![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
BMW. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This article needs revising by someone who understands that in English one cannot just splice sentences together with commas. Anothernogginthenog ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
who is the author for this article as i am doing a research paper on BMW and cannot find the author so i cannot citate this document which this is my main source of information. 24.35.178.178 ( talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
BMW has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the "citation needed" after this sentence {"It is the first global guide to private and publicly accessible collections of contemporary art worldwide."} to the following citation:
[1] Blondieesquire ( talk) 23:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
References
What does the AG in the name mean? The page doesn't say, or link to an article that tells what this means. I think to U.S. readers this would not be known, my guess is that it is like Private company limited by shares Limited, Ltd., or Incorporation_(business), Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.140.96 ( talk) 07:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Ag is just Aktiengesellschaft, a corporation limited by share ownership, and is documented under AG on wiki too already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 ( talk) 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
BMW doesn't only make luxury cars, nor are all their motorcycles "luxury" bikes. And what are we to make of the phrase, "a German luxury automobile, motorcycle and engine manufacturing company founded in 1916." They make luxury cars, luxury motorcycles, and luxury engines? What is a luxury engine? Is their electric car a luxury car? Their smaller motorcycles and scooters are not "luxury" motorcycles. The other problem here is WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia articles are not only about the subject today; they're about the whole history of the subject, which includes many diverse kinds of products, not just BMW's recent high-end position in the export market. And how come the first paragraph of the lead has to say they're a luxury automaker, and then again in the second paragraph we have to repeat that they're one of the big 3 German luxury automakers. What's driving this need to beat this horse? What's next? putting luxury in the article title?
I'd look for something quantifiable if you want to characterize where BMW fits into the market, or else leave it out of the lead and explain in depth in the body of the article. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
luxury cars, a BMW 3 is even for EU standard small, not any luxury at all if you buy the cheap step-in model, Spartan we call that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 ( talk) 22:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The year of establishment in this article could not be right(in box). If you switch to the german version of this article you could see that it have another foundation date: 7. März/March 1916 I think this should be changed because as Germans they better know when one of their companies was founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.186.196 ( talk) 19:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Rapp Motorenwerke GmbH was BMW as we know them today, 1912, the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke was the same as company as Rapp Motorenwerke GmbH. Official corporate information from this German Car builders is not the truth. They try to remove that NAZI Gustav Otto from official sources, very bad people. A Nazy founded BMW, that's why they need to remove that here, and on their official Marketing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 ( talk) 22:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
If someone can't make a good BMW history site, I need to do it myself, you simply can't remove that the company is founded by a Nazi member in 1912. Gustav Otto has a page himself on wiki too.
Ein Werk = a work. yes. but a Motorenwerk isn't motor works, it is a motor factory.
So, BMW = Bavarian Motor Plants or Bavarian Motor Factories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.116.58 ( talk) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The Motor werke is just a engine workshop, you can't translate to simplified US Noth American language at all, using 2 words for it is good, the enige workshop factory is good too, better? I think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 ( talk) 22:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that the history of BMW from 1945 to 1958 is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyboza ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bmw.com.au/com/en/insights/technology/connecteddrive/2013/driver_assistance/intelligent_parking.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bmw.co.za/products/automobiles/bmw_insights/history.aspWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Since an IP changed the spelling of "BMW xyz Series", just for the record: BMW uses "BMW 3er, 5er, 7er" etc. Even the link on their site shows that:
http://www.bmw.de/de/neufahrzeuge/5er.html Also, books prove that. (For instance: Hans J. Schneider: BMW 5er / Technik + Typen: Die Limousinen- und Touring-Modelle der BMW 5er-Baureihen. Schneider-Media UK LTD. 2007. ISBN 978-3768857895) And my own experience: I have never heard anyone saying "5 Series". --
Jojhnjoy (
talk)
10:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Andy Dingley:. According to this article, it's not just BMW that is affected ( link). And while it is definitely an issue that should be covered by Wikipedia, I think it would be more appropriate to locate it in the OBD article or the articles for the affected models. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 09:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wbcsd.org/about/members/members-list-region.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The content on slang terms like Bimmer and Beemer has been blanked several times over the years, with shifting rationales. I’ve asked before here on the talk page for an explanation but haven’t gotten much. It’s not too surprising that a sports or luxury brand would have a little snobbery or exclusionary shibboleths around it. The multiple sources from a broad range of different kinds of reliable sources are evidence that the topic is relevant. But it keeps getting blanked, possibly because some editors feel it’s embarrassing? Or they won’t accept that there isn’t a verifiably right or wrong answer to the Bimmer/Beemer cat fight?
Should we have an RfC to put this to rest? (Not asking if we should keep or delete it. I’m asking if you think an RfC would settle it). — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
(copied from previous section) Googling suggests the cited 2003 claim of Google being 10 to 1 in favour of bimmer is now thoroughly dubious, as bimmer now get 6 million hits, beemer 3.2 million (with a dictionary definiton of it as either car or motorcycle, and 5 images, all of them cars), and beamer 15 million (tho not all of these refer to any kind of BMW). So I've now flagged this as undue. Tlhslobus ( talk) 09:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(I also added this in the Undue template's reason parameter, but that doesn't seem to display anymore). Tlhslobus ( talk) 09:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The 2003 claim is also hard to verify, as the link is dead, and the claim is also strange, given that it's so at variance with things now, that the editor is unnamed, and that it never mentions googling the spelling Beamer. Tlhslobus ( talk) 10:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It also seems likely that rich owners of BMW cars were a much higher proportion of Internet users in 2003 than now (even though they are presumably still somewhat over-represented), thus perhaps explaining the ratio changes, and this thus seemingly was and is thus a tiny rich elite telling the rest of us how we should speak, by questionably or wrongly claiming this is how most people do actually speak. Tlhslobus ( talk) 10:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I've now removed my undue flag and cited today's Google results, justified per WP:IAR if necessary. The flag will presumably have to go back if the previous situation is restored for some reason or other. Tlhslobus ( talk) 10:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
In contrast, the addition "though googling gives very different results today" is a violation of the WP:NOR policy and a misuse of WP:WikiVoice. It's like saying in an article, "Dennis Bratland walked down to Whole Foods last Thursday and the parking lot looked empty, which proves that Whole Foods is dying." The 'parking lot' test is not an objective criterion, and Dennis Bratland's data collection is original research. Telling readers about google tests you personally conducted is not allowed in the article namespace. Keep in mind also that Google uses your location and your prior search history and the contents of your gmail account and who knows what to adjust the search results you see. Your search results and my search results are not identical. It's a hopelessly skunked question.
