Talk:Tesla Model S#Date format

The table under the Sales by Country section has percentages for each country of the total worldwide sales...They're all wrong. I don't know how they were calculated but they all appear to be wrong. Someone with more time than me will have to sort that (I'm semi-retired).

Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

:Not only that, it hasn't been updated since 2018 or something and the electric car landscape has changed vastly in the meanwhile. Somewhere in the article it says that the Model S is the second best selling electric car when in fact the Model 3 and Y have eclipsed it long ago. dllu (t,c) 07:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

::If you have references, then you are more than welcome to update them yourself. Ask for help if you need it.  Stepho  talk  06:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

:::For example, here are the sales figures for the third quarter: [https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-vehicle-production-deliveries-and-date-financial-results-webcast-third-quarter] and it is straightforward to find the figures for every quarter prior to then. Since I work at Tesla, I have a conflict of interest so I will abstain from editing the article directly; however, in the upcoming days, if I have time, I can write some draft sections and suggest them with {{tlx|request edit}}. dllu (t,c) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There are three shooting brake conversions commercially available, should these be mentioned? Wiki pages for other car models sometimes includes this. 2A01:799:952:4500:E84E:8E6D:88E3:65AA (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

:It is rare for us to mention custom (ie non-factory) modifications on any car article. If we did, each article would have a near-endless list of modifications possible to the body, engine, brakes, suspension, etc. The particular modifications are often limited in geographical location and the time period they are offered for, so they are of limited use to the majority of readers. So we restrict ourselves to factory offerings.  Stepho  talk  11:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The version section is an absolute mess. Some versions get a long text, some don't, some references are made to models that aren't describbed ("The 70D replaced the 60, 60D, and P85", with no 60D ever mentioned), one of the images mentions a P85+, which isn't talked about anywhere...

I suggest that the section is replaced by a table like this (values are from https://blog.clutch.ca/posts/understanding-the-different-tesla-model-s-versions , to be checked before the table is added, maybe data from [https://ev-database.org/compare/second-hand-used-electric-vehicle-archive#sort:path~type~order=.date_from~number~asc|make-checkbox-dropdown:pathGroup=.tesla|size-checkbox-dropdown:pathGroup=.size-f|bodyshape-checkbox-dropdown:pathGroup=.shape-sedan|rs-price:prev~next=10000~100000|rs-range:prev~next=0~1000|rs-fastcharge:prev~next=0~1500|rs-acceleration:prev~next=2~23|rs-topspeed:prev~next=110~350|rs-battery:prev~next=10~200|rs-towweight:prev~next=0~2500|rs-eff:prev~next=100~350|rs-safety:prev~next=-1~5|paging:currentPage=0|paging:number=10 ev-database.org] ):

With a break at the facia redesign.

NilsTillander (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

:Your scheme looks fine in general. Thinking about international readers and readers not well versed in car stuff, some details to change are:

:#What does "NRCAN" mean? A link would be good.

:#Values and symbols should have a space between them - see WP:CARUNITS and WP:UNITS.

:#Those "hp" and "lb-ft" look suspiciously like power and torque figures but in ancient units used by our grandfathers - see WP:CARUNITS and WP:UNITS.

:#"??" values should be left blank.

:#"Abbandon of (P)kWh(D) naming scheme", misspelling of "abandon". Perhaps replace with "After (P)xx(D) naming scheme abandoned".

:#Are those calendar years or model years? Non-Americans mostly use calendar years and do not understand US style model years. Americans assume model years unless told different.

:But these are minor things that can be tweaked.  Stepho  talk  00:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

::Hei @Stepho-wrs,

::Thank you for your input!

::* I put NRCAN values here (the canadian authority for car stuff, I assume), but maybe having the US and EU standards listed (as well?) would be best. It is rather tricky to source the data for all models.

::* Good point for units

::* I agree that kW and N⋅m are the better units, but the car industry still mostly communicates in hp and lb-ft. I would convert the values before publishing the table as well.

::* Yes, I was hoping for other users to chime in before the table makes it to the page

::* ok

::* These are production years. Tesla doesn't use the odd American "model year" concept, as far as I know.

::NilsTillander (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Somehow, nearly every section has to stay from factual and balanced data into negative and misleading coverage territory. It is true that media coverage of Tesla vehicles has always had that sort of cognitive dissonance and that Wackopedia likes to rely on (selected) mass media for its plagi^H quotes but I wonder if that is the only reason.

It makes for very distracting reading when one comes here looking for cold, hard facts (don't be childish and try to argue that 'piece of bullshit X' is a cold hard fact, if you're of sound mind you know exactly what I mean). 37.188.184.244 (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:Confused here. The article is 100% cited via reliable sources. It’s a comprehensive article, so i have no idea what you’re talking about. 750h+ 23:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

::Or to put it another way, point out a couple of concrete examples of where we got it wrong. Once we know what the issue is then we can see if it is a systematic problem throughout the article.

::Re: Wackopedia, childish - name calling isn't the way to encourage us volunteers to help you.  Stepho  talk  02:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Talk pages are for talking about improving the article, you're not helping anyone, including yourself, by simply ranting about how bad the article is. This 6,000 word article has nearly 300 citations from reliable sources per sources that are reliable per numerous discussions, as well as many prominent automotive sources like Car and Driver and Road & Track. By far this is most likely the most comprehensive article/source on the Tesla Model S. 750h+ 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The article says "critics have called the Model S one of the most significant and influential electric cars in the industry." with no citation or elaboration as to who these "critics" are, and where these declarations have been made.

