Talk:Lamborghini/Archive 1

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

April 2005

I think the VW template is really out of place, with its links to Golfs etc. We just need a link to the Volkswagen Group page, or perhaps a "tab bar" for all the marques owned by VW. It would be more useful to have a specific Lamborghini template, along the lines of Template: Ferrari vehicles. -- Hotlorp 11:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's the meaning of S.p.A.?

S.p.A is the Itallian equivalent of Ltd or plc. It stands for Società per Azioni. Cuddlyable3 21:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Roadsters?

Should the Roadster variants be classified as different cars under the list of vehicles or should someone create a different page devoted solely to other versions of Lamborghinis? Wubblu 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Lamborghini ust to make tractors. http://common.weblogsinc.com/common/images/1512065652017376.JPG?0.49239837835354644

Police Lamborghini

Are any Lamborghini cars used as police cars?

Yes. There are currently 2 Lamborghini Gallardos being used by the Italian Police

They've got a small "cool box" in the front to use them for organ transport in regions where choppers are not an option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.116.164 (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Snob's Comment

"Ferruccio Lamborghini went to meet Enzo Ferrari at the Ferrari factory to complain about the quality of the clutch in Lamborghini's Ferrari 250 GT." this confuses me.Snob 09:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe what they are trying to say is that Lamborghini (the man not the company) owned a Ferrari. The clutch in his Ferrari was acting up, so he went to talk with Enzo Ferrari regarding the issue. GZadmin 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In the version of the legend that I read (the source may have been from Road & Track or Car and Driver, I'm not sure which...) Ferruccio Lamborghini owned as many as four Ferraris, which he generally liked but found fault with. He gave his opinions to Enzo Ferrari who got irate and insulted him, notoriously saying that he did not know how to drive Ferraris, he only knew how to drive tractors.

From sources I cannot remember (hence I have not included the statement in the article), Lamborghini's response to this was to "build better Ferraris than Ferrari."

Lamborghini also believed that Ferrari's obsession with motor racing blinded him to the demands of his customers. This belief was behind his decision that the Lamborghini factory would not be involved in motor racing.

Respectfully, SamBlob 02:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Organized images

The lead is messed up with an overabundance of images. Fix it please, or I will. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

asus lamborghini

should we include information on the Asus Lamborghini (a partnership between asus and lamborghini in making laptops) ?

http://www.asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=2070

No. The Lamborghini badge can't be difficult to buy because it is on shoes, watches,... and trinkets, none of which seem underpriced. Asus make laptops in Taiwan and would like us to know that their laptops "have inherited all the striking traits of a true Lamborghini". Since when is badge licensing a partnership?Cuddlyable3 13:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tranverse engine

"The car's engine was transversely mounted, something that up to then was exclusive to Formula 1 race cars."

Very, very wrong. I can think of only one F1 car ever that had a transversely mounted engine - Honda's 1965 car (see [1]), but other than that they are invariably longitudinally mounted. See Transverse engine for what looks like a more accurate history of the configuration. I have deleted the reference to F1 from the article. --4u1e 06:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Check your reading comprehension. That the style of engine mounting was "exclusive to Formula 1" does not imply that all Formula 1 cars had them. So your quoted source is merely reinforcing that claim. In order for the claim to be false, you would have to show that a non-Formula 1 car had transverse mounting prior to the Lamborghini.

The 1959 Morris Mini Minor had a transverse-mounted engine before Lamborghini started to make cars. True, it was a transverse-mounted front engine powering the front wheels, but it was still a transverse engine.Respectfully, SamBlob 02:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How much was the Miura again?

"The Miura was an absolute success for Lamborghini, 111 were sold in 1967, and propelled the company into the world of hundred-million-dollar supercar manufacturers."

That line seems to imply that the Miura is a hundred-million-dollar supercar, which I do not think is correct. If the intention is to say that the company was a hundred-million-dollar "supercar manufacturer", then the wording needs to be revised to clarify which words are adjectives and which are nouns.