If you want to write something in the article that argues with the opinions that Business Week published in 2003, you needed to find that published in a reliable source. It's not your decision whether or not Business Week's opinions are wrong. Our sources get to device that for us. So many editors want to argue with the verifiable information found in reliable sources about this whole Buttle-Tuttle bimmer/beemer confusion, but they keep failing to find relaible sources to back it up. That's a clue: you're inserting your own opinions, following your own agenda. You're not letting the sources lead you. The earlier version of this was an accurate reflection of what the sources have to say here, even if you don't like it. --
Dennis Bratland (
talk)
21:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
More importantly, and I can't emphasize this enough: this is not about whether bimmer or beemer is "correct". The answer to that question is not encyclopedic, per WP:NOTDICT, and is of vanishingly small relevance, per WP:WEIGHT. This about the weight sources give to the fact that BMW fans care about which is "correct". The point of this is to inform readers that this is a signifier of BMW subculture. Just like Air Force people care about whether you say "flight deck" or "cockpit" or Navy people care about whether you call an "aviator" a "pilot". Army sergeants don't like being called "sir", Air Force sergeants expect to be called "sir". Which is correct? We don't care. The fact that they care is what we are writing about. Over at beemer and bimmer you can has out that debate, but the encyclopedic question is "what does this say about BMW culture?". You won't find much cultural information in any dictionary, because ditionaries aren't long-form treatises on culture. The sources we have for that are books, journals, magazines, feature articles in newspapers, and similar long-form media. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point about the cultural significance, but how does this relate to Business Week's claim about the Google results? (For the record, I actually have no opinion about whichever is more popular / applies to motorbikes only / etc) Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 03:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Should the text below (for context, it is located after "In the US, specialists have been at pains to prescribe that a distinction must be made between using Beemer exclusively to describe BMW motorcycles, and using Bimmer only to refer to BMW cars,") be removed from article?
in the manner of a "true aficionado" [1] and avoid appearing to be "uninitiated." [2] [3] The Canadian Globe and Mail prefers Bimmer and calls Beemer a "yuppie abomination," [4] while the Tacoma News Tribune says it is a distinction made by "auto snobs." [5] Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts. [6] [7] [8] An editor of Business Week was satisfied in 2003 that the question was resolved in favor of Bimmer by noting that a Google search yielded 10 times as many hits compared to Beemer. [9]
Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 22:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
References
True aficionados know that the nickname Beemer actually refers to the BMW motorcycle. Bimmer is the correct nickname for the automobile
For the uninitiated, a Bimmer is a BMW car, and a Beemer is a motorcycle.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
If you're a Bimmer enthusiast (not that horrible leftover 1980s yuppie abomination Beemer), you've undoubtedly read the reviews,
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
I was informed a while back that BMW cars are 'Bimmers' and BMW motorcycles are 'Beemers' or 'Beamers.' I know that I am not here to change the world's BMW jargon nor do I even own a BMW, but I thought I would pass along this bit of info as not to offend the car enthusiast that enlightened me.
It is Bimmers people, Bimmers. Not Beamers, not Beemers. Just Bimmers. And start pronouncing it correctly also.
No, it's BMWs, not Bimmers.
WOW! Some Beamer driver must be having a bad hair day.
Bimmers (yes, it's 'Bimmer' for cars—the often misused 'Beemer' refers only to the motorcycles).
Editor's note: Both nicknames are widely used, though Bimmer is the correct term for BMW cars, Beemer for BMW motorcycles. A Google search yields approximately 10 times as many references to Bimmer as to Beemer.
However, I have no issue with discussion about one term being more popular than the other, eg "noting that a Google search yielded 10 times as many..." (notwithstanding that Google search result quantities have been dismissed as a reliable method of determining popularity). 1292simon ( talk) 03:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
1292simon said a couple of the direct quotes using the terms "true aficionado" and "uninitiated" were a minority point of view, so obscure that they meet our standard for FRINGE. What sources go with that assertion?
There are many sources to support this general thrust: the totally unsurprising fact that a luxury brand has a culture of exclusivity and occasionally snobbery associated with it. You could easily say the same of lots of high-end brands. Some examples: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Certain brands, such as BMW, Harley-Davidson, Ducati, Gucci, Apple, and many others have an identity connected to them, and subcultural identities often come with shibboleths or just obscure jargon to distinguish insiders from outsiders. Here is a more sociological analysis of brand cultures, the image of BMW culture to outsiders, and how BMW subculture members themselves react to it. You could write a whole article about BMW subculture, if you really wanted to. Harley Owners Group is one artilce that discusses how companies stage-manage their own brand culture, and some give H-D credit for pioneering the approach that Ducati, Apple, BMW and others imitated to a certain extent.
This part of our article is only a few lines mentioning some cultural artifacts related to slang. The sources don't say this is a reflection of every single BMW admirer or owner. No discussion of culture, subculture, or language is going to make categorical statements that would describe every single member of a group. It's just observations made by reliable sources.
The use of a search engine test by Business Week was cited as an example of how nobody really has scientific evidence of how many BMW drivers actually consider themselves members of the subculture or ever act as gatekeepers, or which term is dominant. When the best you've got is a search engine test, you're admitting you really don't know. We can't insert that opinion in the article, but we can let the sources speak for themselves.
