Talk:Nissan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Japan / Business and economy / Cars / Tokyo (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 14:15, October 1, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Business and economy task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Japanese cars task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Tokyo task force.
 
WikiProject Trucks (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

just leaving this here for reference[edit]

The plant was completed in 1986 as the subsidiary Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/DOCUMENT/PDF/PROFILE/2012/Pr2012_E_p30-32.pdf just leaving these here to add citations to later. Someone else feel free to do if I do not in a timely manner.

Nichiyo-kai[edit]

(nichiyo-kai) was one of Japan's most powerful business grouping, called keiretsu, founded by Yoshisuke Aikawa. [1] It's core business was real estate and insurance, with hundreds of member companies, including fisheries, mining, and is affiliated with Hitachi companies. Although Nissan was primarily known for its car manufacturing outside of Japan, Nissan Motors was a comparatively small side business compared to its core real estate business, until the real estate crash of early 1990's, which dealt a devastating blow to the Nissan Group. Nissan Motors (Nissan Jidosha KK) successful turnaround was attributed by CEO Carlos Ghosn to his ability to detach from Nissan keiretsu connections. Nissan is short for Nippon Sangyo, which literally means "Made in Japan".(unsigned comments added by user:Doseiai (talk | contribs) 13 December 2005)

Austins under Nissan[edit]

Nissan Never made Austin Sevens. Period. This if an urban legend that has no factual basis whatsoever so what on earth is it doing on this page? This is WHY stuff like this find it's way into official histories. Gah!(unsigned comment added by user:Ratdat (talk | contribs) feb 2008)

Vandalism[edit]

In 1926 the Tokyo-based DAT Motors merged with Adolph Hitler's army of zombies.

I'm not sure, but this seems incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.67 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the changes. I'm new to editing, apologize if I did it wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.67 (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence[edit]

The lead reads as:

Nissan Motor Company Ltd (Japanese: 日産自動車株式会社 Nissan Jidōsha Kabushiki-gaisha?) (TYO: 7201), usually shortened to Nissan ( <---This seems strange, by itself.
/ˈniːsɑːn/ or UK /ˈnɪsæn/; Japanese: [nisːaɴ]), is a multinational automaker headquartered in Japan.

An improvement is needed, IMO. Thoughts, comments? Tinton5 (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm the one that reverted you, I guess I should say something :) I didn't realise what the purpose of your change was meant to do until your comment above. On my computer the automatic line break done by the browser didn't appear where it did for you, so there was no dangling ( at the end of the line for me. This position is highly dependent on how wide your browser window is and the zoom level of your browser - ie different for everyone. Try resizing your browser window to see how it changes the line wrapping. I can rework it a little for you so that it won't break just after a '(' or just before a ')'.  Stepho  talk  06:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh man that makes total sense. Each window is a different size. Well, I would appreciate it if you could possibly change the line wrapping so it is readable for everybody. Thanks! Tinton5 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nissan Motor Co v. Nissan Computer Corporation[edit]

The last paragraph in this sub section has some problems. It says "... Immediately following the ruling, Nissan Motors filed a trademark application for Computer Equipment in March 2008,[23] viewed by some as an attempt to acquire the domain through UDRP, an arbitration panel proceeding which often finds in favor of trademark holders."

The first problem is that I'm unable to verify the source provided. The linked reference results in a timeout page on the USPTO Web site. I attempted searching the database, but was unable to find the referenced application for computer equipment. If this is true, then the reference needs to be updated in a way that it will work after the USPTO Search session expires.

The second problem is that the last sentence is dubious and is not verified.

To resolve both of these problems, two citations are needed, or this content should be removed.