Agreed, the Miuras when new weren't that much, the most expensive one of today is up for $975,000, but that's today, back in 1967, even though rare, couldn't have been that much. I can find out an good estimate for new sale price and we can adjust for inflation, it'll be a nice addition. Aslaveofaudio 04:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

External Link

Hi i have currently made a new exotic car site here. I was wanting to add the relevant pages to relevant wiki pages and wondering if thats ok to do so? Please let me know.

Thanks

Richard

Have a dig around for the policy on external links. My guess is that your site won't meet them. Cheers Greglocock 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Build Quality

The statement: "Like many other exotic Italian automobiles, the quality of construction and of the components used were often of poor quality" is highly disputable. Lamborghinis were built in limited-run small batches (as were other exotic cars); build, assembly and finish quality were allegedly very high. ````--Defone 08:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. 1985 Countach was pretty ropy in parts, and the chassis design/workmanship was about at the level of garden furniture or typical AC Cobra reproductions from small workshops today. Not that road-car Ferraris were much better. Greglocock 10:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh expert of Wikipedia, show us some proof/citations, or stfu. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.100.167 (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

How many days within the past three months has this page not been vandalized? Is there any effective way to stop it short of finding every individual vandal and making each one an offer he/she can't refuse? Respectfully, SamBlob 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of references

When I added content to this article, I made sure to reference the sources of my information, as requested.

User:Romerocw has seen fit to remove the references to my sources while leaving the now-unreferenced information in the article:

-Romerocw's first edit

-Romerocw's second edit

He has given no explanation for this action. He made no edit comments and did not comment either on this discussion page or on my user talk page.

Do the references I have used violate the rules and policies of Wikipedia? If the references are not suitable for Wikipedia, should the content based on the references be retained?

If the references I have used do not violate the rules and policies of Wikipedia, may I put them back in?

Respectfully, SamBlob 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one has seen fit to tell me why the references were removed, I have replaced them. Respectfully, SamBlob 23:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

SamBlob, I am not as experienced as you at proper Wikipedia protocol. However, as a moderator of the largest and oldest automotive forum on the net that your references clearly appear to be spam. The references add nothing to the article on Lamborghini. If there are a few brief points which are of interest then they should be added to the Wikipedia article as opposed to pointing them to your site.

I re-read the article. I deleted the references again. Please understand that I am simply applying my 24+ years as a moderator of user-generated content. Your references are clearly and deliberately spam as they add nothing to the article whatsoever.

Please read this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Additionally as I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia contributor I welcome your comments regarding protocol.

--Romerocw 17:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read the section you recommended that I read. Have you? If so, may I bring your attention to the following extract:

"The guideline of this article refers to external links other than citations (emphasis mine). Citation links belong in the Notes or References section of a Wikipedia article. Care must be taken not to delete inline links and external links if it looks like they are being used as references. This guideline only concerns external links that provide additional info beyond that provided by citation/reference links. Err on the side of caution if a citation/reference link has not yet been moved to a reference section. Some articles need a reference section added. Use this wiki code:

==References==

<references/> "

Further to this, might I direct your attention to this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_cited

Without references to my sources, I could be making this all up from thin air. With references to my sources, one will know where I am getting this information from.

Before you cite your experience as a moderator of an online forum, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the guidelines by which Wikipedia operates. If you remove the references, you might as well remove the material, because unsourced material is generally not welcome.

As you have taken the trouble to remove my references again, against Wikipedia guidelines, would you please be so good as to put them back? Respectfully, SamBlob 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam is Spam is Spam is Spam. Call them what you want references, citations, or external links that doesn't change the fact of what they are. I've seen them elsewhere in Wikipedia. When I get a chance I'll notify the appropriate parties. They should all be removed becuase they are all spam. Please stop. There are alot better ways to get people to read your website. And, surely you understand that you're not getting any link back credit for the links.

