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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
I've added information about Toyota strongly considering plant closure in the intro. It has been reverted twice. I believe the information is very notable and applicable to the current article. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The shutdown is notable but has become disproportionate to the rest of the article. We have 2 general references, 2 references about tours (one no longer valid), one reference about no more Pontiacs and 5 about the current woes. In 2 years time will the shutdown seem more relevant than any of the rest. That's why I'd prefer to wait a few weeks and then report the facts (rather than speculation) in a balanced article. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like more references are needed. The fact is the plant is being considered for shutdown, that is not speculation. I've changed the text to reflect this. I've also changed one of the references. The new one says California legislature is considering tax break legislation, to entice Toyota to keep the plant open. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More references? To the section that I have already said is disproportionately big? I'm not denying that the shutdown is happening, nor am I denying that it is notable. I'm only querying why it has to be nearly 50% of the article and changing status on a daily basis. Much better to wait until things have stabilised and then give a short summary of the FINAL position.
A second issue is about the format of the references. Notice that the original references have titles, access dates, etc. Then compare them to yours. Cheers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this information is valuable, be careful not to fall in a trap of recentism and adding a paragraph for each announcement in the news, effectively turning Wikipedia into a news blog. Focus on writing what actually happened, rather than what was announced will happen. --Vossanovao< 17:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coming at this from a perspective of three years later, I do find it notable that there's more about the events leading up to the plant closure than there is about the rest of the history of the plant. Is there really nothing more that is interesting or notable to say about its activities for the preceding thirty years? 50.0.150.25 (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
plagiarism
Parts of the background paragraph rip off complete sentences from the NUMMI episode of This American Life. While the article does cite the episode, this is still plagiarism and should be re-written. Unmiked (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article range
Now that this plant has closed and will likely reopen shortly as a Tesla/Toyota plant, with a new name, do we create a new article on the new business, or simply add the material to this article, and thus have the article about the facility and its incarnations? i really dont know policy or history on articles like this. For now, until the new business actually opens, i think its fine to just add to this article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from mentioning that it will/has passed to Tesla, this article should pretty much stop here. The buildings are old but they will no longer be owned by the NUMMI company - just the same as when they passed from GM hands to the GM/Toyota joint venture. Any new stuff should go in some Tesla article. Stepho (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
