This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BMW article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Companies (Rated B-Class, High-importance) CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject CompaniesCompanies articles Companies portal v • d • e 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Germany / Munich  (Rated C-Class, High-importance) GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Germany portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Munich (marked as Top-importance). WikiProject Motorcycling (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance) MotorcyclingWikipedia:WikiProject MotorcyclingTemplate:MotorcyclingMotorcycling articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Automobiles (Rated B-Class, High-importance) AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles Cars portal v • d • e 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): German military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force World War II task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft engines (Rated C-Class) AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WPAVIATIONaviation articles Aviation portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Contents 1 Conflicting Dates 2 Turbo 3 Criticisms? 4 External Link 5 External Link 6 Opening par 7 ? 8 POV? 9 BMW Production Plant in Pakistan ?? 10 Biased 11 Edit as of 13:45, 13 July 2007 12 BMW Manufacturing Co. Spartanburg 13 Efficient Dynamics? 14 History of BMW 15 BMW Motorcycles 16 Logo size 17 Logo Origins 18 Off-road X3? 19 Reducing external links 20 Odd/Even Numbering 21 Canadian Class Action Suit 22 BMW Group 23 Set Bimmers on stun 24 Rover Marque ownership 25 Introduction: Acquisitions and company history not needed 26 BMW E36 27 Way too long 28 Factual Errors 29 Z4 Production??? 30 Origins of the logo 31 Sport Sponsorship 32 The BMW Education Programme 33 Wikiproject Companies 34 2009 Job Cuts 35 On merging sections "Culture" and "Nomenclature" 36 List of cars 37 Any objection to autoarchiving this talk page?

[edit] Conflicting Dates

The main article body states that BMW was founded in 1916 but the infobox states 1913. I have no idea which one is right. according to their website here the correct date is 1916. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.30.7.237 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turbo

Should the two-of-a-kind BMW Turbo not be under the prototype list, since it was listed as an "inspiration for the M1"?Zchris87v 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms?

There is barely anything negative in this article. BMW is reported to have used slave labour during WW2, which is not uncommom, however they failed to compensate the slaves even to this day. Speculation, but should be researched.

There is barely anything negative in this article. Is there a requisite amount of negativism required for a good article?

Speculation, but should be researched. I nominate you for the task. --BAW (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be negative criticism. 76.71.215.144 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

--There should be negative criticism as a rule? In all articles? Or just in the one about this particular car company? Why? An encyclopedia is not a clearinghouse for controversies. An entry should be dispassionate and informative. --BAW (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now added a controversy section. I don't think there should be negative criticism in articles as a rule, but when a particular controversy is newsworthy and/or an important part of an organisation's history, it does have a place in an encyclopedia. Templetongore (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Nazi connections" section is completely unwarranted. The section as in this revision is clearly intended to imply that BMW itself has some Nazi-related controversy, which is not true. The connections in question belong to Günther Quandt and family, not BMW which wasn't acquired by the Quandts until the mid-1950s. The paragraph inserted has nothing to do with BMW itself and is a classic coatrack. Gr1st (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Quandt's have a 46.6% stake in BMW and the Quandt's have a Nazi past. If the major owners of a firm are controversial in some way, can it really be ignored on that firm's Wikipedia page? Surely it is part of the profile of the company, if only the because the question is raised in the media from time to time (the articles referenced in the section all mention BMW)? BMW themselves have said that they have "confronted" their "wartime history via independent research projects". It is part of the company's history and therefore, I think, something that should be mentioned here. Templetongore (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with some of the above, the criticisms are not notable. Some shareholder who died in the 50s was an member of the Nazi party. oh and BMW made people redundant in 2009 - like 1000s of other companies. Criticism removed. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with last post. Criticism is both valid and notable. Besides, no clear consensus exists that the section should be removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I give reasons as to why it isn't notable - you have just stated the it is valid and notable without stating why. If you wish it to stay then please give reasons as to why you consider it to be notable. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Biker Biker seems more interested in reverting and putting 3RR templates on my talk page, than joining in this discussion. As he has not responded I shall assume that he has no valid reason for disagreeing with my points and that consensus is pointing towards the removal of this section. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are disrupting the editing process and should stop. If there was consensus on removing it it would have been gone long ago. I favor expanding the section with more detail, not removing it.
The footnotes already there are sufficient to to justify mention in the article: it received significant media coverage, and secondary sources deem it notable. The issue was so important to BMW they paid a historian to work for six years writing a book about it.[1] That should probably be added, along with expansion on subsequent events after the book was published. Even aside from the actual events during WWII, the impact on BMW's image is profound, and that's probably why BMW took it so seriously. For BMW, image is everything, perception is everything. Take that away and you're left with an overpriced Volkswagen.--Dbratland (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not realise that talking on an article talk page was disruptive - be a little more open to people who don't share the same opinion as yours, I don't consider me voicing my opinions to be disruptive in the slightest. Prior to me using this talk page there was no overwhelming consensus either way. Just because the article stayed in its current state for a while, does not mean it has to stay like that forever. Oh, and if you want to add more to the article - please obtain consensus first. Also your opinions regarding BMW's image are not really relevant as far as wikipedia is concerned. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