I attempted to put a "citation needed" tag on it with an explanation, but it was quickly reverted. How can this statement be left hanging in the article with nothing to support it? As it stands, it is either an outsourced claim, or the personal opinion of an editor. Neither belong. Hugzz (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Hugzz}} The content is cited in the Reception and legacy section. Lead sections are supposed to summarize the contents of the article body. Therefore, except for complex, current, or controversial subjects, citations are not required in the lead so long as the content is cited elsewhere in the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for clarifying! Hugzz (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've chopped most of the crap that had been dumped into the intro over the years, as it was either pointless, unreferenced, or both, as follows:

• Something about cars catching fire: axed because a) cars are combustible things, they do occasionally catch fire, with this particular one being neither an exception nor an outlier in that regard and b) unreferenced.

• Two bits about (insert name of random publication here) giving their opinion. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, so those are pointless in an intro.

• Something about units being modded for particular purposes. Well yes, people do that with cars, there is nothing of any interest there and besides, it was unreferenced.

I feel that the intro looks a bit less amateurish now. 37.188.141.71 (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I was on the fence about the paragraph about it having been the best selling BEV in 2015 (it was also practically the only one in mass production back then) but the linked article does provide more context. 37.188.141.71 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:MOS:LEADCITE: the lead is supposed to summarise the article? we’re supposed to include small bits of the text from the article and incorporate it into the lead - quite literally nearly the entirety of the entire bottom of the article has been removed. 750h+ 18:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::It has to stay readable though. These articles have a habit of growing larger and larger over time with people adding random bits of info (or just trivia) but nobody takes the time to actually *shorten* these things. In the end, articles end up being a pointless, confusing, repeating and often self-contradicting unreadable mess.

::I don't have the time or the inclination to cut down stuff from the body, but do feel free to do so if you'd like to improve the article. 37.188.141.71 (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::And why do you need to be so rude and inconsiderate to revert a good faith edit that has been properly documented? I actually invested a bit of my time into trying to *improve* the article, you know? I suggest that you give thought to undoing your revert and, if you really have a genuine interest in making the article better, perhaps shorten or remove stale and irrelevant info. I won't be touching this again as it appears to prove that Wikipedia is indeed a toxic place. 37.188.141.71 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::i don't see how i'm being rude, but you don't have to touch the article again if you don't want to. also this is a featured article so it's one of wikipedia's best articles. best, 750h+ 03:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@750h+ hi, I'm curious why you reverted my edits. I know the page is a featured article and is "one of wikipedia's best articles," but those can still be improved, always, right? I noticed some places on the page that felt a bit buzzy/promotional, and tried to fix. What's your reason for keeping both the words "significant" and "influential" in the same sentence, for example? Or for not including the car's mixed reviews in the lead? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:i was to revert another users edits but i reverted others’ in the process, sorry about that. you can add your revisions back. {{ping|Likeanechointheforest}} 750h+ 16:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::oh no worries thanks! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I am a long Wikipedia user and actually check the front page regularly.

This is the first article I can remember which is a product that people can buy.

This sets a dangerous precedence because it raises question if it's product placement which could be damaging to Wikipedia reputation.

Please reconsider picking such articles for the main mage.

Thank you!

(posting anonymously because I am on a device where I don'thave password manager withmy credentials) 2A02:169:BB:A:7D62:897A:6722:2B1E (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:This discussion is best continued in the #article status section.

:Can you tell us your normal WP user name?  Stepho  talk  23:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:well you must not actually check the main page regularly because if so then you'd know that i've had over six buyable products appear on the main page. nothing wrong with this and you might be seeing more coming soon! best, 750h+ 05:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This article does not appear to merit front-page status in Wikipedia. It is not news, unless you add content about the company's controversial reputation and the ongoing Tesla boycott. 24.12.242.60 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:The Today's Featured Article section is not intended to showcase news: it is a sample of the Featured Articles, which have been assessed as meeting high standards of writing, comprehensiveness and presentation by the community. Wikipedia does not try to be a news site, though the "In the News" section does showcase high-quality articles related to current events. For this particular article, which is about a particular model of car, discussions of Tesla as a company wouldn't be within scope; you'll find those at Tesla, Inc.. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not to mention the company's owner being a Nazi. AcademicPerfection (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah sounds like weird manipulation going on.

:There's nothing about these corporate products that need to be a "featured article" in some banally naive way.

:Wake up sheeple! 73.47.49.236 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::What manipulation? The Model S is significant in being the first full-size mass-market electric car in the Western world (with the Nissan Leaf coming out 2 years earlier but as a much smaller car).

::The antics of Musk have no bearing on the Model S article. He has had very little to do with the Model S for years. He tends to concentrate on new models to build up advertising hype - the Model S is far too old for him.  Stepho  talk  23:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The brand is still owned by a Nazi fascist. That's relevant. AcademicPerfection (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Musk's politics are relevant to his own article, and to the article on Tesla, Inc. (because they are regularly discussed when Tesla is), but not automatically to the articles of every car produced by Tesla. WP:DUEWEIGHT is the gold standard here: we report what has been reported in quality sources on the subject of the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)