@ 1292simon: can you cite the sources that show this is a WP:FRINGE view? If you would like to adjust the wording, I have no objection. We don't have to use direct quotes, but I thought it best in this case not to try to characterize what the sources said, and instead let them speak for themselves. I still think the general theme is correct, and not a fringe view, based on the sources I'm aware of. If you can show me a significant number of sources that call this into question, I'd change my mind. Or we could expand what we have to cite reliable sources who dispute the sources we currently have. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
That said, I don't think the sources you cite offer any evidence either way, since they don't actually say anything about the question of how prevalent elitism is among BMW enthusiasts. If anything at least two of them do take for granted attitudes that are unmistakably superior or exclusive.
This says "Over time, different people (who couldn't spell very well and didn't take the trouble to find out) started to use the term Beamer." It's saying if they call a car a Beemer, it shows they are ignorant of motorcycles and in fact so ignorant that their basic education is called into question. Also, they're lazy, it says. Clearly an elitist attitude. This glorifies the origin of Beemer to the rarefied Olympus of "the track" where everyone is so busy and important they don't have time to say BMW. Car enthusiasts are easily cowed with the fallacy that "if racers do it, it's better". The aftermarket of ill-advised mods thrives on this fallacy. It also says, "When the first BMW cars came out, those same enthusiasts decided that the car couldn't have the same slang as the motorcycle", which is clearly saying that one group must differentiate itself from another group. The car owners would be unhappy if anyone mistook them for members of the motorcycle owner group, and vice versa. We call that exclusivity. The fourth source, again, emphasizes that this slang comes from racing, where heroes are born, and again suggests that exclusivity is a logical reason for the choice.
All four sources accept without question the premise that it actually matters which word anyone uses, and accept the premise that one should not use the words "wrong". The first source say they took another website to task for this error. Why so serious? I ask.
Again, we should not say how common these attitudes are, because we have no data. We have copious sources that say they exist, and the existence of so many sources tells us it meets our standard for WP:WEIGHT. The evidence that elitism and exclusivity are a factor continues to mount. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Tlhslobus ( talk) 08:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the numerous sources already given, 1292simon added four more sources that verify for us that BMW enthusiasts think it is important to "correctly" use the terms bimmer and beemer. We have zero sources telling us that it doesn't matter. Non-BMW fans and grown-up adults with a proper sense of perspective almost certainly realize that this is a bullshit thing for anybody to care about, but our sources are telling us that car enthusiasts and BMW enthusiasts in particular generally think it matters to get this "right", whatever "right" is. The fact that BMW enthusiasts care about this is, according to many, many sources, a relevant fact to know about BMW culture.
Remember, when I say "Americans like baseball", that does not say "ALL Americans like baseball". It doesn't even say "MOST Americans like baseball". It only tells us something that is identified with Americans. Many sources will say "Star Wars fans disown the Christmas Special". That doesn't mean ALL Star Wars fans hate the Christmas Special, it just says that opinion is a characteristic one associates with Star Wars fans. One hundred percent of them? No. 51% of them? No. Any specific percent of them? We don't know. That's not the point. Saying "Vodka is the national drink of Russia" does not mean all Russians drink vodka, or "Tea time is very English" does not mean every single Englishman is into tea time. If I say, "Burning the American Flag risks offending Americans", that does not mean 100% of Americans care if you burn a flag. Some don't. That is why "Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts" is not a blanket statement about every BMW enthusiast. It is a statement about what characterizes BMW enthusiasts, according to a very large number of sources. Zero sources contradict this characterization. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
BMW - Rayong Car Assembly Plant
Type: Car Assembly Plant Area: Rayong Products: Passenger Vehicles under BMW, MINI, and Motorrad brands Annual Production: 6,000 Vehicles Owner: BMW (Thailand) Co Ltd Shareholders: BMW AG Activity since: 2000
Contact
Coordinates: 12.979709,101.119874 Address: 7/201 Moo 6 Amata City Industrial Estate, Mabyangporn, Plukdaeng, Rayong, 21140 Email: Phone: +66 (38) 640 000 Web: http://www.bmw.co.th
93.20.247.162 ( talk) 15:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The German name Bayerische Motoren Werke is grammatically incorrect; it does not make any sense (and in general, names cannot be translated). This means that the English translation "Bavarian Motor Works" is wrong. Therefore, I recommend that someone removes it. -- Jojhnjoy ( talk) 14:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Message from 89.204.130.23: The source cited does not say that BMW translates into English as Bavarian Motor Works. It says that Rapp Motor Works became Bavarian Motor Works. That is a difference.
BMW is a name and you don't translate names.
Bayerische Motoren Werke is grammatically incorrect and you can't translate it. It means something like Bavarian Engines Works or Bavarian Engines, thou shallt work! This doesn't make much sense to me. Bavarian Motor Woek would mean Bayerische Motorenwerke, that's just not the name of the company. While the pronounciation is similar, it is still different.
I haven't seen any sources saying Bavarian Motor Works is incorrect. If we are shown one, we can mention that in the article, alongside the many English sources that accept this as the usual translation. Lacking those sources, it's fine the way it is. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As I said, you can't just translate it like that. These words don't translate into English as Bavarian Motor Works. I'm not saying that the name in English isn't Bavarian Motor Works, I'm saying that Bayerische Motoren Werke is a name and that it doesn't translate into English as Bavarian Motor Works. It simply can't since it's a name and doesn't make any sense in German. You can safely say that English books refer to BMW as Bavarian Motor Works, there is obvious evidence for that. However, I haven't seen any proof for the translation theory ('BMW translates into English as Bavarian Motor Works'). Several books refer to BMW as Bayerische Motorenwerke. While this is grammatically correct, it isn't their name. I think claiming that BMWs name is wrong is hardly anything someone could prove. But at least I would change the sentence to something like "English language literature refers to BMW as Bavarian Motor Works which translates into German as 'Bayerische Motorenwerke'." The 'translation' though is definitely wrong and none of the cited sources actually says that it translates into English as that, they just refer to it as that.