On a more constructive note - At the moment the criticism sections has two parts - firstly do people see the criticism of Günther Quandt as direct criticism of BMW? secondly do people really think the redundancies are worth mentioning? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see doing something like creating a new section called "BMW's Nazi past" and putting all the Nazi material there, rather than calling it "Criticism".--Dbratland (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can, once you gain consensus for such an addition to the article and of course once you get rid of wikipedia rules concerning POV and undue weight. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand why User:119.173.81.176 keeps removing the section when he/she is the only one saying it is irrelevant. Other editors (such as me) think it should be kept, and others have reinstated the section when removed. Yet still this editor persists and claims it is up to others to say why it should be kept. The Quandt family are major shareholders in BMW and have a Nazi past. Therefore it is relevant to this article so I say it should be kept. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What I don't think is that the issue needs an entire section, but the association is noteworthy and should be mentioned somewhere within the article. I would certainly support the entire controversy section being deleted on that basis. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. At the very least the article needs to explain why BMW paid a historian to work for 6 years, and then write a book about BMW's Nazi connections. Not every corporation does such things, so it is notable and interesting, and it cries out for fuller explanation. How the article says that, and in what sections it says that, are definitely subject to improvement. So once again, I favor improvement, not deletion. Ford Motor Company#Alleged Nazi collaboration treats the same questions in a fairly enlightening way, without giving it undue weight.--Dbratland (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I see room for compromise here, perhaps mentioning the book and briefly mentioning the Quandt Nazi connections as part of the history of BMW would be a good idea - also did BMW itself have a Nazi past? I have no idea myself, but that would be far more notable and worthy of inclusion. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

While it certainly is relevant to mention, that one of the major shareholders had nazi ties, its totally inrelevant to tie the whole company to such allegations. The Quandt family has and had 0a bunch of other businesses and eventually bought the majority of stocks decades AFTER the war. There should be no extra section for BMW´s nazi past. Instead, a brief remark on the nazi topic and a link to the Quandt family article should be included in the history part. It is ridiculous that it seems to be the norm to fill up any article of a german company with a nazi section twice as long as the normal history. You don't find russian company articles with huge Stalinism-sections or Iraqi companies with huge Saddam sections.Villevav (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

Hi i have currently made a new exotic car site here. I was wanting to add the relevant pages to relevant wiki pages and wondering if thats ok to do so? Please let me know.

Thanks

Richard Richard300187 16:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard300187 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Your link doesn't work

DineshAdv (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

Does anyone see any value in adding links to satellite images of the company's headquarters. You can get a very good view of the company's 4 cylinder headquarters building and museum.

• BMW is at coordinates 48°10′35″N 11°33′36″E / 48.176482°N 11.559978°E / 48.176482; 11.559978 (BMW)Coordinates: 48°10′35″N 11°33′36″E / 48.176482°N 11.559978°E / 48.176482; 11.559978 (BMW)

Pretty cool view!!! Please add if possible. Cantor575 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening par

