC Motor.
None of these solutions fully respects the source, but given that the source is not providing comparable numbers year-to-year for this case, we should be able to clarify the information for our readers. — JFG talk 03:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't participate in Wikipedia those days, but my opinion is to follow OICA whenever possible, even if it seems wrong at first sight. If that leads to inconsistencies, so be it. The alternative is to admit OICA is a shaky source and therefore we shouldn't be basing a whole article on it. I saw the opposition to OICA is widespread, that's the reason I think alternative rankings (if there are out there) should be introduced. I'm against a ranking or production numbers made by a consensus of editors against OICA, but I'll accept it if that's the case. Urbanoc (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case of SAIC-GM-Wuling 

message: I recommend the removal of the 2018 data. Reasons:
* OICA has not published 2018 data. At the time of this writing, OICA has not even published production by manufacturer data for 2017
* At the time of this writing, Japanese OEMs have not published their 2018 production data. They will be published tomorrow, Jan 30,2019. Renault so far has not published production data for 2018, only sales data. Any "production" data published at this time for Toyota, the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance, Honda, and Suzuki can only be false.
* Volkswagen has not published production data yet. The 10.8 million in the 2018 list reflect "deliveries"
* GM has not published global production data for 2018 at the time of this writing.
* Ford AFAIK has not published global 2018 production at this time. Its published 2018 "wholesales" are 5,982,000 - the number does not agree with the list. 
The source given in the article therefore cannot possibly be reliable. Its data can only be rough estimates. Also, according to the source, it does not reflect production, but sales. I recommend waiting until OICA data are available.BsBsBs (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal sounds reasonable to me. I was worried about the different groupings as well as the different source, and difficulty in comparisons with previous years. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. If anyone needs help, please contact me. Been counting cars all my life. Well, not quite.  BsBsBs (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 data 

message: There are different sources with different numbers. In this article Toyota has 7,2 millions and VW 9,33 according to Focus2move. In the articleToyota other source with 9,528 for Toyota and 9,305 for VW. It is small difference for VW, less than 30 thousands, but for Toyota. Which number is correct?--Divega (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Many different reasons. Some sources count only passenger cars, while others also count light trucks. Some sources count Jan-Dec (calendar year), some Mar-Apr (US financial year), some Jul-Jun (other financial year), some Nov-Oct (US model year). Some count subsidiaries (eg Toyota + Daihatsu), some don't. Some count knock down kits assembled by other companies, some don't. And so on. All these numbers are correct - even when they differ. We used to use OCIA exclusively but they stopped publishing free data.  Stepho  talk  08:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data 2020 

message: The 2020 "by manufacturers" list was a hot mess, so I just got rid of it. At the moment, we only have what the manufacturers say they produce, so we can't be sure we aren't introducing double counts (OICA tried to reduce that when doing its ranking). Besides, only European and East Asian manufacturers consistently report production. The rest (including Americans) mostly don't publicly report production but just sales (the point that most concern shareholders and the government...), so we'll have a tremendously inaccurate data set if we try to put together a production ranking by ourselves. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 2020 original research list

message: Where is the statistics of vehicle production by manufacturer for the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021? Has OICA stopped publishing statistics by manufacturer after 2017? 212.100.101.104 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. OICA was perfect for what we wanted but they stopped publishing them publicly. We have not found any other source that compares the entire industry in a single table. We certainly can't use each manufacturer's data because they have different definitions (includes heavy trucks or not, includes pickup trucks or not, includes motorcycles or not, includes subsidiaries or not, includes localised assembly from knock-down kits or not, etc).  Stepho  talk  00:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics by manufacturer 

message: The last year here is 2017, 6 years ago.  Those data are obsolete, except for historical interest.  Zaslav (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. But we need consistent references. We used to use OICA but they stopped publicly publishing them in 2017. It's not feasible to use the manufacturers own numbers because they are not consistent - ie some count passenger vehicles only while others count trucks too, some count subsidiaries as one huge entity while others keep them as smaller separate entities, some count joint ventures while others don't, etc, etc. If you know of consistent references then we'd love to hear of them.  Stepho  talk  09:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update badly needed