Talk:Tesla Roadster (second generation)

Two pages?

Since when do we have different pages for different generations of cars (Tesla Roadster (2008) and Tesla Roadster (2020))? --Ita140188 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

They are completely different cars. The 2008-2012 car is an electrified Lotus Elise. And we already have two separate articles for that, one for the Elise and one for the Tesla. This car, is unrelated to the earlier car, except by name. It is a different platform, different body. If two cars were to be combined, it would be the Elise and the 2008-2012 Roadster, and not this 2020 Roadster, since the 2008-2012 Roadster and the Lotus Elise are very similar. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As for two different generations having different articles, what do you think all the Corvette articles are for? Chevrolet Corvette (C6) / Chevrolet Corvette (C5) / Chevrolet Corvette (C4) etc -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See discussions here and here. I'm opposed to these future product stubs, and I'm not alone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I see you are opposed, but this is something that has plenty of notability that would pass WP:NOTE with flying colors. If you want to take this up to a VfD, I think you would lose. I agree that these really are two different vehicles. It is also highly unlikely that this vehicle will get cancelled unless Tesla itself goes out of business. Give it time for things to develop here, and as always use reliable sources to write this article and keep it neutral.

It is disappointing that Tesla did not choose to call this something substantially different, or at least say it is the "Roadster II". Still, its performance characteristics and fabrication methods are going to be so radically different that they really are vastly different vehicles. Even the number of passengers is going to be different with this new vehicle having a back seat and is going to be physically larger in a number of ways. It really is a different vehicle.

I am also supporting this as a separate article so far as to keep all of the speculation and barrage of new details about this vehicle to be separated from the article about the historic vehicle. From a purely article management perspective and for Wikipedia admins to deal with contributors, it will be far easier to deal with two separate vehicles. It has been formally announced as a vehicle with even several reporters having actually had a chance to ride inside of the vehicle and give independent accounts about it (at least the prototype that was at the unveiling). More will come in the future. Let's keep all of those tweets from Elon Musk about this vehicle along with other news stories that will eventually happen (and no, this isn't WP:CRYSTAL) confined to just here instead of messing up what is arguably a pretty good article already. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Tesla has a track record of of diving in with both feet with new fabrication methods and it blows up in their face. See the Model 3, or the X. This radically different process has a significant chance of failure. It's not like every car Detroit ever started developing, using utterly conventional technology through and through, always went into production. This bad Wikipedia habit of churning out hundreds of words every time there is a Tesla press release is why we have so much crap to clean up now. The editors who spew all this poorly sourced material out aren't helping with that. I'm saying it hast to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Tesla has a terrible track record. Of note, the Model 3 and the Model X are in production and are notable by themselves with information from numerous sources including oddly even flat out academic sources. In this case, a formal announcement has happened and a working prototype has been made available for journalists to physically interact with. Future vehicles that hadn't been announced yet formally by the manufacturer as a standard to keep an article about them from getting written is perhaps a reasonable standard.... but that threshold has been crossed in this case and the formal announcement has been made. Why are you fighting this now? This also isn't a mere 'press release" but a formal press 'conference' and public reveal of the vehicle and subsequent aftermath from that. If you are waiting for post-production independent reviews and testing, I think your standard for notability is a far bit too extreme and is beyond what WP:NOTE requires. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of the and "200kWh power output"/"three phase battery"/"three electric batteries" + word soup that appeared has been removed again.[1] None of this was in the original Draft article when it was migrated to main article space. (Most of which appeared in IP edit Special:Diff/810901652). As for crystal … the thing exists, and was giving test drives with 0-to-60 sprints time-after-time-after-time yesterday—which is completely different to most other manufacturers doing a 3D-render accompanied by a lump of plastic on a turntable under some spotlights. —Sladen (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Rewrites and refs

Some of the people rewriting the page seem to have left the refs behind in older revisions, with the new text unsupported by the original refs, which are no longer attached to the rewritten statements. Also, refs should be atleast attached to each paragraph, not just at the end of an entire section. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)