The opening paragraph of this article looks absolutely like no other I've ever seen on Wikipedia. In my opinion it looks a mess and doesn't seem to comply with WP:MS It's not exactly easy to read and practically everything is Wikilinked. Escaper7 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for pointing that out. I've taken the liberty of stripping out most of the extra formatting, including the audio, leaving something that looks half reasonable. TomRawlinson 21:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work, vast improvement. Escaper7 14:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

under "pre WWII" the following is written after a reference: "//I would dispute this. There are extant pictures of an earlier BMW Logo which is clearly the precursor of the current logo and equally clearly shows the nose of an aircraft with a spinning propeller (RF1952)// http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/features/2004/bmw-75/03-large/1916-logo.jpg" This needs to be fixed. ? Algonquin 14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree. Theres a citation-less note about the logo NOT being a reference to a propeller, but instead to a logo that looks nothing like the BMW logo except that they both happen to be round. Even a recent Motor Trend had a note about that the logo inspiration does in fact come from a propeller. I'd like to at least chunk the uncited line, unless somebody wants to cite or has a reason not to… Algonquin's image is more definitive than anything else I'm seeing… Xodiaq (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the logo represents the colors of Bavaria. It was on National Geographic's "How it Was Made" when they were making a Z4 (don't know if thats the right show though, but it was one of them). We might need to have an actual citation about that though... Polis4rule (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

'The BMW Hydrogen 7 is just another example of how BMW allow's great ideas to live on to become Ultimate Driving Machines.' -- just a teensy weensy bit POV, perhaps? Also very non-encyclopedic. I'd change it, but I don't want to get dragged into a huge argument...

Pah. I went ahead and changed it, and removed some other seemingly POV comments about the 6 series. I'm not a BMW hater (I own one) but I don't like to see fanboy advertisements on WP, especially when they're poorly spelt. 86.144.207.26 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My fault. Again my apologies for having to clean up after me. By the way, its not about being a "fanboy"--just thought the article sounded too cold.(Qwazywabbit 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] BMW Production Plant in Pakistan ??

I removed a statement under 'Production outside Germany' that states BMW opened a production plant in Karachi, Pakistan in 2007. The source given (BMW Karachi facility goes on stream, The muslim) doesn't seem to be valid. Please provide valid sources to support statements made in the article. --Flexijane 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No plant in Pakistan I'm sure. Why have a plant in Pakistan when there's already one in India to cater to South Asian RHD markets (incl. Pakistan, Bangladesh etc).--Automaniaconwiki 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

This article seems to be written with quite a bias towards the subject, does not read like an encyclopedia. eg. In the description of the 5 series, 'Condsidered the perfect blend of sport performance coupled with luxury' Seems a bit over the top for an encyclopedia if not quoting something.

yep , there was that advertisment tag earlier, somebody removed it and added even more sama style, article needs some rewriting...--— Typ932^{T | C}  07:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole entire "Models" section reads like an advertisement. --Bobbit bob 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems most of it has been cleaned up. One section even stated that "The BMW Hydrogen 7 is just another example of how BMW allow's great ideas to live on to become Ultimate Driving Machines", a gramatically incorrect clearly biased sentence. However, most of this has been removed at this point I believe. Zchris87v 07:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you were absolutely right, I couldn't believe half of what I was reading. I don't know how many times I read "formula inspired", "amazingly impressive", or other opinionated phrases - this has to be either one of the worst encyclopedic articles I have ever read, or one of the best sales pitches (just kidding). I did quite a bit of cleaning to attain the NPOV. Zchris87v 07:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That was my fault. I did not realize NPOV. I have now read the guidelines and understand about editing. It was not my intention to make it read like an advertisement-I wanted to convey my thoughts about these cars. My apologies for wasting other people's time to clean up my mess. It wont happen again. (Qwazywabbit 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Edit as of 13:45, 13 July 2007

The edit stated that "It [BMW] is the worlds largest luxury car manufacturer." Searching for this exact phrase returns a few results [2][3], neither of which seem to have much factual backing; however, they do conflict on that topic. Until some sort of proof can be found that BMW is the "world's largest luxury car manufacturer", this sentence should be left out. In fact, I thought these were focused on performance, not luxury... Zchris87v 07:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

7 Series is a luxury model. If you consider BMW Group, Rolls-Royce also. Squash Racket 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Even in this respect, is there any source stating that BMW is now the largest luxury car manufacturer? I was fairly sure DaimlerChrysler held that title, and many sources stated that BMW was "sneaking up" on DC. Zchris87v 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

BMW sold more 7s than Mercedes of its own S-class in Europe for a number of years. But that changes from time to time. And don't forget Lexus LS (luxury?), Audi A8, perhaps Infiniti etc. From BMW Group's homepage: in 2006 BMW sold 50227 units of 7 Series, I don't know about the others. Squash Racket 10:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BMW Manufacturing Co. Spartanburg

