Talk:Tesla, Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Houdinipeter (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 29 January 2019 (→‎Slimming down this Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajlurie2001 (article contribs).

"Overlink"

@BLDM: Your logic regarding WP:OVERLINK is little falwed since the infobox is the first thing that appears on the page (both in code and to the casual reader), so if anything, it should be delinked in the lede. Also if you are saying Musk has to be unlinked, Palo Alto, Eberhard, Tarpening, SolarCity, Tesla Energy, electric verhicles (and so on) would also have to be unlinked.

But then, it is common practice to link once in the infobox, once in the lede, and once in the article body (I'm not aware of any guideline that states exactly this, but is pretty much the case on all of the 1300+ pages on my watchlist, or any good article for that matter (cf. Today's feature article). IMHO, it would be best to just follow that practice and focus on the real overlinking problem, such as Eberhard and Tarpenning, as well as several Tesla Models, being linked multiply in the lede. Lordtobi (✉) 05:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the infobox is the first thing that appears on the page (both in code and to the casual reader) - perhaps only if you're reading right-to-left, or immediately scrolling past the lead on mobile.
From WP:OVERLINK: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.
If the debated items were only linked deep in the article, then I'd agree that it may be helpful to add them to the infobox - but that's not the case here. Had the infobox not already been cluttered with links, I wouldn't really care. BLDM (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, there it is: [...] if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes [...] (emphasis mine) — And I do find it helpful. As I already stated, many casual readers care to first check the infobox (also an eye catcher when it holds fancy images) before actually reading the text. It might not apply to you or me, but to the majority of Wikipedia's clientel. This is also the reason why the infobox is indexed and reproduced by Google (a popular search engine) when searching for the topic. Furthermore, I cannot seem to find why you would consider linking Straubel as unhelpful, but still bother linking Tarpenning and "automotive industry", which would fit the same criteria (for better or worse consistency, but at least consistency). Lordtobi (✉) 07:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I might also want to add that WP:STATUSQUO applies to the version with linking, as you only changed that a couple hours ago, after the links had been in place for years. Lordtobi (✉) 07:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I appreciate the emphasis on what I was already addressing.
many casual readers care to first check the infobox (also an eye catcher when it holds fancy images) before actually reading the text[citation needed]
after the links had been in place for years - either you made no effort to verify this, or you're deliberately trying to mislead people. The edit that introduced the CEO link is here (spoiler: it's yours!), so you're only half right. And here is a random revision from a month ago that shows many of the current links did not exist then. BLDM (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
👀 Both revisions show that Musk and Straubel were already linked (even multiply) in the infobox. I introduced links for additional roles as CFO was already linked, and I aimed at consistency. If you wish to play the time game, in the earliest revision featuring the |key_people= parameter, Musk, Chairman and CEO were already linked, and so was Straubel (and his respective role) when he was introduced there too. The linking was kept until it was removed only in March this year. Let me quickly introduce an interim status quo to the article (+people, -roles). Lordtobi (✉) 13:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've established that, I'd appreciate if other editors could provide their input on whether links from the lead should also appear in the infobox. BLDM (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Musk, Straubel and Wright as founders