Jmstacey (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This has never been resolved. I am collecting notes about a cleanup. There is a separate article about Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer. Maybe we should simply point there .... Comments? BsBsBs (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Carlos Ghosn Leaf.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Carlos Ghosn Leaf.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Carlos Ghosn Leaf.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Spring Cleaning[edit]

This article needs one of the usual thorough house cleanings. The intro is overgrown, there is the usual jumble of cars and brands, a lot of unsourced and spurious information, important historical data missing. Any volunteers? Stepho, how about it? I will definitely help, but I don't want to do it all alone. BsBsBs (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the idea but I don't have much time for big efforts.  Stepho  talk  05:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Recalls[edit]

We discussed an odd phenomenon a while ago at Talk:Toyota#Spring_Cleaning: Only Toyota and Nissan Motor Company had recalls prominently listed. A check of pages of major OEMs for a complete "Recall" chapter brought this result:


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

Other car companies also have their share of recalls. This makes it look as if they don't. Listing every recall of every company is not what an encyclopedia should do.

Consensus was reached that the "Recall" chapter should go. Recalls of significance should go into history. See Talk:Toyota#Spring_Cleaning, I implemented this at the Toyota page. In order for Nissan not being the lone page with that chapter, I took the liberty of removing it also. BsBsBs (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Belated Spring Cleaning[edit]

It looks like I finally found some time for the "Spring" cleaning mentioned above. All points above still valid. If there are any other missing points, pls. let me know. Also, as with any cleanup, assistance is always welcome ... BsBsBs (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Miss Fairlady numbers[edit]

Can anyone make sense of the Miss Fairlady numbers? It says there were 45 pageants (candidates?) in 2008. Then it says 7 more were added in 2012 to make 48 (26 in Ginza). Then a further 7 werre added to Ginza to make 27. Confusing!  Stepho  talk  22:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Spring cleanup, finally started in fall …[edit]

I finally found some time to do the long overdue cleanup. This will take me some time to finish and editors are encouraged to help. This is what I have done so far:

Intro:

  • Updated the ranking, referring to new 2012 OICA data.
  • Mentioned Datsun relaunch
  • I could not find a source to back up the vague statement "It was a core member of the Nissan Group, but has become more independent after its restructuring under CEO Carlos Ghosn." The article at Nissan Group is likewise vague and unreferenced in this regard. Removed the sentence for the time being.

Beginnings of Datsun name from 1914

  • Corrected kanji of Aoyama Rokurō
  • Changed "Jitsuyo Motors" to Jitsuyo Jidosha Seizo to limit confusion, reference added
  • General cleanup of naming, removed spurious info that distracted from the quite complicated timeline.

Nissan name first used in 1930s

  • Changed "Nippon" to "Nihon"
  • Removed the controlling(?) part, replaced it with a statement that reflects source

Nissan Motor founded in 1934

  • The “dark years” are shrouded mostly in mystery. Found a new source to clarify. It is unclear whether the Manchurian company was part of Nissan or rather a separate venture of Aikawa. Help would be appreciated.
  • Corrected years of when the company was called Nissan Heavy Industries Corp.

To Do:

During the next days (or weeks), I will attempt to clean up the rest of it Here are some parts where I need help:

  • “From 1934 Datsun began to build Austin Sevens under licence. This operation became the greatest success of Austin's overseas licensing of its Seven and marked the beginning of Datsun's international success. Nissan began building Austin Sevens in 1930, though the legitimacy of their license at that time is debated.” This is convoluted, mostly unsourced, and quite possibly not true. There are voices (http://www.earlydatsun.com/datsun13.html ) that say that the Datsun 13 and the Austin 7 were similar, but not copies. Input?
  • The “Relationship with Ford Motor Company” part should be expanded to relationships with other car companies, such as Volkswagen (Santana), Alfra Romeo (Arna). More?
  • The Nissan/Renault part should reference the main article at Renault–Nissan Alliance
  • Often discussed (see above): The Nissan Computer Corporation part lacks evidence and should most likely go.
  • Current developments need cleanup and updating
  • The Marketing and especially Typography parts need serious pruning. And encyclopedia can’t possibly delve in to arcana such as the type size in HTML documents, or track TV commercials in New Zealand.
  • I cannot find any sources for "Financial difficulties (approaching billions) in Australia in the late 1980s caused Nissan to cease production there... Assembly of Nissans in New Zealand ceased in the late 1990s, following the removal of import tariffs on cars." Anybody? If none found, I will strike.

