![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This might warrant a paragraph at wiki/Tesla_Motors, but it doesn't warrant a page on its own. Yet. It is at best a promotion of Tesla Motor Co.'s plans to build a factory somewhere. Note that the 2 references are Tesla Motor Co 'blog' pages.
Wayne
18:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The article has many date formats, in text and in references. Should we use the format common to Tesla articles ("2016-10-09" for refs, October 9 for text ) ? Are there tools to perform mass conversions? Are there other ref tools to set date format as default, as CiteGen only shows "9 October 2016" ? TGCP ( talk) 10:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
In
this edit,
Jesseschulman added the Gigafactory location as plain text, “GPS Coordinates -39.536660, -119.445541”, which was then reverted. I'm guessing that we'll want to use that in a template, such as {{
coord|39.536660|-119.445541|display=title}}
. Do we need a source for coordinates?
Unician
∇
05:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
More here, especially on the recent Nevada-provided subsidies to this specific manufacturing plant. Apparently, several specific pieces of legislation are involved. [online.wsj.com/articles/tesla-nevada-tax-breaks-incentives-package-approved-1410507190Tesla Receives Nevada Tax Breaks], Wall Street Journal, 12 Sep 2014.
There is a lot of talk about the factory suposedly is to be energy self sufficient through solar/eolic power plants. It would be great if some solid information could be provided regarding this matter. An EV car battery manufactured using renewable energy would truly be groundbreaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.189.201.91 ( talk) 13:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This section of the article mention Japan as the location for a second factory, but the source only says that the company "courted partners in Japan for its so-called gigafactory". The Bloomberg article (original CSM's source) has nothing about other GFs. Actually, the last shareholder letter of the company (Q3 2015) and a recent tweet by its CEO indicates that India is the top candidate for building a second battery factory. -- Freedatum ( talk) 09:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This section could be made better as in :
(in other articles it is claimed, that some of per-cell safety features are removed in favor of the fire-retardant filling in/out of the cell and other advanced monitoring)
(in this rewriting this section I only reused information it already contained, have NOT checked or sought any sources) 146.90.156.187 ( talk) 11:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The lead paragraph currently reads
> The Tesla Gigafactory 1 is a lithium-ion battery factory which is under construction (and in production) primarily for Tesla Motors at the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center in Storey County, Nevada, US.[1][2][3] The factory became operational in the first quarter of 2016.[4]
This contradicts itself. If the factory is operational, how can it still be under construction?
Elwoz ( talk) 16:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more clear if the article was titled Tesla Gigafactory? Are other companies building gigafactories? Whoisjohngalt ( talk) 15:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
What's a "gigafactory?" Presumably it's a really big factory, but it's not explained. 174.6.101.144 ( talk) 00:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I propose the article be renamed to "Tesla Gigafactory" without any number. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
USA Today: [1]
The fact that Musk called the battery plant "Gigafactory 1" also implies that there will be more Gigafactories in the future. The surprise, however, is that some of those factories don't have to necessarily be built by Tesla, according to Musk. Instead, the company will continue its policy of open sourcing its technology so others can use it.
"There will need to be many Gigafactories in the future," Musk said. "Many companies will build Gigafactory-class plants of their own."
When the factory opens, it's time to get actual numbers on employees, production, and floor space, and use those. There's too much projected data from PR in this article. WP:CRYSTAL applies. John Nagle ( talk) 19:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no mention of actual dimensions of the structure, floor or work area. Projected future size is mentioned, as is the area of the factory site but not the current structure. Can someone find these details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmostly ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Another measure of size is employee number; 4,500 workers at $22/hour, + several more. [ Hidalgo, Jason (2015-06-16). "List: Every Tesla gigafactory job and how to get them". Reno Gazette Journal. Retrieved 2016-10-30. ] TGCP ( talk) 23:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
While the Gigafactory is clearly in Storey County, does it belong to a particular city of community? The Tesla website lists its address as being in Sparks, Nevada, but Sparks is located in Washoe County and does not (to my knowledge) extend into Storey, so I fail to see how the factory could possibly be in Sparks (though I expect Tesla was interested in the name association there). Clark appears to be the closest community, but is the Gigafactory actually in Clark? I don't know how that would be determined. 73.149.43.153 ( talk) 07:34, 28 August 2016 (—UTC)
107.77.214.85 ( talk) 19:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
So I have a draft up at DRAFT:Gigafactory 2 -- 65.94.168.229 ( talk) 06:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Gigafactory 1. 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) 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gigafactory 1. 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) 09:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I am wait and see on this potential scandal, but there are allegations of theft and drug trafficking at the subject of this article. If this story has growing coverage beyond this USA Today article, it should be included int his article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The relationship between Panasonic and Tesla for the Gigafactory is tenant and landlord. It's not accurate to say that Tesla operates the factory. Tesla's responsibilities end at the building envelope or "shell". They don't hire any of the workers, own any of the equipment, or even manage any of the workers that produce the batteries. They simply buy the batteries produced in large deals, eg. 3 years at a time.
It's very concerning that my edit was reverted and removed from the revision list. The source I added is clearly an outline of this relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.175.240 ( talk) 18:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The article states that Panasonic makes cells, and occupies most of the factory area. Tesla then assembles cells into batteries (a battery is defined as a collection of cells). Suggestions on how to make that more clear : Panasonic's variety of cell production lines, links to videos, employee table as in TRIC overview (the 7,000 number is obsolete), description of the other suppliers, motor&gearbox etc. Lots to add. TGCP ( talk) 18:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think including this information at all is warranted per WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS, but for now I have substantially reduced the content for the following reasons: First, whether drugs were involved at the factory, while relevant to Tesla as a company, is not relevant to the factory or production itself. Second, the article erroneously claimed that Hansen was fired for not being a team player; all sources in fact state that a different employee was fired. Hansen is not described as 'fired' in any secondary source. Third, the claim that Hansen is participating in an FBI investigation is not supported by any secondary source. Finally, the entire section with allegations from the interview with TSLAQ has been removed because the interview is simply Hansen stating allegations which have not been fact-checked or included in any reliable secondary source. Wikipedia shouldn't be simply amplifying claims; it should be an authoritative source on what is known about a topic. If claims or allegations have a signficant impact on a topic, they should be included, but that's not the case here.
When I was reading this article I got to the section at the end and thought "wow, this sounds bad, the factory must be really mismanaged." On checking up on this story, I was surprised to find that a few years later there have been no new developments except that Hansen's lawyer turned out to be funded by short sellers and that another individual involved in the case had to pay a settlement to Tesla. Including information of dubious credibility is a disservice to readers, and this information is already available on the criticism page. I still think the section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashimiJones ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This might warrant a paragraph at wiki/Tesla_Motors, but it doesn't warrant a page on its own. Yet. It is at best a promotion of Tesla Motor Co.'s plans to build a factory somewhere. Note that the 2 references are Tesla Motor Co 'blog' pages.
Wayne
18:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The article has many date formats, in text and in references. Should we use the format common to Tesla articles ("2016-10-09" for refs, October 9 for text ) ? Are there tools to perform mass conversions? Are there other ref tools to set date format as default, as CiteGen only shows "9 October 2016" ? TGCP ( talk) 10:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
In
this edit,
Jesseschulman added the Gigafactory location as plain text, “GPS Coordinates -39.536660, -119.445541”, which was then reverted. I'm guessing that we'll want to use that in a template, such as {{
coord|39.536660|-119.445541|display=title}}
. Do we need a source for coordinates?
Unician
∇
05:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
More here, especially on the recent Nevada-provided subsidies to this specific manufacturing plant. Apparently, several specific pieces of legislation are involved. [online.wsj.com/articles/tesla-nevada-tax-breaks-incentives-package-approved-1410507190Tesla Receives Nevada Tax Breaks], Wall Street Journal, 12 Sep 2014.
There is a lot of talk about the factory suposedly is to be energy self sufficient through solar/eolic power plants. It would be great if some solid information could be provided regarding this matter. An EV car battery manufactured using renewable energy would truly be groundbreaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.189.201.91 ( talk) 13:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This section of the article mention Japan as the location for a second factory, but the source only says that the company "courted partners in Japan for its so-called gigafactory". The Bloomberg article (original CSM's source) has nothing about other GFs. Actually, the last shareholder letter of the company (Q3 2015) and a recent tweet by its CEO indicates that India is the top candidate for building a second battery factory. -- Freedatum ( talk) 09:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This section could be made better as in :
(in other articles it is claimed, that some of per-cell safety features are removed in favor of the fire-retardant filling in/out of the cell and other advanced monitoring)
(in this rewriting this section I only reused information it already contained, have NOT checked or sought any sources) 146.90.156.187 ( talk) 11:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The lead paragraph currently reads
> The Tesla Gigafactory 1 is a lithium-ion battery factory which is under construction (and in production) primarily for Tesla Motors at the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center in Storey County, Nevada, US.[1][2][3] The factory became operational in the first quarter of 2016.[4]
This contradicts itself. If the factory is operational, how can it still be under construction?
