Jump to content

Talk:Tesla, Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.94.67.227 (talk) at 16:28, 2 May 2022 (→Phantom braking: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleTesla, Inc. has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
February 16, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2022

It should be "with a market cap of over $1 trillion" not nearly. TheGOATMessi (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Currently the market cap is 995B. Nearly is a perfectly good descriptor for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Tesla Energy Software?

I want to question the notability of the section on "Tesla Energy Software." The current text feels like it's lifted promotional copy and written like an advertisement:

Tesla has developed a software ecosystem to support its energy hardware products. Autobidder, Powerhub, Opticaster, Microgrid Controller and Virtual Machine Mode are the products that Tesla offers.[1] Tesla also has a "Virtual Power Plant" beta program.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Tesla Energy and its Autobidder software are making power companies nervous". electrek.co. September 9, 2021.
  2. ^ Mackenzie, Wood (2021-08-06). "The impact of Tesla's California virtual power plant". www.woodmac.com. Retrieved 2022-02-01.

@JShark: implied in his edit summary that I dispute that tesla makes software, I don't. However, I dispute that the energy software is important or impactful enough to be notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The references given are to a website known for its skewed positive coverage of Tesla (Electrek) with a clickbait headline: Tesla Energy and its Autobidder software are making power companies nervous (emphasis mine) and a Wood Mackenzie trade article that also feels very thin (like it was ripped from a press release) that also names a lot of other companies more established in this space... none of which are notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia.

https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-software The official Tesla website names all of those products. I don't see any promotion since those are the names of the products.
  • Autobidder
  • Powerhub
  • Microgrid Controller
  • Opticaster
  • Virtual Machine Mode

It is not spoken well but neither badly of these products. Only the products that Tesla offers to people are named. It is the same as naming the car models that Tesla produces. Also that section should be expanded to say what exactly those products do. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interested persons can also request information about that software. If you delete that section you would be deleting information of interest to people and it would be like deleting the section about Tesla services. According to your logic the information about Tesla's solar power generation should also not be included as solar panels still don't make that much money. All of Tesla's businesses should be included regardless of whether we like or dislike businesses like solar power or software. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla's solar power doesn't make a lot of money but it's still important to name that Tesla business. In addition, the company is already offering these software products to customers and therefore they are not future projects, but rather software that the company already offers to customers. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly software that Tesla customers already use and the section is only naming those products and not promoting those products. We should be expanding the section to say what each of the software products does. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH51-loeLgM - Tesla, Inc. 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders -> Tesla even shows an image with Autobidder to its shareholders. Watch the video at minute 56:08. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2020-tesla-impact-report.pdf -> Autobidder appears again in this Tesla report. Page 8. "Maximizing utilization through software" --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The company even constantly mentions the importance of software development to all its shareholders. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources should be used to show notability, not just from company sources. Tesla Energy should only be broadly described on this main page, whereas details about Tesla Energy should be stated on that page. TGCP (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources:

--2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to Tesla Energy. This product line is highly specific. QRep2020 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Reuters and these other sources are colluding to promote Tesla's software. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this information should be in both articles. It also takes up very little space in the article. It is not a huge section.--2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section on Tesla's energy business in this article is even very small and highly summarized. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed we drop the subheading and boil it down further and integrate it into this paragraph:

Tesla Energy's generation products include solar panels (built by other companies for Tesla), the Tesla Solar Roof (a solar shingle system) and the Tesla Solar Inverter. Other products include the Powerwall (a home energy storage device) and the Powerpack and Megapack, which are large-scale energy storage systems. Tesla Energy also develops software to allow customers to monitor and control their systems.

I'm going to go ahead and make this change. We can expand the information on the Tesla Energy page using some of those independent, reliable sources. --RickyCourtney (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could add some of those sources to the article. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To this article you could also add some source. Perhaps the Reuters source. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added two sources --JShark (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits section too long