Once the factual changes are clarified and made, I recommend a general revamping of the article structure. Suggestions? The “Old Datsun” and “New Datsun” parts should most likely go into one (or two?) main articles, so that both Nissan Motor Company and Datsun could reference the same main articles. Currently, there is too much duplication and confusion.

Any other suggestions? BsBsBs (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The cleanup continues ....


As noted above, the "Austin Motor" chapter reads very confusing. First they have a license, then they don't, then they do. The claim that they copied the Seven was unreferenced. I searched for references, and could not find credible ones. http://www.earlydatsun.com/datsun13.htmlm which was quoted in the next para, says the cars were similar, but no copies. I therefore removed the sentence "Nissan began building Austin Sevens in 1930, though the legitimacy of their license at that time is debated." (In any case, they did not build Sevens anyway ...)

I also removed "After the success of Nissan, Hino and Isuzu followed to partner with Renault and Hillman respectively" as this was a tangential statement. Cleaned up the next para a bit.

[Nissan A engine] says the engine came in 1966 for the 1967 model year. No references ... I removed the six year old citation needed for the Z car. Found a reference in Motor Trend.BsBsBs (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe (but dont have any reference for) the A series engine started with the A10 engine in the Datsun 1000, which was introduced in 1966 (see Nissan Sunny). One of my first cars was the Datsun 1000 van.  Stepho  talk  22:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Now THAT would be original research :) ... want to help with the cleanup? BsBsBs (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The cleanup continues at "Foreign Expansion"

  • Fixed a few erroneous years and supplied sources for the corrections.
  • Got rid of the sentence that they would sell their building. Long sold, and hardly International Expansion ....
  • As discussed above, eliminated the para about Australia and NZ assembly. I looked really hard and could not find anything on it. If sources are found, it can be brought back.
  • Performed other cleanup and copy editing.

I am not happy with that chapter. It needs rewriting and updating. To be done after the write-through.BsBsBs (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup proceeds to relationships with other carmakers

As mentioned above, the “Relationship with Ford Motor Company” needed expansion to relationships with other car companies. I did that. I referred to the respective main articles, which helped keeping the chapter even shorter than the alliances.BsBsBs (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the reversed pipes, Stepho! I did suck you into helping after all :) BsBsBs (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Need help with current developments Tried to attack Current developments today. It is am unsorted grab-bag of information. I honestly don't know what is important and what should go. Opinions?BsBsBs (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to wait for my work computer to do a 2 minute task about 20-30 times a day, so I get 20-30 opportunities a day to do 1-2 minutes of work on WP. Which limits me to doing lots and lots of very simple tasks (like correcting small boo-boos with pipe links) instead of doing really complex re-organisations. But I can give an opinion here and there. For 'Current developments', I'd say that it should be a very simple and short summary of the last 2-3 years at most of topics that are still in peoples minds (ie recent and important). The rest of the section can be deleted or shifted to the 'History' section. I'd also put 'Recent developments' above the 'History' section so that it is easier to find for casual readers (who have a habit if not reading more than the first page of info). Otherwise you may as well just make it the last paragraph of the history section. The topics should also be of a global nature - events about S.African and UK factories are irrelevant to an Australian like me but tie-ups with Daimler affect the whole company.  Stepho  talk  21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I shall follow your advice, if that's OK with the other editors.BsBsBs (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup continues

Back from a trip, I found some time to work on the cleanup.