Content forking says: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This mass deletion is not what that means. It refers you to Wikipedia:Summary style, which details the structure of having parent articles contain summaries of the content in child articles. BMW does not merely refer you to History of BMW. It summarizes the history, and refers you to History of BMW for the lengthier version.
Having no summary at all is worse than having a history section that is maybe too long. If we can't get a reasonable summary, [ this should be reverted pending a better edit. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, both the lede of History of BMW and BMW#History could use a good rewrite. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Does anyone else think "Logo exclusively used in vehicles since March 2020; a flat variation without the black outline was introduced in that month (see
§ Logo)" is on the long side or is it just me?,
Seems it could do with shortening ?, Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
14:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
In early 2020 BMW introduced a new logo. The new logo has a flat 2D design with a transparent background. BMW has made it clear that is used for brand communications only [16]. BMW cars, motorcycles and dealerships will continue to use the previous 3D logo. Should this article should continue to the older 3D logo as its main logo (in the info box for example)? Discuss here before changing to the new 2D transparent logo. Jschnur ( talk) 23:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please explain the rationale for replacing the logo in the infobox with text saying "BMW GROUP"? Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 08:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
"However the name BMW dates back to 1913, when the original company to use the name BMW was born (initially as Rapp Motorenwerke)." ~JBT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.211.241 ( talk) 00:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
About an hour ago the logo on the page was changed without consensus, should it be reverted? HistoricalSimon ( talk) 17:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Considering BMW is using the new logo is being used to identify BMW cars and motorcycle brands, we should use the new logo. Whether or not we like the new logo is irrelevant, and whichever badge they decide to put ornamentally on their vehicles should not matter. The new logo is now their primary logo.
https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/brands-and-services.html
Mghabmw ( talk) 15:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, As can be seen here they've still used the "old" logo on a 2021 model .... so they're still using it. Not our problem if they can't make up their minds which logo they actually want to use. I can understand your point but to me their primary logo is whatever they display on their vehicles. – Davey2010 Talk 17:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
BMW has been doing the "two logo thing" ever since, because the molding techniques didn't allow them using the "proper" logo everywhere. This was especially noticeable with the "airbag steering wheels" that didn't come with the proper BMW logo, but with a molded logo just like the one seen below. I suppose we can stick to the proper logo they put on their cars. Best, -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 18:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The lede contains the sentence, "the company has significant motorsport history, especially in touring cars, Formula 1, sports cars and the Isle of Man TT," but they simply do NOT have a significant history in Formula One, by any stretch of the imagination. Zero Constructor's Championships and one Driver's Championship, in what amounts to a very short period of time in the sport - when compared to other companies who HAVE had a significant history in Formula One - and they only supplied engines. Note that there is no reference to support the claim either. I suggest "Formula 1" be removed from this sentence and will do so if there are no objections? FillsHerTease ( talk)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
BMW V Series. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#BMW V Series until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
14:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The audio clip should be of the full name, not the initialism. Unhelpful to hear "BMW" pronounced in German. Etudierplus ( talk) 01:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The word 'Countries' looks out of place under the sub-heading 'China' under the tab 'Overseas subsidiaries'. Xboxsponge15 ( talk) 22:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The "Area served" field states that BMW has "Worldwide (except Russia)" presence (maybe not presence, but you get the idea), meaning it's everywhere EXCEPT Russia, now that surprises me. Sure, BMW is a multinational corporation, so putting "Worldwide" as "Area served" makes a lot of sense, however it doesn't mean that BMW has dealerships or official repair shops in every country around the world (from the top of my head you should add North Korea or Somalia and other countries that don't have an official BMW presence), so isn't it easier and more true to life to just leave it as Worldwide?
While it is true that BMW used to operate in Russia, and now left the country, I feel that it would be closer to reality to mention somewhere in text, and not in the "Area served".
TLDR: listing "Area served" as "Worldwide (except Russia)" is misleading because it implies that BMW has an official representation is every country except Russia. CATFELLA ( talk) 14:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Currently the article claims that ReachNow operates in three cities. Wikibenjamins ( talk) 09:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
BMW has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Headquarters:Munich, Germany, EU MaxTheVin ( talk) 14:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
BMW has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Considering the Mercedes and Audi wiki pages (that are direct competitors to BMW) clearly state that they produce luxury products, it would only make rational sense for that to be included in the first sentence of BMW's Wiki page as well like it was before.
So in my opinion, the first line of BMW's description as a company should include "is a German multinational manufacturer of luxury vehicles and motorcycles headquartered in Munich, Bavaria."