Despite anonymous editors' best intents to proclaim Musk as founder (even placing him on top, as if he was the primary founder), we should make sure that it is clear to reader that the company itself was founded by only Eberhard and Tarpenning, and the other three (not just Musk) are just allowed to call themselves founders due to a lawsuit setteled over six years later (which does not, however, make them actual founders). @BLDM, you are also very active on the article, would you think adding an {{efn}} note to the founders field, explaining the Musk/Straubel/Wright situation, would make sense? Lordtobi (✉) 10:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the archived discussion at Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_1#Elon Musk as a founder. My position then and now is that there is no formal definition of "founder" and it can be anything the company wants. In this case, Eberhard and Tarpenning incorporated the company but the company has chosen to call all five as founders.  Stepho  talk  11:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stepho-wrs, thanks for your input. I wasn't aware of the discussion you linked, but from a first glance it doesn't appear as if there was any concise consensus. Our template docs currently read The founder/entrepreneur/s who founded the company, which, stricly seen, would only apply to Eberhard and Tarpenning. Musk/Straubel/Wright are founders but didn't found the company. This marks my opinion, obviously, so I would appreciate if we could get some involvement in this discussion and reach a clear consensus. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 12:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is no "strictly". There is no formal definition of founder - see articles Startup_company#Founders/Entrepreneurs, Organizational_founder, Founder and dictionary definitions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/founder, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/founder, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/founder . Many people assume that the founders are the persons that incorporated the company but this is not necessarily true. In Tesla's case, they have publicly stated that there are 5 founders - see https://www.cnet.com/news/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/ . However, the article lists Eberhard and Tarpenning separately as doing the incorporation.  Stepho  talk  21:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stepho-wrs, again, I see your point. With the 'strictly' I was referring to the part-sentence "... who founded the company", wherein Musk/Straubel/Wright are founders (by definition of qthe lawsuit settlement) but didn't found the company per se. This is, if you consider the incorporation as the foundation. Hence I think opting for consensus-reaching is the best way to find the proper use. Lordtobi (✉) 01:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but it's the 'per se' that is the sticking point. Since founder(s) does not always mean the person(s) who incorporated the company, there is no "per se". For example, it is common for a family business to run over a few generations and finally get incorporated. The founder may have died 50 years before the incorporation. In Tesla's case, Eberhard and Tarpenning did the incorporation for a fledgling company, then Musk, Straubel and Wright took it to the level that became famous. Either side could be argued (here, in forums and in court) but ultimately we just report who the company itself decided to call founders.  Stepho  talk  01:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the best way to solve this conundrum is to mention the five persons as per the lawsuit settlement (no choice here, it is a mandatory decision), and then explain briefly that began with two and as agreed by the settlement there are formally five founders. The corresponding section details when and what each individual did. A hidden comment should be left in the infobox to avoid recurring discussions on this topic again.--Mariordo (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 02:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Tesla, Inc.#Original roadster and private funding does already say this in the first paragraph, although it can always be tweaked a bit. The current infobox only lists 2 founders - that should be expanded to all 5, as per the court case.  Stepho  talk  02:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then the reference in the box should have an embedded comment (between }} and </ref>) explaining this is by a legal settlement, and a hidden comment about this and the previous discussion. Agreed.--Mariordo (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this sound to your liking?
| founders = {{ubl
 | [[Martin Eberhard]]
 | [[Marc Tarpenning]]
 | [[Elon Musk]]{{efn|name="founders"|Eberhard and Tarpenning incorporated Tesla, while Musk, Straubel and Wright joined in a [[Series A round]] later on. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five to call themselves founders.<ref>source</ref>}}
 | [[J. B. Straubel]]{{efn|name="founders"}}
 | Ian Wright{{efn|name="founders"}}
<!-- Please see talk page before changing. While Eberhard and Tarpenning incorporated the company, Musk, Straubel and Wright have been pronounced founders of the company by lawsuit settlement agreement. -->
}}

Lordtobi (✉) 09:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would make one change by adding the reference to the agreement on each name. And Wright would probably like his name spelt correctly. Otherwise it looks excellent.  Stepho  talk  10:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, just the source or a note that gives some context to the list? See edited version for my proposal. Lordtobi (✉) 12:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I have no objections.  Stepho  talk  13:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. @Mariordo, thoughts? Lordtobi (✉) 13:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as noted by Stepho-wrs, please add a RS (I think already in the section) with the comment embedded. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Year over year sales increase of 280% in lead

Per wp:lead I placed year over year sales increase of 280%. I think everyone will find that information very interesting and makes the topic very interesting. Someone doesn't think it belongs in the lead. What do you think?   Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check the source, that is only the change between Dec 2017 and Dec 2018. The annual change I just included in the sales section, up 138% from 2018. Furthermore, as per MOS the lead is a summary of the notable facts of the article, that info is not elsewhere in the article. It is a bad practice to include tidy bits directly in the lead. I will reverse you again just because the figure is wrong. If you think that change between those two months is more relevant than annual change, go ahead and move it to the sales section (after the 532K cumulative sales, which I believe is much more relevant and deserve to be in the lead but some time back someone removed everything related to sales records from the lead. Cheers-Mariordo (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion is around U.S. sales versus world. The number in the lead is for U.S. sales. I'll reverse your change because numbers are correct. Info has been added to sales section. Agree raw sales numbers do not belong in the lead. What makes this info interesting is the magnitude of sales increase. The raw sales numbers are just there to back up the percent increase. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Board of directors

Description of the directors is incorrect for two entries, namely, Elon Musk & Robyn Denholm Vinod (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should they be changed to? Maybe you could edit it! Houdinipeter (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slimming down this Article

This article on Tesla is very large. Currently the article is roughly 254 kb, surpassing the style guide's standard of under 100 kb. Potential breakout articles are the lawsuit & controversies section, the product model section and the history. Any opinions? Houdinipeter (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Houdinipeter: Agreed! Your suggestions are very logical. Vcpecon (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Houdinipeter: Thank you. The history section also needs to be trimmed, considering there is already a separate article. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcpecon and Ita140188: I bluntly moved sections to History of Tesla, Inc. and lawsuits and Controversies of Tesla, Inc., but the article is still about 70kb too big. Any help is appreciated! Houdinipeter (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla,_Inc.&oldid=880840368"