Alliance chapter:

  • Added hat note pointing at main Alliance article
  • Added a few badly needed references
  • Tried to find a reference for “which does not give Nissan a voting or board representation due to legal restrictions in France.” Could not find one, removed.
  • Removed Nissan 180. That plan is history. There is another in place (Power 88, if I recall right), however, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to track management plans.
  • Moved the Daimler part into the Alliance chapter. Got rid of the unreferenced "The alliance with Daimler is believed to have a focus on battery/electric technologies." No true anyway.

BsBsBs (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Nissan Motor Co v. Nissan Computer Corporation - a removal of this chapter has been requested many times, see above. Contains unreferenced claims, and frankly is no longer relevant, if it ever was. Removed.
  • Current developments - after discussing this chapter with other editors, I reviewed it again. As also noted by Stepho, the chapter contained much irrelevant information. The only relevant part, the Kerkorian/GM saga, could be moved elsewhere. Chapter removed for the time being. Following Stepho's suggestion, a better chapter should be written.
  • Environmental record - Info mostly outdated, some irrelevant. Removed for the time being. A new one should be written. BsBsBs (talk)
  • Marketing - As discussed, this chapter was a collection of superfluous information. It is not the job of an encyclopedia top track fonts or point sizes, or advertising campaigns (unless they are historically relevant) and their agencies. Removed. Kept the Miss Fairlady chapter - this is part of Nissan's heritage. Moved it to hiostory. Would love to have a picture.

This pretty much concludes the first stage of the cleanup. I am still unhappy with a few parts. After having cleaned up, it may be time for a new restructuring. BsBsBs (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Marketing - As discussed, this chapter was a collection of superfluous information. It is not the job of an encyclopedia top track fonts or point sizes, or advertising campaigns (unless they are historically relevant) and their agencies.
'As discussed'? Really? Last time I checked, only YOU have proposed and made the changes. How can it be a discussion when no one else has issued feedback throughout the process? Lack of discussion aside, your reasoning of marketing materials being 'superfluous' is incorrect. Typography is much of a process of communicating corporate images as logo, slogan, and advertising campaigns. Why else did you think Daimler have spend time on protecting Corporate ASE font if it is superfluous?[1] Companies have spent billions on how to sell products and services just as they have provided products and services, so whether they are effective or not, marketing processes are part of a company's heritage. Besides, some marketing campaigns have made into cultral landscapes (eg: See the USA in Your Chevrolet), so a general dismissal of marketing efforts counteracts the goal of compiling encyclopedia. Judging from your edit, it seem when you say something is 'superfluous', it means 'I don't care about certain contents being presented in the encyclopedia, so it should be censored.' -- 128.100.123.158 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Bs made a proposal and asked for people's opinion. Nobody felt like answering (or at least nobody had a strong opinion about it), so he implemented the proposed changes. Sounds like the actions of a reasonable man working with the community. The fonts are not an Earth shattering piece of information. If Nissan changed their fonts it is likely that nobody would notice unless it was changed to something really radical.  Stepho  talk  06:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Busan[edit]

I took the liberty of moving the part of the Nissan production in Busan from the lede into "foreign expansion." Where it fits best, AFAIC. We should definitely be trying to keep the lede short and crisp.

Frankly, I am not enthusiastic about mentioning something that will happen in 2014. WP is not a newspaper etc ... BsBsBs (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Currencies[edit]

There has been a flood of conversions of yen to dollars. Exchange rates fluctuate. Wikipedia is not an exchange rate notice board. Editors are requested to cite only the currency as originally reported, and to refrain from on-the-fly conversions. If the cited source converted the currency for reference purposes, this data point may be used, but it needs a year reference. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree.  Stepho  talk  07:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

This article suffered a series of generally puerile vandalism attacks. Please be advised that if the attacks continue, a request for semi-protection will be made. Thank you for your cooperation.BsBsBs (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Leadership change[edit]