That's all. Thank you! Petarzik32 ( talk) 13:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Current text:
The 1962 introduction of the BMW New Class compact sedans was the beginning of BMW's reputation as a leading manufacturer of sport-oriented cars. Throughout the 1960s, BMW expanded its range by adding coupe and luxury sedan models
Update to:
In 1961 the BMW 1500 was unveiled at a car show as a family car and went to the market a year later. It was an amazing car, and by 1963 the sales of BMW 1500 had completely turned BMW’s cash flow around.[1] BMW New Class compact sedans was the beginning of BMW's reputation as a leading manufacturer of sport-oriented cars. In 1966, BMW was practically unknown in the US. Sales in the US that year were just 1253 cars. Then BMW 1600-2 came to America’s shores, tripling US sales to 4564 the following yearThroughout the 1960s, BMW expanded its range by adding coupe and luxury sedan models. Then BMW stuffed their largest m10 engine in their smallest body and created the 2002. That opened the floodgates, and established BMW as the premier performance automobile line in the US.[2] Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, BMW expanded its range by adding coupes and luxury sedan models [3]
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
BMW. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This article needs revising by someone who understands that in English one cannot just splice sentences together with commas. Anothernogginthenog ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
who is the author for this article as i am doing a research paper on BMW and cannot find the author so i cannot citate this document which this is my main source of information. 24.35.178.178 ( talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
BMW has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the "citation needed" after this sentence {"It is the first global guide to private and publicly accessible collections of contemporary art worldwide."} to the following citation:
[1] Blondieesquire ( talk) 23:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
References
What does the AG in the name mean? The page doesn't say, or link to an article that tells what this means. I think to U.S. readers this would not be known, my guess is that it is like Private company limited by shares Limited, Ltd., or Incorporation_(business), Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.140.96 ( talk) 07:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Ag is just Aktiengesellschaft, a corporation limited by share ownership, and is documented under AG on wiki too already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 ( talk) 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
BMW doesn't only make luxury cars, nor are all their motorcycles "luxury" bikes. And what are we to make of the phrase, "a German luxury automobile, motorcycle and engine manufacturing company founded in 1916." They make luxury cars, luxury motorcycles, and luxury engines? What is a luxury engine? Is their electric car a luxury car? Their smaller motorcycles and scooters are not "luxury" motorcycles. The other problem here is WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia articles are not only about the subject today; they're about the whole history of the subject, which includes many diverse kinds of products, not just BMW's recent high-end position in the export market. And how come the first paragraph of the lead has to say they're a luxury automaker, and then again in the second paragraph we have to repeat that they're one of the big 3 German luxury automakers. What's driving this need to beat this horse? What's next? putting luxury in the article title?
I'd look for something quantifiable if you want to characterize where BMW fits into the market, or else leave it out of the lead and explain in depth in the body of the article. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
luxury cars, a BMW 3 is even for EU standard small, not any luxury at all if you buy the cheap step-in model, Spartan we call that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 ( talk) 22:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The year of establishment in this article could not be right(in box). If you switch to the german version of this article you could see that it have another foundation date: 7. März/March 1916 I think this should be changed because as Germans they better know when one of their companies was founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.186.196 ( talk) 19:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Rapp Motorenwerke GmbH was BMW as we know them today, 1912, the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke was the same as company as Rapp Motorenwerke GmbH. Official corporate information from this German Car builders is not the truth. They try to remove that NAZI Gustav Otto from official sources, very bad people. A Nazy founded BMW, that's why they need to remove that here, and on their official Marketing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 ( talk) 22:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
If someone can't make a good BMW history site, I need to do it myself, you simply can't remove that the company is founded by a Nazi member in 1912. Gustav Otto has a page himself on wiki too.
Ein Werk = a work. yes. but a Motorenwerk isn't motor works, it is a motor factory.
So, BMW = Bavarian Motor Plants or Bavarian Motor Factories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.116.58 ( talk) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The Motor werke is just a engine workshop, you can't translate to simplified US Noth American language at all, using 2 words for it is good, the enige workshop factory is good too, better? I think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 ( talk) 22:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that the history of BMW from 1945 to 1958 is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyboza ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bmw.com.au/com/en/insights/technology/connecteddrive/2013/driver_assistance/intelligent_parking.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bmw.co.za/products/automobiles/bmw_insights/history.aspWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Since an IP changed the spelling of "BMW xyz Series", just for the record: BMW uses "BMW 3er, 5er, 7er" etc. Even the link on their site shows that:
http://www.bmw.de/de/neufahrzeuge/5er.html Also, books prove that. (For instance: Hans J. Schneider: BMW 5er / Technik + Typen: Die Limousinen- und Touring-Modelle der BMW 5er-Baureihen. Schneider-Media UK LTD. 2007. ISBN 978-3768857895) And my own experience: I have never heard anyone saying "5 Series". --
Jojhnjoy (
talk)
10:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Andy Dingley:. According to this article, it's not just BMW that is affected ( link). And while it is definitely an issue that should be covered by Wikipedia, I think it would be more appropriate to locate it in the OBD article or the articles for the affected models. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 09:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wbcsd.org/about/members/members-list-region.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The content on slang terms like Bimmer and Beemer has been blanked several times over the years, with shifting rationales. I’ve asked before here on the talk page for an explanation but haven’t gotten much. It’s not too surprising that a sports or luxury brand would have a little snobbery or exclusionary shibboleths around it. The multiple sources from a broad range of different kinds of reliable sources are evidence that the topic is relevant. But it keeps getting blanked, possibly because some editors feel it’s embarrassing? Or they won’t accept that there isn’t a verifiably right or wrong answer to the Bimmer/Beemer cat fight?
Should we have an RfC to put this to rest? (Not asking if we should keep or delete it. I’m asking if you think an RfC would settle it). — Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
(copied from previous section) Googling suggests the cited 2003 claim of Google being 10 to 1 in favour of bimmer is now thoroughly dubious, as bimmer now get 6 million hits, beemer 3.2 million (with a dictionary definiton of it as either car or motorcycle, and 5 images, all of them cars), and beamer 15 million (tho not all of these refer to any kind of BMW). So I've now flagged this as undue. Tlhslobus ( talk) 09:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(I also added this in the Undue template's reason parameter, but that doesn't seem to display anymore). Tlhslobus ( talk) 09:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The 2003 claim is also hard to verify, as the link is dead, and the claim is also strange, given that it's so at variance with things now, that the editor is unnamed, and that it never mentions googling the spelling Beamer. Tlhslobus ( talk) 10:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It also seems likely that rich owners of BMW cars were a much higher proportion of Internet users in 2003 than now (even though they are presumably still somewhat over-represented), thus perhaps explaining the ratio changes, and this thus seemingly was and is thus a tiny rich elite telling the rest of us how we should speak, by questionably or wrongly claiming this is how most people do actually speak. Tlhslobus ( talk) 10:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I've now removed my undue flag and cited today's Google results, justified per WP:IAR if necessary. The flag will presumably have to go back if the previous situation is restored for some reason or other. Tlhslobus ( talk) 10:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
In contrast, the addition "though googling gives very different results today" is a violation of the WP:NOR policy and a misuse of WP:WikiVoice. It's like saying in an article, "Dennis Bratland walked down to Whole Foods last Thursday and the parking lot looked empty, which proves that Whole Foods is dying." The 'parking lot' test is not an objective criterion, and Dennis Bratland's data collection is original research. Telling readers about google tests you personally conducted is not allowed in the article namespace. Keep in mind also that Google uses your location and your prior search history and the contents of your gmail account and who knows what to adjust the search results you see. Your search results and my search results are not identical. It's a hopelessly skunked question.