--Romerocw 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K. What part of "citing the sources of your information" do you not understand? Please note that this is *not* a forum. This is an *encyclopaedia*, and, as such, we are not supposed to put unpublished information on it. We are *required* to cite our sources. Those sites are where I got the information from. This is not me trying to say "Oh, look at my website!" None of the websites I have would contribute anything useful to Wikipedia. The websites I *cite* are the ones where I get the information I add from, as in "You don't believe me? Fine! Take it up with these guys. That's where I got the info from." Without that, the information that is added is worthless.

Since that information has been rendered worthless by the removal of the citations, I will now remove it for not stating its sources. Respectfully, SamBlob 04:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

More Vandalism

I just checked this article, and noticed the nonsense in the history section. I was about to post on that, but now the entire section is gone!?! Linns 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"amborghini was insulted and dick slaped him right in the face." I removed this as it's blatant vandalism. Erikkukun 18:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't post on anything that bad - just remove it. Wikipedia needs less talking and more incremental improving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.99.15 (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of spam references

I removed about 6 or 7 spam references. I've only removed spam a couple times from Wikipedia but from what I have read here this particular car seems to get it's fair share of spam. Hopefully it won't come back for a while. --Romerocw 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tractor Division?

Is this still part of the company? If not when was it separated or phased out?

Tartanperil 14:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lamborghini Tractors web site. It's no longer associated with Lamborghini Automobili. I remember reading somewhere that Lamborghini sold the tractor business before he sold the car business, but I don't remember where I read it. Respectfully, SamBlob 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Counterpart to Ferrari ?

"Lamborghini is the main counterpart to Ferrari in the Italian sports car business." Lamborghini competes with other marques such as Maserati, Ferrari, Aston Martin, Porsche (this is an international, not just Italian business) for the luxury sports car market but how, pray tell, is Lamborghini "the main counterpart of Ferrari" ? Cuddlyable3 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lamborghini sunglasses ?

There is a brand of sunglasses called Lamborghini. Any relevance?

Please read the article section about Badge Licensing. Please sign your posts.Cuddlyable3 09:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Production Time line

I would like to start a production time line similar to the other sports car manufacturer Wiki sites. Ferrari has a nice one that I would like to mimic. Anyone agree or disagree?

21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the timeline templates exist: Template:Lamborghini early timeline and Template:Lamborghini modern timeline Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your right, I apologize. A plug-in in my browser has corrupted my view. BBar (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a tiny reference to the Marzal somewhere 131.172.99.15 (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)snaxalotl

Wasn't sure where to put this but can we have more than "as a result of changing circumstances in Indonesia"; it was virtually a revolution! A hypertext link to the page of events at the very least. 125.238.14.73 (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Price

I think there should be the price the cars where sold for(or at lease an estimate)in the chart under "modles". Rdrgz25 (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Who owns Lamborghini?

I am sick and tired of seeing the "owner" status of the infobox keep changing between Volkswagen, Audi, and VAG. Whereas I know that VAG (Volkswagen AG) ultimately owns Lamborghini and administers it through the Audi division, can we agree on a definitive owner of Lamborghini under this system (which would change, of course, when the system changes), document our agreement here, stick to the agreement we make here, and refer any noobs to the agreement whenever they change the name from the agreed name? If anyone here knows of the existing Wikipedia and/or WikiProject Automobiles conventions it would help this effort greatly. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Volkswagen AG owns the Audi AG which is seen as the sports car division and contains the brands Audi and SEAT as well as car maker Lamborghini. "Audi Automobilwerke GmbH" was founded in 1910 as an independent car maker and changed to "Audi Werke AG" in 1915 (both based in Zwickau). "Audi" was reduced to a brand name in 1932 when the company become part of the "Auto Union AG" (based in Chemnitz), which seized to exist in 1948. The following year former employees founded "Auto Union GmbH" (based in Ingolstadt) and produced cars under the brand name of "DKW". Auto Union GmbH was acquired by Volkswagen AG in 1964 and the Audi brand was revived in 1965. In 1969 Auto Union GmbH changed to "Audi NSU Auto Union AG" (lbased in Neckarsulm) and changed to "Audi AG" in 1985 (based in Ingolstadt again). VAG was a marketing corporation for distribution of both Volkswagen and Audi, the real meaning of the abbreviation was never disclosed to the public. VAG was owned by "Volkswagenwerke AG" which became "Volkswagen AG" also in 1985. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.116.164 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your partial history of Auto Union and Audi. It was not necessary, as there are Wikipedia articles on Volkswagen Group, Volkswagen, Audi, and Auto Union that contain all of that information. Thankfully, the constantly shifting "owner" entry in the infobox had already been stabilized by a *very* detailed explanation in the infobox as to who the owner is, because the flood of information you put forward above does not clarify that matter either. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tonino Lamborghini bicycles