I think this page should not be merged into BMW, cause the BMW article is about the BMW AG or BMW Group, not only BMW (a huge german car producer). Besides this fact the plant in Spartanburg provides thousands of jobs - should be relevant to have is own article ;-)
--> TH 10:00, 15 Jul 2007 (CET) <--

If you write a whole article about a BMW factory I don't know why you wouldn't write about factories larger than that. If you have articles about the German factories and you include them here the BMW page gets too long, right? The Chelsea page is already considered too long for Wikipedia standards. Squash Racket 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, I think there should be a link to another complete article about manufacturing. This is one area BMW is quite emphatic about, and should have its own space to grow. The main article is long enuff. (Qwazywabbit 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Efficient Dynamics?

What are your thoughts on adding section for Efficient Dynamics? This is a major focus of BMW, from manufacturing facilities to the vehicles themselves. I can provide sourced documentation if necessary, as well as images.(Qwazywabbit 22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)) Yes most important, BMW vehicles are amongst the least polluting and economical vehicles on our roads, esp when compared with its rivals

[edit] History of BMW

I have created an article History of BMW to shorten the main article. BMW has a very long and interesting history, and would clutter the main article. If there is any problem with this, feel free to revise.Qwazywabbit 13:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

One problem is, that it's not an article (yet), it's just one word. If you consider moving parts from BMW to History of BMW, you should stick with Wikipedia:Copyrights. In general it would be good to first explain what you are about to do, wait if other user reject your plans, if necessary discuss about it, and then make a new article. You should also consider to put the {{Inuse}} template into your new article.--BSI 13:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold, and copied the history section from here to the new articleB J Bradford 14:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

oops, I didnt save the page. LOL. Bradford, ty for covering for me. BSI, thank you for the tip on the inuse template--I will use that in the futureQwazywabbit 15:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

the same section can be removed from here now, right? Where can I find that template that says --Main artcle: articlename--?-B J Bradford 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BMW Motorcycles

"It was BMW's latest attempt to keep up with the pace of development of sports machines from the likes of Honda, Kawasaki, Yamaha, and Suzuki." BMW is not all about performance when it comes to motorcycles. You can use a BMW as long as some cars, while most Japanese bikes can do about 20000-30000 km. Squash Racket 08:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo size

The logo size was originally 140px and was changed to 240px recently. I took a look at other articles (Audi, Mercedes-Benz) and chose to make the Roundel on this page 180px wide. --dinomite 14:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo Origins

Here's something to kick off the current arguments about a propeller in the logo: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I had not heard of the archives denying this, maybe they have a different story? Cantor575 23:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

it is impossible to make sure which version of the "origin" is correct, but it is sure the logo-colors blue & white came from bavarias flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.76.239 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off-road X3?

I know that it is marketed as an off-roader in Europe, but didn't numerous car magazines state that the X3's all-wheel drive system benefits on-raod performance, rather than off-road? Polis4rule (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? It is rubbish on both.76.71.215.144 (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing external links

I just trimmed and reorganised the external links. I tidied things and got rid of a fan site, but in particular I removed the links to BMW USA and BMW motorcycles USA. I made sure instead to point to the English language websites of BMW Automobiles International and BMW Motorrad International. This is important IMHO because the English language Wikipedia is not here for the benefit of US readers, but for anyone in any country who speaks English. The relevant BMW USA sites can still be found by clicking through the international sites as can those of UK, Canada, Australia etc. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd/Even Numbering

Under Automobiles/Current, the article states that BMW was going to odd numbers for sedans and even numbers for coupes, etc. I recall them announcing that, but they have obviously reversed that strategy with the 1-series and 3-series coupes. I am deleting that paragraph. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Class Action Suit

Why is the information on the class-action suit so early in the article? Looks like it was just dropped there for no reason. The-Bus (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BMW Group

I tink this article should be renamed to BMW Motors, and BMW should poit to an article called BMW Group (or at least leave a link on the top of BMW pointing to BMW Group). Reason is that the BMW Group owns more than just the car manufacturing company. --Pinnecco (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Set Bimmers on stun

A little more on the WW1/WW2 aircraft engines would assuredly not be amiss.... Burt Campbell 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rover Marque ownership

Hi, The Rover Marque was, until the sale to Ford, was property of BMW and that it was licensed for use to the Phoenix four for use on cars produced at Longbridge. Other marques also belonged to BMW, including Triumph, Mini and Riley. The P4 retain Austin, Morris and I believe Wolesly. 77.100.12.167 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction: Acquisitions and company history not needed