I have edited the infobox to reflect a recent leadership change. Toshiyuki Shiga is no longer COO. The title has been abandoned. This role is divided among Hiroto Saikawa, Andy Palmer, and Trevor Mann. Now, Hiroto Saikawa is redlinked, Andy Palmer points to a punk rock guitarist, Trevor Mann points to a professional wrestler. Bios for all three are urgently needed. Assistance will be appreciated. BsBsBs (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Having (finally) some time on my hands, I took a stab at Andy Palmer. Work in progress in my sandbox User:BsBsBs/sandbox. I will set it free when finished noodling. Suggestions welcome. Saikawa and Mann should be next. BsBsBs (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I finished noodling and put the page up at Andy Palmer. BsBsBs (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Corporate Identity and branding[edit]

I added a new section on corporate identity and branding. Note that this is a situation like with Volkswagen or Ford, where there is a company that has different brands, and where one of the brands has the same name as the company. Meaning that we must keep apart Nissan, the company, from Nissan, the car brand. From a past life, I have a little experience in that matter, and it is complicated.

I am not entirely happy with the chapter. Public history of the logo is fuzzy, and there are many logos. Apparently, only recently a clear distinction has been made between Nissan, the company, and Nissan et al, the car brands. Also, I just noticed (see Ghosn picture) that I had been in the room snapping pictures when that new logo was introduced, and the introduction was so low key that I did not even notice it at the time ... BsBsBs (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


Nissan manufacturing plants around the world[edit]

The map has Iran colored in. But the article does not list Iran... so do they or do they not build cars in Iran?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pioneeranomoly (talkcontribs) 21:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither Nissan's facility list nor the list of production sites in their financial report appears to list any production in Iran. I will remove the coloring once I have figured out how. FYI, this can be done by any editor ... BsBsBs (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
On closer inspection, that wasn't the only error. A comparison with Nissan's facility list showed:
  • On map, but bogus: Pakistan, Iran
  • On list but not on map: Morocco
  • Neither in list nor map: Vietnam , Australia
I have updated both list and map, which was a lot of work. I hope I did it right, and I could use some help.BsBsBs (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Shiro Nakamura[edit]

I wrote a short bio on Shiro Nakamura, Nissan's star designer. It could use a lot of more work, help will be greatly appreciated. The article needs a picture badly. There is none in Commons, and I don't have one in my otherwise rich collection of auto execs. If anyone is at the Detroit show, please snap a picture and upload it, thank you! This might be the beginning of a small series on Nissan's C-suite ... Again, any help and input will be most welcome. BsBsBs (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nissan Model 70 Phaeton, 1938 - should it be Datsun?[edit]

Title above first picture says "Nissan Model 70 Phaeton, 1938" but in 1938 there was no Nissan Motors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.71.66 (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Both earlydatsuns.com http://www.earlydatsun.com/nissan70.html and the Toyota Museum http://www.toyota.co.jp/Museum/english/a03_08_3.html have the car as "Nissan Model 70 Phaeton." BsBsBs (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

I restored the correct logo for Nissan Motor Co.

As stated in the article, Nissan changed its corporate identity to reflect the fact that there is one entity, Nissan Motor Co., that owns three brands: Nissan, Infiniti, Datsun. Also see http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/NEWS/2014/01_03.html

The red logo is for the CAR BRAND Nissan. This article is about Nissan, the company, and it needs to reflect the correct signage. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Date etc formats[edit]

Gentlemen: I see a lot of date etc. format edits. I am all for consistency. I do not want to create extra work. Please define the formats FOR THIS ARTICLE, and I will stick to it. (At least I will make a serious attempt ...)BsBsBs (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Until yesterday, it was a mix of mostly 'dd mmmm yyyy', a modest number of 'yyyy-mm-dd', a handful of 'mmmm dd, yyyy' and some abbreviated forms. So I converted them to the most common (in this article) format of 'dd mmmm yyyy' (eg '28 January 2014'). I probably missed a few that need to be mopped up. For prose, either '28 January 2014' (if the exact date is important) or 'January 2014' is preferred. '28 Jan 2014' or 'Jan 2014' can be used in tables where conciseness is required but abbreviations should not be used in normal prose or references. Of course, if there is a consensus then we could use the US format instead.  Stepho  talk  13:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hai, wakatta! I will comply! BsBsBs (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
"abbreviations should not be used in normal prose or references"—actually, they may be used in references—see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date formats. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Revamp[edit]