I've recently come across a bicycle manufacturing arm of Lamborghini here - is this worth mentioning on this page? Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The bicycle brand to which you have linked is part of an enterprise run by Tonino Lamborghini, Ferruccio Lamborghini's son. Tonino Lamborghini has no connection with the automobile manufacturing concern and his bicycles should not be mentioned in this article.

It might be better to create an article specifically about Tonino Lamborghini, including his vineyard, his winery, and all the accessories to which he has licenced his name. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please add the actual pronounciation of "Feruccio Lamborghini"

Can one of the Italian editors please include the Italian pronounciation of "Lamborghini" in the Lamborghini article and the Feruccio Lamborghini article? I wanna know how it is pronounced thanks. This shouldn't be a big deal. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

FERRUCCIO is the correct spelling, not "Feruccio". Lamborghini is pronounced Lam-bor-Gi-ni with "G" as in Gift. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lamborghini Cars external link ?

Hello, I'm the webmaster to Lamborghini Cars, the nr 1 reference for all Lamborghini enthusiasts. I wonder why the external link to my page gets constantly removed. I truly believe that it would be a great addition to the Wikipedia reference as it holds tons of additional information on the Raging Bull make.

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambocars (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mark:

These links to the relevant Wikipedia policies may be of help in understanding why: WP:EL#ADV WP:LINKSPAM Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that the information found on the Lamborghini Cars website would be a massive addition to the Wikipedia info, I don't see why this would be considered spam, it actually adds completely verified info about these cars from first hand owners and enthusiasts from all over the world. I was under the impression that Wikipedia would be glad to have such a reference added to their online information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambocars (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark:

If you wish to be a constructive contributor to Wikipedia, and not be generally viewed as a spammer, you should probably follow these guidelines: WP:SPAMMER

Another move that would go well would be to learn our customs, which include signing our remarks on talk pages at the end with four tildes in a row ("~ ~ ~ ~", but without the spaces... and without the quote marks). That action automatically leaves our signature, time, and date. Mine is in the next line, as I am going to end this remark now.

Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone over the pages you've mentioned and will contribute material to the articles related to Lamborghini's. Sorry for the 'signing' glitch, didn't find the signature link the first time, but I just noticed it, many thanks for your clarification on this matter. Lambocars (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New Lambo concept

it was unveiled at the paris auto show 2008 and its called the Estoque. But the exciting thing is that its a four door saloon (sedan) car. i will add a little bit in about it. sources are uk.msn.com Flashkick101 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't add concept cars to the production models table. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

TO THE ESTOQUE FANATICS WHO KEEP PUTTING IT IN THE MODELS TABLE:

For those of you who understand deductive reasoning:

Premise 1: The models table is for models that were or are manufactured by Lamborghini, i.e. someone with enough money could go out and buy one (true with one exception, the 350GTV show car, which is there solely because it was the first Lamborghini automobile ever made).

Premise 2: The Lamborghini Estoque is a concept car, not a Lamborghini model under production (and is not the 350GTV, which is the only exception to Premise 1). This is so true that the concept does not have an engine, and what engine it would have if it were to be manufactured is a matter of speculation.

Conclusion: The Lamborghini Estoque does not belong in the models table.

