Talk:Tesla Model S/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Tesla Model S. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Tesla Model S. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tesla Model S. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tesla Model S. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tesla Model S. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tesla Model S. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tesla Model S. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tesla Model S. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed P100D weight

I fixed the P100D weight to its proper weight of 4960lbs. It was reading some false number like 5180lbs before. (Whoever wrote it just added +50kg for 100D, and +50kg for P100D, obviously not correct)

100D weight is probably incorrect, but more correct than before, until we find an official weight.

P100D weight is correct but unsourced (unless this video works as a source? "Hacked-Up Tesla P100D + BBS Wheels! ") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.154.182 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Date format

Davey2010@ and myself have a disagreement about the date format. MOS:DATEUNIFY says all dates in an article should be of the same format but allows for references to use yyyy-mm-dd regardless of the format used in the rest of the article. WP:DATERET says not to change the date format without consensus. The article has used the yyyy-mm-dd format for a considerably long time, it is legal and there has been no consensus to change it.  Stepho  talk  12:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Out of 954 date references, only 44 (less than 5%) are in MDY format. It's clear that yyyy-mm-dd is the consensus for this article. 71.198.230.38 (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
DATERETAIN states "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page."
MDY has constantly been reapplied to the article and as such the article has evolved using predominantly one date format,
You need to accept you don't OWN the article and that YOU need to get consensus for these changes (I'm only reapplying MDY which was reapplied last year and years before that)
Also Stephan stop trying to GAMETHESYSTEM by using an IP otherwise you'll find yourself at WP:SPI,–Davey2010Talk 16:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Five points to consider here:
  1. The anon-IP above is not me. If you want to falsely accuse me then please gather some evidence. I am not afraid of WP:SPI, do it if you feel like it.
  2. Secondly, my nickname is Stepho, not Stephan. It's very prominent in my WP signature (see above and at the end of this comment).
  3. I have already pointed out that MOS:DATEUNIFY allows the references to have a different date format than the rest of the article.
    I even underlined it for you in the direct quote and provide a link to it in case you didn't believe me.
  4. MOS:DATEFORMAT backs this up with 'Special rules apply to citations; see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Citation style.'
  5. Far from trying to own the article, I am actually preserving the current style according to WP:DATERETAIN (a guideline which we both agree to).
    It is you who is trying to change the reference date format without consensus.
I can forgive points 1 and 2. I would like you to consider points 3 and 4. We have had this discussion before on multiple talk pages and you have never provided a counterpoint to MOS:DATEUNIFY and MOS:DATEFORMAT or shown if I have interpreted them wrong. If I have made an error then please point out where my error is.  Stepho  talk  00:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Dates should remain as per RETAIN which is more commonly used than DATEUNIFY, As we're not getting anywhere I would suggest you stop warring and seek consensus for your changes. –Davey2010Talk 04:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Curious that you say RETAIN has higher precedence than DATEUNIFY (which I don't necessarily agree to). Then by your own reasoning we should revert back to before you changed it on 23 Jan 2018. WP:BRD also agrees with this. Remember than the yyyy-mm-dd format has been here for years quite happily obeying all the rules and guidelines. There was no consensus to change it, no infringement of rules to require a change and no conflict of rules that needed resolving.  Stepho  talk  04:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussin

This is to invite regular editors of this page to participate in the ongoing discussion at the talk page of the electric car article regarding Wikipedia policy about pricing info included in several articles dealing with plug-in electric cars. You are welcome to express your view. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about date format in references

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was to use yymmdd. –Davey2010Talk 13:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010@ and myself have a disagreement about the date format to be use in references. The article has for a very long time used yyyy-mm-dd in references and MDY in the article text. As given in the section above, my reasoning is that MOS:DATEUNIFY says all dates in an article should be of the same format but allows for references to use yyyy-mm-dd regardless of the format used in the rest of the article. MOS:DATEFORMAT backs this up with 'Special rules apply to citations; see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Citation style.' Since yyyy-mm-dd is not allowed to be used in the normal text of the article (ie outside of references and tables), forcing the references to use the same date format as the article effectively disallows yyyy-mm-dd altogether. Why would DATEUNIFY and DATEFORMAT and WP:CITESTYLE even bother to specify yyyy-mm-dd at all if other guidelines rule it out?

The article has used yyyy-mm-dd for a long time. Davey2010 changed the references to MDY based on his interpretation of WP:DATEUNIFY on 23 January 2018. I noticed it on 25 January 2018 but there were enough other changes that a simple revert would wipe out too many other changes. On 27 January 2018 I figured out how to change it back to yyyy-mm-dd without affecting intermediate edits via a regular expression script. On 28 January 2018 Davey2010 reverted me again, I reverted him once more and he reverted me once more. Obviously we are in the beginnings of an edit war. I have stopped reverting for the moment not because I believe Davey2010 is right but because an edit war is fruitless.

Note also that both of us agree to WP:RETAIN (whereby the article should not be changed without consensus). However, Davey2010 believes that RETAIN applies only after his MDY change of 23 January 2018 and not to the status quo for years before that of yyyy-mm-dd. We seem to have a similar disagreement of interpreting WP:BRD for when to restore the article to during the discussion.