Elwoz ( talk) 16:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more clear if the article was titled Tesla Gigafactory? Are other companies building gigafactories? Whoisjohngalt ( talk) 15:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
What's a "gigafactory?" Presumably it's a really big factory, but it's not explained. 174.6.101.144 ( talk) 00:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I propose the article be renamed to "Tesla Gigafactory" without any number. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
USA Today: [1]
The fact that Musk called the battery plant "Gigafactory 1" also implies that there will be more Gigafactories in the future. The surprise, however, is that some of those factories don't have to necessarily be built by Tesla, according to Musk. Instead, the company will continue its policy of open sourcing its technology so others can use it.
"There will need to be many Gigafactories in the future," Musk said. "Many companies will build Gigafactory-class plants of their own."
When the factory opens, it's time to get actual numbers on employees, production, and floor space, and use those. There's too much projected data from PR in this article. WP:CRYSTAL applies. John Nagle ( talk) 19:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no mention of actual dimensions of the structure, floor or work area. Projected future size is mentioned, as is the area of the factory site but not the current structure. Can someone find these details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmostly ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Another measure of size is employee number; 4,500 workers at $22/hour, + several more. [ Hidalgo, Jason (2015-06-16). "List: Every Tesla gigafactory job and how to get them". Reno Gazette Journal. Retrieved 2016-10-30. ] TGCP ( talk) 23:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
While the Gigafactory is clearly in Storey County, does it belong to a particular city of community? The Tesla website lists its address as being in Sparks, Nevada, but Sparks is located in Washoe County and does not (to my knowledge) extend into Storey, so I fail to see how the factory could possibly be in Sparks (though I expect Tesla was interested in the name association there). Clark appears to be the closest community, but is the Gigafactory actually in Clark? I don't know how that would be determined. 73.149.43.153 ( talk) 07:34, 28 August 2016 (—UTC)
107.77.214.85 ( talk) 19:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
So I have a draft up at DRAFT:Gigafactory 2 -- 65.94.168.229 ( talk) 06:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Gigafactory 1. 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) 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gigafactory 1. 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) 09:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I am wait and see on this potential scandal, but there are allegations of theft and drug trafficking at the subject of this article. If this story has growing coverage beyond this USA Today article, it should be included int his article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The relationship between Panasonic and Tesla for the Gigafactory is tenant and landlord. It's not accurate to say that Tesla operates the factory. Tesla's responsibilities end at the building envelope or "shell". They don't hire any of the workers, own any of the equipment, or even manage any of the workers that produce the batteries. They simply buy the batteries produced in large deals, eg. 3 years at a time.
It's very concerning that my edit was reverted and removed from the revision list. The source I added is clearly an outline of this relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.175.240 ( talk) 18:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The article states that Panasonic makes cells, and occupies most of the factory area. Tesla then assembles cells into batteries (a battery is defined as a collection of cells). Suggestions on how to make that more clear : Panasonic's variety of cell production lines, links to videos, employee table as in TRIC overview (the 7,000 number is obsolete), description of the other suppliers, motor&gearbox etc. Lots to add. TGCP ( talk) 18:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think including this information at all is warranted per WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS, but for now I have substantially reduced the content for the following reasons: First, whether drugs were involved at the factory, while relevant to Tesla as a company, is not relevant to the factory or production itself. Second, the article erroneously claimed that Hansen was fired for not being a team player; all sources in fact state that a different employee was fired. Hansen is not described as 'fired' in any secondary source. Third, the claim that Hansen is participating in an FBI investigation is not supported by any secondary source. Finally, the entire section with allegations from the interview with TSLAQ has been removed because the interview is simply Hansen stating allegations which have not been fact-checked or included in any reliable secondary source. Wikipedia shouldn't be simply amplifying claims; it should be an authoritative source on what is known about a topic. If claims or allegations have a signficant impact on a topic, they should be included, but that's not the case here.
When I was reading this article I got to the section at the end and thought "wow, this sounds bad, the factory must be really mismanaged." On checking up on this story, I was surprised to find that a few years later there have been no new developments except that Hansen's lawyer turned out to be funded by short sellers and that another individual involved in the case had to pay a settlement to Tesla. Including information of dubious credibility is a disservice to readers, and this information is already available on the criticism page. I still think the section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashimiJones ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)