For those of you who don't understand deductive reasoning, just DON'T PUT IT IN THE MODELS TABLE! O.K.? It doesn't belong there and it's irritating to keep seeing it come back!

(I don't know why I bothered. The people who do this don't read the talk page or the edit comments anyway! I guess I can just hope...)

Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Police Lamborghini

Hopefully this added on to the other article;

There is also a Lamborghini Murcielago police car working in (by the picture from the internet) the UK. G375 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs a re-write

It's written like a biography and is full of sales pitches and irrelevant information, i.e the table listing the cars and their top speeds. I think I also saw the phrase 'pro-active marketing' used in there somewhere. It's biased and unencyclopedic. Fudge-o (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove previous discussions regarding the article without creating an archive. Previous discussions are relevant to the development of the article, and may show why the article is as it is and where, in your opinion, it went wrong. No signature (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside sources

This is a fansite, but contains information that can be used to expand the article: http://www.timpelen.com/ 08:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not unless it points us to more reliable sources, it can't. No signature (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's some more stuff:

The essay itself can't be used, it cites Wiki, but the sources are interesting. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A great book on the Miura, a good amount is available on google books.

An overview at Funding Universe, list of sources at the end looks good AniRaptor2001 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A book about Lamborghini

A book about collecting Ferraris, offers an interesting little segment on the Ferrari vs. Lamborghini rivalry, I'm thinking out loud about whether or not it could ever constitute its own section or article, even.

Encyclopedia of classic sports cars: Lamborghini section AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 production = 1,515 cars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.194.29 (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A nice history of Lamborghini, great profile views of the cars

Overseas operations

Why is this section constantly removed? Automovil Lamborghini de Latin America was set up by Jorge Antonio Fernandez Garcia in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1994. It is officially licensed to produce two handbuilt variants of the Diablo called the Eros and the Coatl. They were first produced in 2001 and are available only in Latin America since 2003.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.220.227 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Largely because the only source is this company's own very tacky website. Adding some more sources. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What does tackiness of their website have to do with anything? All the legal paperwork is on the site for a reason. Otherwise doent you think Lamdo and all of its recent owners would have gone after it for copywrite violations? Having lived in Mexico and other parts of Central America, I can understand the companies desire to appear to be on the up and up.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The tackiness of it might be irrelevant, but it is still not an independent source, which Wikipedia requires to establish notability. Otherwise, anybody could turn a Wikipedia article into an advertisement for their product. No signature (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually read the articles on Wikipedia? [2], does this help any?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(because AniRaptor2001 thinks he owns Lamborghini and Wikipedia -- he's mistakenCHARLES400GT (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

In future, please place your statements at the bottom of the section instead of attaching them to other people's statements.

For the record, third party information about Lamborghini of Latin America has been found and the information about it has been included in the article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Quote

Don't know where to put this right now

With the windows lowered, the beat of the four exhausts becomes like a cello backed by an exquisite string orchestra composed by the six combustions occurring on each turn of the crankshaft, the whisper of the chains driving the four crankshafts and the chatter of the 24 calves. This is music, and all of those who love automobiles must sit and listen a few moments before driving off...

Mel Nichols, Wheels April 1972^[1]

Considering its extreme POV, might File 13 not be an appropriate place? No signature (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

hahaha. At this point, yes, perhaps... it originally fit nicely into a section that noted how Lamborghini was up-and-coming in that era, but now it's just a nice quote.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the top speeds, please?

Editors keep changing the top speeds of the cars at will. Personally, I don't revert them because what was there before is just as unsourced as what replaces it and I don't know the truth.

Will someone please either find sources for the top speeds or remove them altogether?

No signature (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lamborghini Blogs!

Well I have one blog and I would love to see Lamborghini blogging grow so post your blogs here! Edit the page to add your blog!