Small cleanup:

  • Intro: Streamlined the intro a lot. The intro is NOT the place for complicated detail. It should give a quick "executive summary" of the company. The place for detail is further down! Please let's keep the intro crisp and lean!
  • Other alliances etc: Pulled together spurious detail that was all over the place. Structure, structure.
  • Brands: All in one place.
  • China: Missing China locations! How could I ...
  • Nismo shop: Added rare self-shot picture from my personal collection .... BsBsBs (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

Conflicting sources[edit]

With regards to the 2013 total Alliance sales, there appears to be a conflict between the data of two sources. Both sources should be authoritative, but they differ. media.blog.alliance-renault-nissan.com says (at least it did when I checked on Feb 8, 2014): "The Renault-Nissan Alliance sold a record 8,264,821 vehicles," whereas http://media.renault.com says: "The Renault-Nissan Alliance sold a record 8,266,098 vehicles..." Having to pick one, I picked the latter. This goes to show that one can't be too careful with numbers and sources. BsBsBs (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Trying to beat up little guys in court about the DOT COM Nissan name[edit]

A company called Nissan Computer Corporation kicked Nissan Motor's ass in court when the car company tried to bully them and steal the domain name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

See Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer for more details and references.  Stepho  talk  14:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

U.S. intro[edit]

I took the liberty of removing "and sold a few that year in the United States in California." Neither ref 10 nor ref 31 specify where in the US the cars were sold. Ref 31 says "US sales for 1958 were barely a squeak at a total of 83." No state mentioned. If that number is deemed important, then "and sold 83 in the first year in the US" could be added.

Well, it did say they were first shown at the 1958 Los Angeles Auto Show. Since LA is in California and they weren't shown elsewhere, then it is a fair bet to say that the majority (probably all) were sold in California.  Stepho  talk  14:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather not speculate. BsBsBs (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Key people[edit]

I noticed that EVP Trevor Mann was linked to this Trevor Mann, a professional wrestler. I can imagine that Mr. Mann occasionally must wrestle with serious challenges, but I doubt he will do it bare-chested ....... I removed the link to the wrestler. While I was at it, I also removed the redlink to Hiroto Saikawa.

I think that both deserve their own WP article. Anyone willing to lend as helping hand? Also, once Mann has his own article, any idea how to avoid a situation like this in the future?

Thank you! BsBsBs (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


Nissan Motor CompanyNissan – As per WP:Common name and in accordance with other page names like Honda, Toyota, Suzuki, and Mazda. "Nissan" already redirects here anyway. OSX (talkcontributions) 01:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  • ?? I'm very surprised to not see the article there already. Support unless there's a very good reason to ignore WP:CONCISE. Red Slash 02:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per common name. Calidum Talk To Me 04:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, very much so. Also, because the "Nissan Motor Company" may be a thing of the past. I have seen logos for Nissan Motor Corporation. Could not find announcements though ... BsBsBs (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - See: Nissan (disambiguation)... there are several topics that could take the unadorned title "Nissan"... and so the addition of "Motor Company" is a useful disambiguation. That said, I think there is a good argument for saying that the car company should be considered the "primary topic" for the name. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
While very much true, the arguments are moot as "Nissan" already redirects to this page. Similar arguments could be made for Honda, Toyota, Suzuki and more. Nevertheless, they all get their short name. Only Nissan has this monster - which is not quite correct anyway. The correct name of the company is NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. (no, I am not suggesting to use this name :). What's good for Honda, Toyota,and Suzuki, should be o.k. for Nissan, too.BsBsBs (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Logos[edit]

Now that Nissan has received its proper short name (thank you), I updated the logo. It was quietly changed from "Nissan Motor Company" to "Nissan Motor Corporation." As per Nissan's press site, this is the currently official corporate logo. Until it is changed again ... BsBsBs (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Trevor Mann[edit]

I had the opportunity to snap a picture of Trevor Mann at Nissan's annual stockholder's conference. This reminded me that his bio is long overdue. I started to work on it. The beginnings are in my sandbox. Any contributions are very much welcome. Could not find any controversies so far. Is that possible? BsBsBs (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

100 Day Strike[edit]

I have commented-out the complete chapter of the 100 Day Strike. This was done for various reasons:

  • The chapter is written in tortured grammar, for instance "Nissan was major vehicle producer for the U.S. Army and after the war strong anti-communist sentiment existed in Japan."
  • Due to the bad grammar, facts are becoming murky. For instance, "a new union ... was formed by Nissan's management which signed a deal accepting wage cuts and agreeing to prioritize productivity over workplace relations." Who accepted wage cuts? The union? Management? The deal agreed to prioritize???
  • The chapter about a 1953 strike is in the wrong place, and it breaks the timeline of Nissan's history.
  • The chapter is solely based on the Multinational Monitor, which has a strong anti-corporate and pro-union stance. Alone, the Multinational Monitor is not a reliable source.

The chapter was not removed, but commented-out, in the hope that the chapter can be improved. I tried, and failed. BsBsBs (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The following single line was originally inserted by Monopoly31121993 just after BsBsBs's first point above - which unfortunately made it look like part of BsBsBs's comment.  Stepho  talk  00:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • This is not the full sentence at all! You forgot the first 4 words "During the Korean War". Does it make more sense now? Monopoly31121993 (talk)
I put this back into the article. The grammar is far from incomprehensible, see my comment above. If the source is disagreeable then others should be added, it's certainly not okay to remove the text from visibility because you believe an author from a text from 30 years ago was biased. Furthermore I'm wondering why this was done in this fashion rather simply reverting and why the comment for the change didn't include any mention of the 100 day Strike. As always, Wikipedia is a place for adding other sources and new POVs so feel free to do so but don't blank away sections that are well referenced.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that if BsBsBs really hated that section he would have deleted it altogether. Instead he has highlighted its problems and asked other editors to fix them (after attempting this himself). Note also that he says the Multinational Monitor is a biased reference but still gives other editors an opportunity to supply other references that are more likely to survive a challenge in the future. What could be more fair than that?  Stepho  talk  23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The author of the article from 30 years ago was Tim Shorrock. He has been a writer for several highly reputable newspapers and magazines. Just because the article appeared in a source which this one editor claims was biased without giving any indication of sources to support such a claim does not mean he can remove the content from visibility on the page. The fact that he did this is a manner that was not obvious to other editors strikes me as surreptitious (no malicious but certainly stealthy). When someone removes some critical or controversial subject from the page of a large corporation it should be for a very good reason and since BsBsBs did this in a way that wasn't and then misrepresented what was actually there on the talk page I saw a big red flag go up. Anyway, I have now added three new references to the section. This was a major event in Japanese Labor history so BsBsBs' claim that he couldn't find any other sources is just absurd. A New York times Archives search alone turns up 15 results to say nothing of simply googleing the topic.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • While the grammar of the chapter improved, it still is pretty bad.
  • The chapter about a 1953 strike continues to be in the wrong place, it breaks the timeline of Nissan's history.
As for the sources, it is the job of the editor who adds a chapter to provide the proper references. It was not claimed that no other references can be found. It was simply stated that proper references were missing, and that the Multinational Monitor alone does not satisfy the requirement for reliable sources. There was nothing "surreptitions" or "stealthy." The edit was properly and obviously documented, as this talk shows. Editors are asked to refrain from making blanket accusations.
Please bring the grammar to the standards required by the world's largest encyclopedia, and please find a place for the chapter where it does not break the timeline. If this is not done, the chapter can and will be removed. BsBsBs (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The grammar issue should now be fine. I don't agree with lots of things you have stated here but there's really no point in going into all of that. Suffice it to say that Wikipedia has no rule that says you can remove (make invisible) any well referenced material, especially if there is a wealth of other sources within easy reach to back it up. I can see that you've been very active on this page and I appreciate your desire to keep it in a good state of repair but I'm concerned that you might be making it difficult for other, new editors to contribute to the page and going after someone's edits after they add something about a labor dispute 60 years ago that casts a rather different light on the Nissan company than is currently portrayed in the article is worrying.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
As per WP rules, you are to assume good faith. The chapter was not removed, it was not reverted, it was simply commented out to (successfully) trigger needed revisions. There were big notes that said what needs to be improved and why. This was a plea for improvement, not for removement. The history of the labor movement and the history of the automotive industry are tightly intermeshed. We are not doing the cause a big favor if the history of the labor movement is badly written, and if pleas for improvement devolve into accusations of ulterior motives.BsBsBs (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I edited the chapter and (hopefully) fixed a few remaining grammatical errors. Other edits:

