Talk:Opel

File:Opel Mokka 2012.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Opel Mokka 2012.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent tagging of article

Hello, I tagged this article as having NPOV and Tone issues because the word usage is too informal and it is written like a fanzine article on the subject as opposed to an encyclopedic article. The article could use a good copy edit.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sadly a mental sock puppeteer by the name of Kalaua has decided to go nuts with all Opel articles, adding countless photos and tons of unsourced or simply misunderstood content. I can't keep up, so we'll just have to have a WP in which Kalaua may play around at will.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Safety bicycle photograph

Referring to the photograph in the article, it seems a bit strange to caption it as a safety bicycle. While undeniably of the "safety" design, rather than the high-wheeler or "penny-farthing," the machine shown is a classic tradesman's or errand-boy's bicycle, once common in Britain, and still, I believe, used in continental Europe, especially where vehicular access is difficult in pedestrianised parts of towns and cities. It seems an odd choice to represent the safety bicycle, as it has a number of non-typical features like differently-sized wheels (to reduce the centre of gravity and the height of the carrier at the front), the carrier itself, the stand and the advertising panel - all contributing to its fairly hefty weight. I presume the Opel trade name may have been the motivation in selecting it. Pavel (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Opel logo 2011.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Opel logo 2011.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 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:Opel logo 2011.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Opelmokka2012.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Opelmokka2012.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Opelmokka2012.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Opel Ampera

Opel Ampera is not a hybrid. It is a fully electrical car i e it is allways driven by electrical power. The small petrol engine is only a generator. Kind regards Ronny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.13.207.19 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

GM releases photos with Creative Commons 3.0 licence

So, it should be no problem to use those official photos without licencing problems. This Creative Commons message appears when beginning to download any photo from the GM global website. --L.Willms (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No go - you can't alter the photos aside from cropping, won't fly here. Still a good beginning measure, I hope other companies follow.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagging of the article / in response to Jeremy

With all due respect: IMHO a fanzine, as asserted by Jeremy, still sounds a lot different like that article about Opel. In terms of its style I perceive it as being relatively similar to the article about Volkswagen or the German language article about Opel. So I'd propose to remove the corresponding tagging of the article regarding the supposedly existing tone- or NPOV issues, because this goes too far in my opinion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLstbg (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Kalaua, you are the main problem with all of the Opel articles. I wish you would go away and find something else useless to do.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkey

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_Turkey, Opel produces vehicles in Turkish factories. The Supreme Allied Commander of Greece welcomes Turkey to the European Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.12.191 (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed content

The following was removed from the infobox:
[[Opel Performance Center|OPC]]<ref>http://ruesselsheim.gvd-firmen.de/firmen/opel-performance-center-gmbh-ruesselsheim/321899.html
This citation does not in any way establish that OPC is a subsidiary of Adam Opel AG. At best, it establishes that a company with that name exists. How do we know that this isn't an independent company spun-off of Adam Opel AG? Regarding the source, how do we determine that this qualifies as high quality under WP:SOURCE? How do we know this is accurate and recently updated? The most recent General Motors Company 10-K filing lists all the subsidiaries of GM and OPC isn't one of them. Simply finding OPC listed in a business directory doesn't prove OPC is still an existing legal entity and it doesn't prove it is a subsidiary of Adam Opel AG or General Motors 174.21.209.206 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Opel Performance Center GmbH is a subsidiary of Opel. This article on Opel.com says it:"1997: Opel establishes Opel Performance Center GmbH (OPC)" I hope you understand that the German GmbH is a lega form. Opel Eisenach GmbH, Opel Special Vehicles GmbH were also mentioned in the lists of GM? I doubt GM will list every subsidiary especially those which are not directly owned by GM in this case Opel Performance Center GmbH. http://media.gm.com/media/po/pl/opel/vehicles/opc/2009.html --Dencent (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dencent. Companies that are publicly listed in the United States are required to disclose all legally incorporated subsidiaries in Exhibit 21 of their annual 10-K filing. Opel Performance Center GmbH does not appear in the most recent Exhibit 21 list in GM's 2012 10-K. (In contrast, Opel Performance Vehicles GmbH does appear in the Exhibit 21 list and thus appears in the infobox.)

Regarding your statements above, the fact that a company was established or existed in the past doesn't mean that the company still exists today. So far, neither you nor I have found any evidence that Opel Performance Center GmbH still exists as a legally incorporated subsidiary. I agree that at one time in the past there was such a thing as Opel Performance Center GmbH, but neither one of us can find any evidence that it still exits. GM's bankruptcy changed a whole bunch of things in the GM corporate organization chart, so it is not a good practice to assume that something that existed before the bankruptcy is still around. Opel Performance Center GmbH could have been spun off or dis-incorporated. The link you've posted above from the Polish site is a press release from 2009, so it isn't up to date. You need to find evidence from a high quality source that Opel Performance Center GmbH exists now, in the present day (or reasonably close to the present day.)