If you want to write something in the article that argues with the opinions that Business Week published in 2003, you needed to find that published in a reliable source. It's not your decision whether or not Business Week's opinions are wrong. Our sources get to device that for us. So many editors want to argue with the verifiable information found in reliable sources about this whole Buttle-Tuttle bimmer/beemer confusion, but they keep failing to find relaible sources to back it up. That's a clue: you're inserting your own opinions, following your own agenda. You're not letting the sources lead you. The earlier version of this was an accurate reflection of what the sources have to say here, even if you don't like it. --
Dennis Bratland (
talk)
21:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
More importantly, and I can't emphasize this enough: this is not about whether bimmer or beemer is "correct". The answer to that question is not encyclopedic, per WP:NOTDICT, and is of vanishingly small relevance, per WP:WEIGHT. This about the weight sources give to the fact that BMW fans care about which is "correct". The point of this is to inform readers that this is a signifier of BMW subculture. Just like Air Force people care about whether you say "flight deck" or "cockpit" or Navy people care about whether you call an "aviator" a "pilot". Army sergeants don't like being called "sir", Air Force sergeants expect to be called "sir". Which is correct? We don't care. The fact that they care is what we are writing about. Over at beemer and bimmer you can has out that debate, but the encyclopedic question is "what does this say about BMW culture?". You won't find much cultural information in any dictionary, because ditionaries aren't long-form treatises on culture. The sources we have for that are books, journals, magazines, feature articles in newspapers, and similar long-form media. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point about the cultural significance, but how does this relate to Business Week's claim about the Google results? (For the record, I actually have no opinion about whichever is more popular / applies to motorbikes only / etc) Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 03:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BMW. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Should the text below (for context, it is located after "In the US, specialists have been at pains to prescribe that a distinction must be made between using Beemer exclusively to describe BMW motorcycles, and using Bimmer only to refer to BMW cars,") be removed from article?
in the manner of a "true aficionado" [1] and avoid appearing to be "uninitiated." [2] [3] The Canadian Globe and Mail prefers Bimmer and calls Beemer a "yuppie abomination," [4] while the Tacoma News Tribune says it is a distinction made by "auto snobs." [5] Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts. [6] [7] [8] An editor of Business Week was satisfied in 2003 that the question was resolved in favor of Bimmer by noting that a Google search yielded 10 times as many hits compared to Beemer. [9]
Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 22:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
References
True aficionados know that the nickname Beemer actually refers to the BMW motorcycle. Bimmer is the correct nickname for the automobile
For the uninitiated, a Bimmer is a BMW car, and a Beemer is a motorcycle.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
If you're a Bimmer enthusiast (not that horrible leftover 1980s yuppie abomination Beemer), you've undoubtedly read the reviews,
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
I was informed a while back that BMW cars are 'Bimmers' and BMW motorcycles are 'Beemers' or 'Beamers.' I know that I am not here to change the world's BMW jargon nor do I even own a BMW, but I thought I would pass along this bit of info as not to offend the car enthusiast that enlightened me.
It is Bimmers people, Bimmers. Not Beamers, not Beemers. Just Bimmers. And start pronouncing it correctly also.
No, it's BMWs, not Bimmers.
WOW! Some Beamer driver must be having a bad hair day.
Bimmers (yes, it's 'Bimmer' for cars—the often misused 'Beemer' refers only to the motorcycles).
Editor's note: Both nicknames are widely used, though Bimmer is the correct term for BMW cars, Beemer for BMW motorcycles. A Google search yields approximately 10 times as many references to Bimmer as to Beemer.
However, I have no issue with discussion about one term being more popular than the other, eg "noting that a Google search yielded 10 times as many..." (notwithstanding that Google search result quantities have been dismissed as a reliable method of determining popularity). 1292simon ( talk) 03:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
1292simon said a couple of the direct quotes using the terms "true aficionado" and "uninitiated" were a minority point of view, so obscure that they meet our standard for FRINGE. What sources go with that assertion?
There are many sources to support this general thrust: the totally unsurprising fact that a luxury brand has a culture of exclusivity and occasionally snobbery associated with it. You could easily say the same of lots of high-end brands. Some examples: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Certain brands, such as BMW, Harley-Davidson, Ducati, Gucci, Apple, and many others have an identity connected to them, and subcultural identities often come with shibboleths or just obscure jargon to distinguish insiders from outsiders. Here is a more sociological analysis of brand cultures, the image of BMW culture to outsiders, and how BMW subculture members themselves react to it. You could write a whole article about BMW subculture, if you really wanted to. Harley Owners Group is one artilce that discusses how companies stage-manage their own brand culture, and some give H-D credit for pioneering the approach that Ducati, Apple, BMW and others imitated to a certain extent.
This part of our article is only a few lines mentioning some cultural artifacts related to slang. The sources don't say this is a reflection of every single BMW admirer or owner. No discussion of culture, subculture, or language is going to make categorical statements that would describe every single member of a group. It's just observations made by reliable sources.
The use of a search engine test by Business Week was cited as an example of how nobody really has scientific evidence of how many BMW drivers actually consider themselves members of the subculture or ever act as gatekeepers, or which term is dominant. When the best you've got is a search engine test, you're admitting you really don't know. We can't insert that opinion in the article, but we can let the sources speak for themselves.