Can others please comment on whether my interpretation of the MOS:DATEUNIFY, MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:CITESTYLE guidelines is correct or whether Davey2010's interpretation is correct?  Stepho  talk  04:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

To encourage discussion among interested parties, I have posted links to here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Rfc on reference date format at 'Tesla Model S', Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Rfc on reference date format at 'Tesla Model S' and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Rfc on reference date format at 'Tesla Model S'.  Stepho  talk  05:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  • YYYYMMDD is for access and archive dates only, not publication dates. So this edit is partly right, partly wrong: changing publication dates away from YYYYMMDD was right (since they're not allowed) but changing the access dates away from YYYYMMDD was wrong (since they're allowed, and per RETAIN). At least I'm pretty sure. EEng 06:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    @EEng: Your claim that YYYY-MM-DD is for access and archive dates only does not appear to be supported in any guideline of which I'm aware and in fact is contravened by MOS:DATEUNIFY, which says that Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be [...] an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table [...]. One of the abbreviated formats listed in that table is YYYY-MM-DD. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
See, that's why I said "At least I'm pretty sure" -- the date guidelines are bit of a maze, and no man living is the master of them. I was going by the little footnote : Only certain citation styles use abbreviated date formats. By default, Wikipedia does not abbreviate dates. But then at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style it says any consistent style may be used so that seems to mean you can do almost anything you want as long as you're consistent. So I give up. EEng 14:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • While I have an opinion on the best kinds of dates to provide, the cited guidelines all support retaining the YYYY-MM-DD format in the publication dates of these citations. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've always believed the whole article should remain in one consistent format however if editors here believe I'm wrong then I'll happily revert, As EEng says the whole date guidelines thing is a maze but anyway as I said if I'm more wrong than right then I'll happily revert, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I've always felt that using "conventional" dates (either January 29, 2018 or 29 January 2018) for publication dates, and YYYY-MM-DD for access and archive dates (a "technical" format for "technical" data) makes a nice visual distinction. And it's indubitably allowed with no rabbinical hairsplitting needed. So maybe cutting the baby in half by doing that would allow this particular cosmic debate to come to an end. EEng 17:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
EEng@ is quite right that it is a maze. Lucky for me that I spend a lot of my work life interpreting computer, engineering and legal specs in order to implement them as software that obeys the spec, the law and the customer's intent. Anyway, in reply to Izno@, MOS:DATEUNIFY says 'Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be: ... the format expected in the citation style being used (however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided).' It doesn't specify any particular style of citation or the date format used within it except to disallow most numeric dates. But see how it specifically removes yyyy-mm-dd from the disallowed formats. Why would it specifically list yyyy-mm-dd under publication dates if they thought it should be disallowed? Since no specific citation style is mentioned, that leaves us free to choose or make up a style that can use any date format, including yyyy-mm-dd, as long as we are consistent within the references. It's not exactly a standing ovation for the format but as long as it is consistent then it is allowed.
Some editors have pointed out that MOS:DATEUNIFY says all dates in the article must be the same. It actually says 'Dates in article body text should all use the same format' (my underlining). References are not part of the article body text, therefore this clause of DATEUNIFY doesn't mean anything for references.
MOS:DATEFORMAT backs this up with 'Special rules apply to citations; see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Citation style.'
In response to Izno@ and as EEng already summarised, access and archive dates are specifically listed in MOS:DATEUNIFY as 'Access and archive dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be: the format used for publication dates in the article; the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article (e.g. 20 Sep 2008); or yyyy-mm-dd'. So, yyyy-mm-dd is very specifically allowed for access and archive dates. The other two options are allowed as well but once an option is chosen early in the article's history then WP:RETAIN disallows changes unless consensus has been reached on the talk page to change it.
In short, I see nothing that disallows yyyy-mm-dd in references, specific endorsement of it for access and archive dates and a vaguely worded allowance of it for publication dates.  Stepho  talk  14:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have always believed it acceptable to use yyyy-mm-dd for access and archive dates despite the format used in the rest of the article, and believe this is explicitly supported by policy, as mentioned above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion has stagnated. Can anybody find a flaw in my reasoning?  Stepho  talk  11:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed this discussion, and check carefully the above mentioned WP policies. Clearly User:Stepho-wrs interpretation is right on the money. In addition, I've been through a dozen successful GA review processes, and all reviewers have applied the date format rules in the exact same way as Stepho-wrs is arguing here. My POV as an experienced editor is that if an article "is not broken don't fix it" - supported by the WP guidelines clearly establish that the prevailing format should be kept/preserved, so there is no justification for changing a date format that has been in place in this article for several years. Even worst, when bots are used to do this "fix" almost always it changes urls with embedded dates and source titles, creating a mess that few come back to fix. I think there are plenty of articles in need of improvement, so it will be more useful for the project to fix, expand or improve those article. Finally, when starting this discussion, the previous format should have been kept, and seek consensus here to change it. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

S85D range

In the article S85D range is 272 miles, but according to the cited source it is 270 https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35980&id=36009&id=36008&id=35994

--Teveten (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC) I corrected the range according to the source, which is 270. Why specifications table changes 270 miles to 430 km, when the correct miles to kms conversion would be 434.52288, so if rounded to three digits it would be 435 km --Teveten (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

deliveries 2018

Q1 2018 deliveries: 11,730 were Model S, tesla-q1-2018-vehicle-production-and-deliveries

Q2 2018 deliveries: 10,930 were Model S, tesla-q2-2018-vehicle-production-and-deliveries

--Covenant242 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Weights still wrong

P100D weight is now accurate, 4960lbs. The other weights are not accurate, and haven't been for years. (at least P90D, 90D, 100D).

Also, I have seen zero real-world evidence that the early 60kWh model is actually 4,323lbs. People are claiming the original 60kwh pack actually weighs the same as the original 85kwh pack. I haven't been able to find anyone weighing their Model S 60 on a scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.150.124 (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

75 D Discontinuation

Popular Culture References

Infobox Image

Neutral Language Needed

Is a revised Model S coming in 2020 or 2021?

Aluminium

Page Display

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Is this an encyclopedia entry, or an advertisement?

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI