Talk:BMW/Archive 1

message: X5: BMW's first SUV, this vehicle has all the dynamic qualities expected of a BMW, and set new expectations for SUV design 
Is there any evidence to back this up? The X5 is highly limited soft-roader.  It is a poor vehicle both on and off road, and is sold purely on its image.  Even BMW admit the vehicle should be driven carefully due its poor handling.  From the company who built the M5 and recently sold Land Rover, this is a poor cash in. akaDruid 15:36, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: X5?

message: Maybe I should just do some research and add it myself, but nowhere in the article is the BMW Bavaria mentioned.  This model was the immediate predecessor to the 5-series, and was seen at the time (mid 70s) as combining the features of the 3.0 CS and another model I've forgotten, at a much cheaper price.  My dad had one, but being a toddler at the time my memory's a little fuzzy, and he wouldn't even let me drive it.
TJSwoboda 19:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section could stand to be expanded *substantially*.  -- Baylink 21:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The BMW Bavaria? 

message: I've noticed that the BMW model pages are becoming increasingly disorganized.  When I first started diving into these pages (around six months ago), there weren't any platform pages and even the M3 page didn't exist.  In the last few months, however, we've got so much content that I'm very afraid that it's going to start falling in on itself.
The biggest problem that I see is data duplication.  There is quite signification information about the M5 at both the BMW M5 page and the BMW E34 page (luckily, the E28, E39, and E60 pages are all stubs).  Having this information in these different places is likely to cause a big problem in the future as data is added asymetrically.
Honestly, this probably isn't a really big deal right now, but if the growth in the last six months can be used as an indicator, then we're in for some messy merges in the future if this isn't cleaned up pronto.
I suggest 1) the development of a BMW model description policy, and 2) the distribution of this policy across the talk pages of the BMW model line.  I suspect that the details of the policy will be controversial, but that putting those details across all the pages will not.
How reasonable does this seem?  Am I overreacting?  Is there support for organizing how BMW models will be discussed in individual pages?  --Milkmandan 06:06, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
:If I understand what you are saying, and I think I do, then I support it. We need to agree how to spread information between the main model pages (e.g BMW 5-Series), the 'platform' subpages (eg. BMW E60), and 'special' model pages like BMW M5. I'd be happy to help discuss how to do this. 
:Regarding the duplication on BMW M5 and E34, that's my fault. When the M5 stub was created it only mentioned the existence of the E60 model so I just copied the info from BMW E34.
:I don't think there is any need to get in a panic though. This is Wikipedia, so if something goes wrong, we just revert it. At worst we'll have to merge a few pages. SamH|Talk 10:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model pages becoming unmanageable 

message: Is the Series Generations list necessary  on this page? Given that the model pages all link to the individual generations (BMW 5-Series links to BMW E60 etc.), I don't think it is. SamH|Talk 17:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Series Generations list

message: The article Hummer H2 is currently nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. You can vote for this article there if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 12:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: Qoute from http://www.bmw.com/com/en/index_narrowband.html?content=/com/en/insights/history/overview.html
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW) is founded on 7th March 1916 and incorporates Otto-Werke. BMW acquires the BFW plant in 1922, but Bayerische Motoren Werke continues to date its foundation from the founding of BFW. 
But the article states that BMW was found in 1913. And what about names?
::The foundation date of 1916 is accurate.  I have changed the article to reflect what BMW corroborates.Qwazywabbit 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foundation date

message: According to the BMW archives in Munich the propeller theory is just that - a theory, and it's wrong. The colours blue and white are just the colors of Bavaria.
:Yes, this is a myth due to advertising that used the logo as a propeller, causing people to think that was the meaning or origin of the logo, rather than clever imagery. I've added a link that investigates this and rephrased. ProhibitOnions (T) 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propeller theory 

message: That looks like a lot of bullshit to me... If not, it's not an ounce encyclopedic. /Grillo 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section "nicknames" 

message: Looks like lots of it was added recently, but it's over many edits, and I can't find it all.  --Rory096 02:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkspam

message: Something key that all auto-related articles are missing on Wikipedia are the prices of the vehicles.
Of course the prices vary by options or even country, however, a "Base price" is almost always available from the manufacturer, and how hard would it be to staple that on in the article, with a price for each country? BMW for instance has the prices for each car in each country sold on its website.
Now of course all cars will not have original base line prices, but just because we cannot get that information for an older car, does that mean newer ones should not have it?
Wikipedia is a free-information site, and any consumer (or not even someone interested in buying the car) might use Wiki for the purpose of honest information in researching a vehicle, and therefor would most likely love a price.- Scryer_360
::call a dealer for a price, not an encyclopediaQwazywabbit 02:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prices? 

message: Is this true? -Paul- 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  They are definitely the world's largest independent premium carmaker, but largest overall, I'm not sure. Lord Bodak 17:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the case, but a source for this should be provided. Escaper7 11:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the world's largest premium carmaker" ? 

message: This article seems to be a strong candidate for semi-protection. Based on the history of edits, there is a lot of vandalism especially from unregistered users and new users. YCCHAN 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-protect 

message: Perhaps if anyone has more to share about BMW's origins, that would make the initial section of the article more interesting.  Essentially the Allies did not allow BMW to produce aircraft engines after WWII.  I feel the whole pre/post-WWII history is somewhat slighted on the main page. Thoughts?
:Luft '46
::: I have done some extensive research and rewrote the origins for BMW.  I will be adding additional articles on the founders themselves.Qwazywabbit 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft History 

message: THe article needs a section about Wiesmann, another German car company whose roadsters utilize BMW hardware (for example, the MF 3 uses M3 hardware) --HashiriyaGDB 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiesmann 

message: The 8 series is referenced as being a model to replace the 6 series, which is not true.  Even in the article of the BMW 8 Series this is stated. --Cirilobeto 04:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 8 Series misconception

message: In other parts of the world, they instead use the slogan "Sheer Driving Pleasure" (just look at the top right of BMW.com). I was going to add this but couldn't think of how to word it, maybe somebody else could add it. --Santahul 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ultimate Driving Machine 

message: Watch for multiple edit vandalism making it tricky to rv Escaper7 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This looks a bit non-NPOV to me, doesn't really add to the article other than lengthening it, adds spam links and isn't really written in an encyclopaedic style.  It should be re-written or maybe even removed. Any thoughts? Escaper7 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I think the majority of it has no reason to be in an encyclopædia, although the Bimmerfest section should probably be retained as it links to a related article. Morrad 21:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Community

message: Please enough!  Would anyone seriously look up an encyclopaedia to find out a company/car's nickname?  This article is seriously weighty, with a ridiculously long list.  Can't it be restricted to a handful?  And why does no-one enter the discussion no this page about the overall look of this article which should help readers?  Any thoughts? Escaper7 10:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicknames

message: Why is such a comprehensive article so poorly sourced?  Two references cited throughout? Escaper7 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References