@ 1292simon: can you cite the sources that show this is a WP:FRINGE view? If you would like to adjust the wording, I have no objection. We don't have to use direct quotes, but I thought it best in this case not to try to characterize what the sources said, and instead let them speak for themselves. I still think the general theme is correct, and not a fringe view, based on the sources I'm aware of. If you can show me a significant number of sources that call this into question, I'd change my mind. Or we could expand what we have to cite reliable sources who dispute the sources we currently have. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
That said, I don't think the sources you cite offer any evidence either way, since they don't actually say anything about the question of how prevalent elitism is among BMW enthusiasts. If anything at least two of them do take for granted attitudes that are unmistakably superior or exclusive.
This says "Over time, different people (who couldn't spell very well and didn't take the trouble to find out) started to use the term Beamer." It's saying if they call a car a Beemer, it shows they are ignorant of motorcycles and in fact so ignorant that their basic education is called into question. Also, they're lazy, it says. Clearly an elitist attitude. This glorifies the origin of Beemer to the rarefied Olympus of "the track" where everyone is so busy and important they don't have time to say BMW. Car enthusiasts are easily cowed with the fallacy that "if racers do it, it's better". The aftermarket of ill-advised mods thrives on this fallacy. It also says, "When the first BMW cars came out, those same enthusiasts decided that the car couldn't have the same slang as the motorcycle", which is clearly saying that one group must differentiate itself from another group. The car owners would be unhappy if anyone mistook them for members of the motorcycle owner group, and vice versa. We call that exclusivity. The fourth source, again, emphasizes that this slang comes from racing, where heroes are born, and again suggests that exclusivity is a logical reason for the choice.
All four sources accept without question the premise that it actually matters which word anyone uses, and accept the premise that one should not use the words "wrong". The first source say they took another website to task for this error. Why so serious? I ask.
Again, we should not say how common these attitudes are, because we have no data. We have copious sources that say they exist, and the existence of so many sources tells us it meets our standard for WP:WEIGHT. The evidence that elitism and exclusivity are a factor continues to mount. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Tlhslobus ( talk) 08:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the numerous sources already given, 1292simon added four more sources that verify for us that BMW enthusiasts think it is important to "correctly" use the terms bimmer and beemer. We have zero sources telling us that it doesn't matter. Non-BMW fans and grown-up adults with a proper sense of perspective almost certainly realize that this is a bullshit thing for anybody to care about, but our sources are telling us that car enthusiasts and BMW enthusiasts in particular generally think it matters to get this "right", whatever "right" is. The fact that BMW enthusiasts care about this is, according to many, many sources, a relevant fact to know about BMW culture.
Remember, when I say "Americans like baseball", that does not say "ALL Americans like baseball". It doesn't even say "MOST Americans like baseball". It only tells us something that is identified with Americans. Many sources will say "Star Wars fans disown the Christmas Special". That doesn't mean ALL Star Wars fans hate the Christmas Special, it just says that opinion is a characteristic one associates with Star Wars fans. One hundred percent of them? No. 51% of them? No. Any specific percent of them? We don't know. That's not the point. Saying "Vodka is the national drink of Russia" does not mean all Russians drink vodka, or "Tea time is very English" does not mean every single Englishman is into tea time. If I say, "Burning the American Flag risks offending Americans", that does not mean 100% of Americans care if you burn a flag. Some don't. That is why "Using the wrong slang risks offending BMW enthusiasts" is not a blanket statement about every BMW enthusiast. It is a statement about what characterizes BMW enthusiasts, according to a very large number of sources. Zero sources contradict this characterization. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
BMW - Rayong Car Assembly Plant
Type: Car Assembly Plant Area: Rayong Products: Passenger Vehicles under BMW, MINI, and Motorrad brands Annual Production: 6,000 Vehicles Owner: BMW (Thailand) Co Ltd Shareholders: BMW AG Activity since: 2000
Contact
Coordinates: 12.979709,101.119874 Address: 7/201 Moo 6 Amata City Industrial Estate, Mabyangporn, Plukdaeng, Rayong, 21140 Email: Phone: +66 (38) 640 000 Web: http://www.bmw.co.th
93.20.247.162 ( talk) 15:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The German name Bayerische Motoren Werke is grammatically incorrect; it does not make any sense (and in general, names cannot be translated). This means that the English translation "Bavarian Motor Works" is wrong. Therefore, I recommend that someone removes it. -- Jojhnjoy ( talk) 14:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Message from 89.204.130.23: The source cited does not say that BMW translates into English as Bavarian Motor Works. It says that Rapp Motor Works became Bavarian Motor Works. That is a difference.
BMW is a name and you don't translate names.
Bayerische Motoren Werke is grammatically incorrect and you can't translate it. It means something like Bavarian Engines Works or Bavarian Engines, thou shallt work! This doesn't make much sense to me. Bavarian Motor Woek would mean Bayerische Motorenwerke, that's just not the name of the company. While the pronounciation is similar, it is still different.
I haven't seen any sources saying Bavarian Motor Works is incorrect. If we are shown one, we can mention that in the article, alongside the many English sources that accept this as the usual translation. Lacking those sources, it's fine the way it is. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As I said, you can't just translate it like that. These words don't translate into English as Bavarian Motor Works. I'm not saying that the name in English isn't Bavarian Motor Works, I'm saying that Bayerische Motoren Werke is a name and that it doesn't translate into English as Bavarian Motor Works. It simply can't since it's a name and doesn't make any sense in German. You can safely say that English books refer to BMW as Bavarian Motor Works, there is obvious evidence for that. However, I haven't seen any proof for the translation theory ('BMW translates into English as Bavarian Motor Works'). Several books refer to BMW as Bayerische Motorenwerke. While this is grammatically correct, it isn't their name. I think claiming that BMWs name is wrong is hardly anything someone could prove. But at least I would change the sentence to something like "English language literature refers to BMW as Bavarian Motor Works which translates into German as 'Bayerische Motorenwerke'." The 'translation' though is definitely wrong and none of the cited sources actually says that it translates into English as that, they just refer to it as that.