The introduction should serve as a briefing of the company. It is not necessary to include the companies acquisition of Rover and Mini in the introduction. And it certainly is not necessary to go into the models of aircraft engines they developed in the INTRO. It may be appropriate elsewhere in the article, but not in the introduction of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.30.222 (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The introduction can describe products and developments concerning the company. It should not simply be a POV summary: "BMW has always been performance oriented. Indeed this is reflected in the company's current slogan: "The Ultimate Driving Machine." — CZmarlin (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BMW E36

I would be very glad if somebody knows the answer for my question: Are the back seats of BMW E36 (3series 1991-1999) SEDAN tip-up seats? Thank you for every help! --  LYKANTROP  21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Way too long

Especially the individual model descriptions complete with multiple pictures per model, needs trimming down, a couple of pictures of representative and influental models, and rely on the individual articles to provided the bulk of info.

Perhaps even a table would be in order?Oosh (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So true, why do we have basically every BMW car currently in production in the Automobiles section. It is so OTT. Its unnecessary and pointless, we don’t do this for Ford or Renault or anyone else, so why do it here?

Each of these vehicles has their own pages, so they don't need to be here!

I will remove this unless anyone objects. Your thoughts???

DineshAdv (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely keep that, but in a shorter way. I think that there must be some overview about the cars that BMW produces--  LYKANTROP  21:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why keep it, even in a short form? All that is nececary in the Automobiles section is a list of current BMW cars. All the descriptions, and pictures and everything else, should be deleted. If it has a main article then it is just unnecessary repitition!

The Motorsport section also has its own page, so that is just unnecessary repitition aswell. I'm not sugesting we get rid of it, I just feel that it should be about 5 lines, and not paragraph upon paragraph of repitition and information mentioned on its own page.

A decision will also have to be made on the Series Generations section because I'm not convinced listing all of the "e-codes" is helpful to the article, although I do believe you can never have 'too much' information. Maybe we should make a seperate page for that, like is often done with TV programs, which have a list of episodes not on their main page but on a different page.

DineshAdv (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just gone through this article section by section and done some "weeding." There was an unbelievable amount of weasel wording and clear bias, which is unfortunate, as it reinforces a negative stereotype about certain BMW fans, giving the rest of us a bad name. This made the model description section a good bit shorter. I agree that the descriptions should be kept on this page (or at least be moved to a separate "summaries" page as DineshAdv suggested), but they do need to be more concise and hopefully I've begun to contribute to that undertaking. Current thoughts? Bflorsheim (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Holy... what has happened to this page? it has been made over by the BMW company. It has turned into a brochure. I am glad that the Nazi history has survived. Persoanlly I have owned three BMWs I love them, plus Bikes. I think it is criminal that the Culture section has been removed, becuase one BMW owner (probably an employee from BMW) as seen fit to remove this information, which was backed up with citations from the BBC and the Guardian News Paper and was reviewed by wiki editors. He said 'weasil words' which make BMW owners look bad. Well really, wikipedia is not here to make you feel better about the car you drive mate. It never bothered me that BMW in the UK has always been asscociated as a drug dealers car, or for that matter know as Black Man's Wheels. Bob Marley used a BMW logo in his promotional materials. All of this has been deleted because some travelling salesman, who probly hates Jeremy Clarkson for pointing out that BMW drivers are sheep (I still drive) ... we are. So what.

What is next? The history of Germany with the second world war removed because it does not show Germany in a good light. Wiki is about truth... not massaging your ego and glossing over well known and substanciated facts, just because they don't fit into your 'vision' of yourself as you drive down the road.

Pathetic. I just heard on the radio that people are leaving Wiki in the 10s of thousands... this is why. It has turned into a bunch control freaks coupled with corporate interests.

So thanks for the new BMW brochure, but you know that they have a website.. if I want sanitised company propaganda I can go there... oh dear wikipedia, victim to the corporate sheeple.. they get paid to pervert this once great organ of the web. It is now going out of fashion, so it will get more and more corporate and less and less accurate and less and less of interest, and less and less useful for everyday things. Good.. a litte knowledge is a bad thing, and here on BMW totally screwed up page, which is now a brochure, why bother? Pointless! Total vandalism. Is that weasil enough for you? Take the information off, do what you like, but you'll still look like a pimp or a drug dealer if you drive one about in the UK urban environment. Just like I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.65.176 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Errors

The section pertaining to the BMW 7 Series erroneously claims that the Hydrogen 7 is one of the world's first hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This makes this article directly contradictory to the current Wikipedia article on the Hydrogen 7.