  • The quoted source called Nissan's union "strong and militant." The chapter said Nissan's management called the union "strong and militant." Brought in congruence with the source.
  • According to both the Multinational Monitor and the NYT, Shioji Ichiro was not the new union leader at the time, but a leading figure. Edited. Added a reference to his subsequent career.
  • According to the sources, there was a trade of wage cuts for jobs. Added. It was Ichiro's idea. Added.
  • I took out "a strategy that helped to make Nissan extremely successful over the following 20 years," and replaced it with a direct quote from the source. BsBsBs (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you BsBsBs. I really appreciate what you added to the article and that you took the time to work through it. I think the article is now greatly improved. Thanks again.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Identification question[edit]

Nissan/Datsun in search of a name. Or at least, I am in search of its name.

Does anyone know what this is, please?

According to the British government car tax database website it was manufactured in 1994 and imported to the UK in 2007. The engine size is given there as 3000cc. As far as I can make out the steering wheel is on the right of the car, so it was most likely originally registered in Japan. Or maybe Australia.

Thanks if anyone has thoughts and/or insights to share on this. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Nissan 300ZX Z32 with a custom body kit.  Stepho  talk  22:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Stepho. I was clicking around the ZXs, but nothing seemed to match. I guess I was stumped by the custom body kit. (I think of you as Australian, so presumably the verb "stump" means approximately the same to you as it does to me, though it's many years since anyone bullied me successfully into pretending to understand cricket enough to want to wield a bat.) Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Cricket: You go out when it's your turn to be in. Then you come back in when you're out. :)  Stepho  talk  08:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes at the top[edit]

Andy Palmer will leave the company to become CEO of Aston Martin. [2]. At the time of this writing, Palmer is still on Nissan's payroll. We should edit his departure when he has officially departed. Likewise, Philippe Klein [3] should be added when he has arrived.

While looking at Nissan's C-Suite, I noticed that Trevor Mann's bio has been lingering in my sandbox. I took the bio live. Improvements very much appreciated. Nissan article links to the proper Trevor now. BsBsBs (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, now would be a good time to start doing research for a Philippe Klein page ... There is a short bio on the French WP [4]. Any French speakers to assist? BsBsBs (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I made a start, with a little help from Google.
Feel free to improve / expand / correct etc. There seems to be a bit of a "to do" around these latest appointments, but maybne that's just the journalists needing something to write. I need a coffee. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Will tweak it a bit over the weekend. Great start! BsBsBs (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)