Content forking says: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This mass deletion is not what that means. It refers you to Wikipedia:Summary style, which details the structure of having parent articles contain summaries of the content in child articles. BMW does not merely refer you to History of BMW. It summarizes the history, and refers you to History of BMW for the lengthier version.
Having no summary at all is worse than having a history section that is maybe too long. If we can't get a reasonable summary, [ this should be reverted pending a better edit. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, both the lede of History of BMW and BMW#History could use a good rewrite. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Does anyone else think "Logo exclusively used in vehicles since March 2020; a flat variation without the black outline was introduced in that month (see
§ Logo)" is on the long side or is it just me?,
Seems it could do with shortening ?, Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
14:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
In early 2020 BMW introduced a new logo. The new logo has a flat 2D design with a transparent background. BMW has made it clear that is used for brand communications only [16]. BMW cars, motorcycles and dealerships will continue to use the previous 3D logo. Should this article should continue to the older 3D logo as its main logo (in the info box for example)? Discuss here before changing to the new 2D transparent logo. Jschnur ( talk) 23:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please explain the rationale for replacing the logo in the infobox with text saying "BMW GROUP"? Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 08:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
"However the name BMW dates back to 1913, when the original company to use the name BMW was born (initially as Rapp Motorenwerke)." ~JBT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.211.241 ( talk) 00:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
About an hour ago the logo on the page was changed without consensus, should it be reverted? HistoricalSimon ( talk) 17:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Considering BMW is using the new logo is being used to identify BMW cars and motorcycle brands, we should use the new logo. Whether or not we like the new logo is irrelevant, and whichever badge they decide to put ornamentally on their vehicles should not matter. The new logo is now their primary logo.
https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/brands-and-services.html
Mghabmw ( talk) 15:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, As can be seen here they've still used the "old" logo on a 2021 model .... so they're still using it. Not our problem if they can't make up their minds which logo they actually want to use. I can understand your point but to me their primary logo is whatever they display on their vehicles. – Davey2010 Talk 17:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
BMW has been doing the "two logo thing" ever since, because the molding techniques didn't allow them using the "proper" logo everywhere. This was especially noticeable with the "airbag steering wheels" that didn't come with the proper BMW logo, but with a molded logo just like the one seen below. I suppose we can stick to the proper logo they put on their cars. Best, -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 18:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The lede contains the sentence, "the company has significant motorsport history, especially in touring cars, Formula 1, sports cars and the Isle of Man TT," but they simply do NOT have a significant history in Formula One, by any stretch of the imagination. Zero Constructor's Championships and one Driver's Championship, in what amounts to a very short period of time in the sport - when compared to other companies who HAVE had a significant history in Formula One - and they only supplied engines. Note that there is no reference to support the claim either. I suggest "Formula 1" be removed from this sentence and will do so if there are no objections? FillsHerTease ( talk)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
BMW V Series. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#BMW V Series until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
14:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The audio clip should be of the full name, not the initialism. Unhelpful to hear "BMW" pronounced in German. Etudierplus ( talk) 01:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The word 'Countries' looks out of place under the sub-heading 'China' under the tab 'Overseas subsidiaries'. Xboxsponge15 ( talk) 22:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The "Area served" field states that BMW has "Worldwide (except Russia)" presence (maybe not presence, but you get the idea), meaning it's everywhere EXCEPT Russia, now that surprises me. Sure, BMW is a multinational corporation, so putting "Worldwide" as "Area served" makes a lot of sense, however it doesn't mean that BMW has dealerships or official repair shops in every country around the world (from the top of my head you should add North Korea or Somalia and other countries that don't have an official BMW presence), so isn't it easier and more true to life to just leave it as Worldwide?
While it is true that BMW used to operate in Russia, and now left the country, I feel that it would be closer to reality to mention somewhere in text, and not in the "Area served".
TLDR: listing "Area served" as "Worldwide (except Russia)" is misleading because it implies that BMW has an official representation is every country except Russia. CATFELLA ( talk) 14:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Currently the article claims that ReachNow operates in three cities. Wikibenjamins ( talk) 09:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
BMW has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Headquarters:Munich, Germany, EU MaxTheVin ( talk) 14:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
BMW has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Considering the Mercedes and Audi wiki pages (that are direct competitors to BMW) clearly state that they produce luxury products, it would only make rational sense for that to be included in the first sentence of BMW's Wiki page as well like it was before.
So in my opinion, the first line of BMW's description as a company should include "is a German multinational manufacturer of luxury vehicles and motorcycles headquartered in Munich, Bavaria."
That's all. Thank you! Petarzik32 ( talk) 13:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Current text:
The 1962 introduction of the BMW New Class compact sedans was the beginning of BMW's reputation as a leading manufacturer of sport-oriented cars. Throughout the 1960s, BMW expanded its range by adding coupe and luxury sedan models
Update to:
In 1961 the BMW 1500 was unveiled at a car show as a family car and went to the market a year later. It was an amazing car, and by 1963 the sales of BMW 1500 had completely turned BMW’s cash flow around.[1] BMW New Class compact sedans was the beginning of BMW's reputation as a leading manufacturer of sport-oriented cars. In 1966, BMW was practically unknown in the US. Sales in the US that year were just 1253 cars. Then BMW 1600-2 came to America’s shores, tripling US sales to 4564 the following yearThroughout the 1960s, BMW expanded its range by adding coupe and luxury sedan models. Then BMW stuffed their largest m10 engine in their smallest body and created the 2002. That opened the floodgates, and established BMW as the premier performance automobile line in the US.[2] Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, BMW expanded its range by adding coupes and luxury sedan models [3]