The Hydrogen 7 does not even feature an electric drivetrain, much less use fuel cell technology. Instead, the Hydrogen 7 uses the 6.0L V12 from the 7 Series that has been modified to burn either gasoline or hydrogen. The Hydrogen 7 burns hydrogen in an internal combustion engine - not in a fuel cell. The Hydrogen 7 is now one of the cleanest (if not the cleanest) internal combustion engines in use.

I'd edit myself, but I'm not quite used to how things work on Wikipedia, yet. Well, at least not from this side...

Sources: [5] [6] [7]

--R4mdbaptlican (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Z4 Production???

Who said the Z4 is out of production?76.71.215.144 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

i love BMW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.196.35 (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the logo

Contrary to the way this is represented in the article, this information is contraversial and not reliably cited. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, the inconvenient truth is that the exact origins of the logo are not known for sure, even by BMW itself. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sport Sponsorship

Perhaps someone with better knowledge on the subject could add something on sports other than motor sport sponsored by BMW. For example the International Polo matches played yearly at Shongweni (in Durban) and Illovo (in Johannesburg) in South Africa!

PS. Almost anybody writing about and knowing BMW is likely to be biased in favour of that company. It goes with the territory if you drive one! Maybe the Wikipedia editors could take out the overly spin when present!

John A Forbes (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The BMW Education Programme

I wanted to include some information about the BMW Education Programme in the BMW wiki page. This is a web-based resource, providing comprehensive and award-winning educational materials for primary and secondary schools.

--BMW Education (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC) BMW Education

[edit] Wikiproject Companies

I recently met this wikiproject and I thought that the BMW article would fit in perfectly well. That is why I added the project banner to the article...

[edit] 2009 Job Cuts

I think the section about 2009 job cuts should be removed. The agency staff were well aware that they were not being employed on a permanent basis when they went to Right4Staff and got the jobs, and as such were not entitled to redundancy when they were released. In a 2007 BBC television programme about BMW Swindon (which in late 2008 became a sub-ordinate of BMW Oxford), Andrew Schumm, training manager for Swindon, said that the temporary labour were perfect for what the production required because of the peaks and troughs in demand for motor vehicles. The article does not include the mention of these bitter employees doing a shoddy job for the last shifts they were working, throwing tools into vehicles in progress of being made. Rudeboydreas (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I have got rid of it. It's trivial and unencyclopedic. So what if less than 1% of the 100,000 employees are fired in a recession, just as many could be hired in an instant in a boom? Companies grow and contract all the time, and wikipedia should not document every small change and every individual firing and every redundancy just because an aggrieved ex-employee / unionist / whoever wants their "injustice" lamented in public. In the grand scheme of things this section is not even worth a footnote on a footnote in history, and I don't think it adds anything to already very long and detailed article. It's like having a section called "Dog bites man" or "Sun rises again today"?! Mu2 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears the correct number was more like 8,100 jobs, about 7.5% of the workforce. The old section was too narrowly focused on 850 jobs in the UK rather than the worldwide layoffs, but these comments about unionists and the workforce don't seem to me to be a relevant contribution to the discussion of the article. BMW cut a significant number of jobs in 2009 and it received widespread attention. Almost a year has gone by. How, precisely, is it unencyclopedic to describe these events? Rather than deleting the section from the article, it should be improved.--Dbratland (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The section is notable and should stay. It should however be expanded to include the rest of the worldwide layoffs as highlighted by Dbratland. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I changed my mind. After the job cuts, BMW increased working by adding 250 agency staff in June and then in September announcing another 1000 new jobs to build the new models (noting that most of the 850 original losses had since been re-hired. The whole thing evens out to be a non-event. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On merging sections "Culture" and "Nomenclature"

First, of course they belong together. The subjects of BMW language, terminology, words, etc. should not be separated into two disconnected sections of the article.

Second, "Culture" is a terrible name for a section that discusses the slang terms Bimmer, Beemer, etc. It isn't about all of BMW culture, neither corporate culture, nor enthusiast culture, but rather it is only about slang word usage.