Recent edits (mainly by Surge Of Reason) significantly expanded the "Lawsuits and controversies" section, which was already long. After the edits it is the longest section in all the article, at 43.6 kb, significantly larger than the second, "History" at 37.7 kb (see the template "Section sizes" on the top of this page for details). Considering that we already have an article specifically about this (List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc.), this section should only briefly summarize the content of the main article. It seems to me that having such a large section on this topic may be against WP:NPOV, as well as making the article less readable overall. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That section did not significantly expand in size. All I did was add sub-headers to make it more legible and add to the Racism, Sexual Harassment, and Conduct during the Covid-19 pandemic sections. It is a tad long. I suggest moving "Intellectual Property", "Defamation", Misappropriation, "Property Damage", and "Criticism". I utterly protest moving other sections as that would remove very important information. Surge Of Reason (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that both the TSLA Q section and the "Tesla's Mission" section should be removed (and possibly other sections as well), as I don't feel that those sections rise to the level of relevance for a major automaker article like this. The guidelines for controversy sections on WP though are relatively open to individual judgement (see the subsections for criticism and controversy sections in Wikipedia:Criticism) and as of right now there doesn't seem to be a clear cut standard for major automaker articles, or company articles in general, so this may be a good time to start nailing down a precedent and deciding what criteria constitutes a relevant criticism or controversy. TKOIII (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those subsections are not a part of the Lawsuits section. QRep2020 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Surge Of Reason: I propose leaving in this article a maximum of 1-2 paragraphs summary for each main topic (100-150 words). The details should be added to List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc., and minor sections such as the ones you mentioned can be moved altogether. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ita140188: My opinion is that every section under Lawsuits & Controversies is allowed to be as long as Vehicle batteries, Autopilot, or Full self-driving. That is unless the core matter is of limited interest to the general public, or contains too many details that are of limited interest to the general public.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

http://crweworld.com/article/regulatory/2298211/us-epa-settles-with-tesla-over-clean-air-act-violations-at-fremont-calif-facility I am not sure where it should go Nonvolare (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom braking

"In some scenarios, the car will wrongly apply the brakes so hard that it may lead to accidents." Unless someone actually have any evidence of "Phantom breaking" causing any accidents i don't see how this is relevant at all. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is doing their investigation and once that's resolved and it's found guilty then I'm ok with the quote above. Otherwise it's just guesswork — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbayx (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Ita140188 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is slightly off. The following would work with [WaPo article] as a source: "According drivers and experts, the car can wrongly apply the brakes so hard that it may lead to accidents. The NHTSA opened an investigation and has received over 100 complaints as of February 2022." QRep2020 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again that's just assuming "may lead too" is disingenuous as there is no evidence of this happening. Warbayx (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of evidence that unexpected braking can cause someone to be rear-ended. Why would the car being a Tesla change this fact?
There is nothing disingenuous about saying "it may lead too" causing an accident, and suggesting otherwise is quite ignorant or disingenuous in it's own right. 174.94.67.227 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nanjingnan123 (article contribs).

Certain users (QRep2020) involved in biographies policy violations participated in the conversation. I propose a new conversation about the founders of Tesla.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/QRep2020 20:04, 20 April 2022 El C blocked QRep2020 from the pages Elon Musk and Talk:Elon Musk with an expiration time of indefinite (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: For now. Sitewide may be needed as there's a limit to the number of pages that can be added to a p-block list, and there are many other Elon Musk and Tesla, etc. -related pages)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Founders

Certain users (QRep2020) involved in biographies policy violations participated in the conversation. I propose a new conversation about the founders of Tesla. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders. --JShark (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works but feel free to propose a new discussion under other auspices. QRep2020 (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you made the change you are proposing already? Without discussing it? QRep2020 (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is typically listed as a founder in reliable, independent sources? BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we doing this yet again? There is no formal definition of "founder". There are a lot of informal definitions. Many people choose to list the people who formally registered the company with the their local government. Other choose to list important people during it's early years. Others have a big lawsuit to decide it (especially if there is money and/or pride involved). It's complicated and often self-contradictory, so we put the various points in a section and left it at that. See WP:DROPTHESTICK.  Stepho  talk  02:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finance section, bitcoin investment

I was surprised to learn here that “Tesla made more profit from the 2021 investment than the profit from selling cars in 2020, due to the Bitcoin price increase after the investment was announced.”

This pretty clearly says that in 2021, Tesla had more bitcoin profit than profit from selling cars. This is simply untrue. Both the referenced articles were written one month after the investment was made. Best I can find is for 2021 a bitcoin related accounting loss of $101M vs a profit selling ‘digital assets’ of $272M. 98.168.61.134 (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla,_Inc.&oldid=1085817341"