You continue to make editing errors in the subsidiaries section of the infobox. If you haven't read the template's usage instructions, please don't make any further edits until you do. If you don't understand some aspect of the instructions, please ask for help. I appreciate your work in improving this article and would appreciate it even more if you would follow the template usage instructions. The usage instructions are crystal clear about the subsidiary parameter, so I don't understand why you continue to make the same mistake repeatedly. Good editors familiarize themselves with the (very many) rules and follow them. I believe your intent is to be one of the good editors, so please do whatever you need to do to get up to speed. Let's please avoid a situation where you get reported for disruptive editing. Thank you. 174.21.166.165 (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit - FWIW, I took a careful look at the Opel Performance Center article (its not exactly an example of a high quality article) The only properly referenced statement in that article that applies to this discussion is that Opel Performance Center GmbH was formed in 1997. We both already agree that OPC existed at one time, however we disagree about its current status and there isn't a single reference in the OPC article that sheds any light on that. We'll have to keep looking. 174.21.166.165 (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The article "OPC Boss Volker Strycek Drives and Talks About the Astra OPC" at [1], published in May 2013, names OPC as a division of Adam Opel AG.174.21.176.132 (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read this article carefully! This is not an official article published by Opel/GM and the Carscoops writer calls OPC a division without references and it wasn't even an interview. This is not a reliable or high quality source to underline your claim. This article says that OPC was founded as a German GmbH in 1997 therefore a subsidiary of Opel. As long as you have no other evidence from reliable sources then we must assume that nothing has changed until now. However, the company could have changed its name from Opel Performance Center GmbH to Opel Performance Vehicles GmbH, but its trading name is still OPC or Opel Performance Center. GM UK Ltd's trading name is Vauxhall. You should also note that GM has a poor and complicated company structure (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vauxhall_Motors#Company_Names). Maby it was a mistake and they called "Vehicles" instead of "Center". We'll see. http://media.gm.com/content/media/po/pl/opel/vehicles/opc/2009.html --Dencent (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Opel is a German company, not just "Germany-based"

It is the location of the company and its headquarters, that is where the company is legally registered, that decides the "nationality" of a company, not where the current owners of the shares/stocks are located or where they have subsidiaries. So Chrysler is an American company, Opel a German company, Jaguar, Bentley and Rolls-Royce British companies, etc, even though all of those and many more are subsidiaries of foreign companies. So don't change it again! Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion. You said above "the location of the company and its headquarters, that is where the company is legally registered, that decides the 'nationality'", but you didn't provide any references in the WP Manual of Style, etc. that support your view. Please help you fellow editors by directing us to the WP references that provide direction on this, if there are any. The Associated Press Stylebook, which doesn't apply here, obviously, but is still a great place to look for an example, only describes nationalities in reference to "peoples, races, tribes, etc." (from Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law. 40th ed. 2005. p.167).

Referring to Opel as "German" is inaccurate because it means that the company operates solely in Germany, limits its sales exclusively to Germany, has no presence in any other countries, etc. With Adam Opel AG, we know that isn't correct. However, the statement "Adam Opel AG is a Germany-based multinational company." is accurate. It correctly states the full legal name of the organization, where it is based, the scope of its operations and the type of organization and doesn't give a reader the misimpression that Opel limits its business solely to Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.176.132 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The country of registration (US: incorporation) is what matters. And since Opel is registered/incorporated in Germany it's a German company. Period. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're the only one here who understands it like this. I have never heard that somebody say, e.g. Toyota is a Japanese-BASED brand or company. Thomas.W is right what he said and if you take a look at other articles on Wikipedia you'll see that most of them have a similar introduction and this has been for years. "Opel IS German" refers to its origin and not that it only operates in Germany! This is what I have understand. The Spanish article begins like this:"Adam Opel AG, conocida como OPEL, es una empresa alemana de automóviles fundada en 1862 por el alemán Adam Opel." Spanish is not my mother tongue, but the verb ser is used for the origin and you see that the Spanish article has a similar introduction like the English article. The German article says:"Die Adam Opel AG ist ein deutscher Automobilhersteller,...". In English:"The Adam Opel AG is a German automobile manufacturer,...". I don't know what your problem is.

"Mazda Motor Corporation (マツダ株式会社 Matsuda Kabushiki-gaisha?) is a Japanese automaker based in Fuchū, Aki District, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan."

"AB Volvo is a Swedish multinational manufacturing company headquartered in Gothenburg, Sweden."

"Saab Automobile AB[4][5] /ˈsɑːb/ is a Swedish car manufacturer."

"Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (日産自動車株式会社 Nissan Jidōsha Kabushiki-gaisha?) (TYO: 7201), usually shortened to Nissan (/ˈniːsɑːn/ or UK /ˈnɪsæn/; Japanese: [nisːaɴ]), is a Japanese multinational automaker headquartered in Japan."--Dencent (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

These are your edits even if you change your IP address multiple times. Some edits you did were reversed by other editors.

"Škoda Auto (Czech pronunciation: [ˈʃkoda] ( listen)), more commonly known as Škoda, is an automobile manufacturer based in the Czech Republic."

"Cadillac /ˈkædɨlæk/ is a division of United States-based General Motors Company (GM) that markets and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dencent (talk • contribs) 14:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No idea what 174.21.176.132's problem is, but I agree with ThomasW and Dencent that the location of the corporate entity is satisfactory, and if that coincide's with HQ and historic location, then that's all the better. The ultimate owner doesn't change that; Chrysler & Jeep are now Italian, Rolls Royce and Bentley German, and Nissan is arguably half-French, and SEAT is of course German... and as we know, all those countries trade internationally irrespective of their HQ location so the argument put forward above is just absurd. Warren (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

war's end

Since the war ended in May 1945, In

Just at war's end a small skeleton crew began clearing the rubble from the plant. By May 1945 ...

war's end must be understood as "occupation by the allied troops"?

pietro151.29.249.152 (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)