Third, I admit that "BMW-speak" could be called a little too informal for an encyclopedia, but I object that Wikipedia is by nature lively and uses ordinary plain English, and should not be stuffy.

So the two sections should be made into level 3 headings, and the section heading should probably be called == BMW-speak == unless anyone can suggest a better section title.--Dbratland (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The culture part of the article is about the BMW culture and specifically what each division of the brand is colloquially known as. The model nomenclature section is the section on the rules of how the models are designated. As the article is right now, the sections don't need to be merged. The sections don't fit in with each other at all until you give them a section name like "BMW-speak" which brings together everything to do with naming. It's up to you however, you have my "permission" so to speak to revert me (I won't complain) but can we find a better name than BMW-speak if it they have to be merged? :) Matty (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll wait and see what others think. I wanted to be spending my time trying to clear flags off the article anyway. Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of cars

Greetings all. With regards to the section of vehicles, both current and historic, would anyone object to splitting off this section into List of BMW cars? Many automotive mfr. articles link in this manner, for examples see Category:Lists of automobiles. That way a streamlined list similar the one here can be maintained, but without overwhelming the article. It would also address the "way too long" and other concerns about the many galleries, etc. A summary of the vehicles can be kept and the list linked. It could be a companion to List of BMW engines. Any comments welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea.--Biker Biker (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I would keep small section of current offerings also in main page. --Typ932 ^T·C 07:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would make a List of BMW vehicles, because BMW also builds motorcycles.Stef9580 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Actually I was thinking of a List of BMW motorcycles, but we can use the List of BMW vehicles as is. Working on it now. SynergyStar (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy... what has happened to this page? it has been made over by the BMW company. It has turned into a brochure. I am glad that the Nazi history has survived. Persoanlly I have owned three BMWs I love them, plus Bikes. I think it is criminal that the Culture section has been removed, becuase one BMW owner (probably an employee from BMW) as seen fit to remove this information, which was backed up with citations from the BBC and the Guardian News Paper and was reviewed by wiki editors. He said 'weasil words' which make BMW owners look bad. Well really, wikipedia is not here to make you feel better about the car you drive mate. It never bothered me that BMW in the UK has always been asscociated as a drug dealers car, or for that matter know as Black Man's Wheels. Bob Marley used a BMW logo in his promotional materials. All of this has been deleted because some travelling salesman, who probly hates Jeremy Clarkson for pointing out that BMW drivers are sheep (I still drive) ... we are. So what.

What is next? The history of Germany with the second world war removed because it does not show Germany in a good light. Wiki is about truth... not massaging your ego and glossing over well known and substanciated facts, just because they don't fit into your 'vision' of yourself as you drive down the road.

Pathetic. I just heard on the radio that people are leaving Wiki in the 10s of thousands... this is why. It has turned into a bunch control freaks coupled with corporate interests.

So thanks for the new BMW brochure, but you know that they have a website.. if I want sanitised company propaganda I can go there... oh dear wikipedia, victim to the corporate sheeple.. they get paid to pervert this once great organ of the web. It is now going out of fashion, so it will get more and more corporate and less and less accurate and less and less of interest, and less and less useful for everyday things. Good.. a litte knowledge is a bad thing, and here on BMW totally screwed up page, which is now a brochure, why bother? Pointless! Total vandalism. Is that weasil enough for you? Take the information off, do what you like, but you'll still look like a pimp or a drug dealer if you drive one about in the UK urban environment. Just like I do.

[edit] Any objection to autoarchiving this talk page?

You're not supposed to add MiszaBot to a talk page without consensus. Any reason not to?--Dbratland (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I object, this BMW page has been massively vandalised. I can't even find the excuses for removing cited content which was okayed by wiki editors... where is that dicussion page. The only reason to archive this page is try and cover up the BMW corperate tampering, and the incredibly small minded vandalism by people who are more interested in the personal image than acuracy and breadth of a quality wiki entry. I am appalled and shocked that this has been allowed to happen. I am one of the 10's of thousands of wiki contributers who are going to stand by and watch wikipedia crash and burn, as we've had enough of idiot such as 'weasil words man' who are only interested in thier POV and no one says anything anymore... Spineless bunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.65.176 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This talk page isn't so big that it needs to be archived at all, let alone auto-archived. Besides, reading the badly-spelled drunken rants and allegations of wikifiddling is quite good fun. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 :-) --Dbratland (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)