1. lambofan.wordpress.com

This is not what the talk page of the Lamborghini article is for. This page is for discussion of the improvement of the article. Listing blogs will not improve the article, especially since blogs are not considered to be reliable sources of information for Wikipedia articles. No signature (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The last forty revisions of this article have been vandalism and the reversion of vandalism. Should we seek some kind of edit protection for this article? No signature (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I too have noticed the high incidence of vandalism. I imagine the Lamborghini article is visited by young kids curious about fast cars on a daily basis, some of whom wish to leave a mark on it. There is probably some contribution by feverish Ferrari fans, as well. One-day protection will not suffice; this would need to be long-term. Since the subject matter of the article is rather obscure and full of myth--I had to do quite a bit of actual reading (not offline, but not on conventional websites) in order to get the facts about the company's history, for example--it might be best to leave its content to established editors. You have my support for any sort of proposal. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support protection as well. swa q 15:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection would be needed also Ferrari article, its continous vandalism like in this article.... Im not sure if Wikipedia allows permanent protection? --Typ932 ^T·C 16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SEMI <-Wikipedia's policy for semi-protection.

From that:

Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view).

The method for determining the duration of semi-protection is given in the link. One of the criteria for indefinite semi-protection is that the article must have been semi-protected previously, which Lamborghini has: Lamborghini: Revision as of 16:57, 9 February 2009. They also say that vandalism must have restarted very shortly after the removal of semi-protecion. I don't know if the day after is fast enough, but the first edit after semi-protection expired was vandalism.

Do you suppose we could ask Mr. Symonds, who had semi-protected the article before, to do it again?

No signature (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to take care of it, Sam? I think protection for Ferrari and Lamborghini would be a good idea, as the most famous and visible supercar companies. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Result of protection request. No signature (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

...and, two days after unprotection, the plague seems to be beginning again. I hope I'm just being pessimistic and paranoid and that these two vandal attacks are not actually the start of a fresh onslaught. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparing early Lamborghinis with contemporary Ferraris

"To that aim, the company's first models, the 350GT and 400GT, were clearly superior to the equivalent Ferrari offerings."

The source for this statement: http://www.400gt.com/articles/compare/wallace-compares.htm is a statement by Bob Wallace, the development engineer for Lamborghini at the time. Can his opinion be considered unbiased? If he had said otherwise, he would have admitted failure in his stated task.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take it out for now, the lead certainly isn't the right place for that statement in any case.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob Wallace is not merely expressing an opinion which could be biased. The original Lamborghini models deliberately confronted contemporary Ferrari models with their higher performance figures that are documented, and with specific engineering innovations that Wallace states and that are not in question. The source is an interview by a published automotive author who is able to assess Wallace's statements. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, clear and specific statements need to be made, not arrogant boasts like "the company's first models were clearly superior to equivalent Ferrari offerings" or "This [buliding cars that outperformed and outclassed contemporary Ferraris] was achieved with the introduction of the 350GT and 400GT". Such statements are not information, they are vague and vain boasts. As such, I have edited them to reflect more accurately and objectively what the stated sources say. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

SamBlob it is inappropriate to use the terms "arrogant boasts", "vague boasts" or "vain boasts" here. My understanding is that to say "Lamborghini gradually gained the impetus to create cars" misrepresents the explanation that Ferrucio Lamborghini himself has given in interview. F. Lamborghini complained to Ferrari about the inadequacy of the clutch in his Ferrari, felt snubbed by an offhand rejection he received and thereupon determined to build "a better Ferrari". I agree it fails WP:POV to state that he succeeded. That does not mean the text should hide the fact that Lamborghini models deliberately competed with Ferrari offerings, notably on performance and styling. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I call it as I see it. Statements like "clearly superior" and "This [outperforming and outclassing contemporary Ferraris] was achieved", made generally and without qualification, are arrogant, high-handed, and dismissive, and have no place in a Wikipedia article.
I agree with this point and have edited that line to suit.
I am not sure to what extent the statement "Ferruccio Lamborghini entered the automobile manufacturing business with the aim of producing a high-quality grand tourer that could outperform and outclass offerings from local rival Ferrari S.p.A." hides anything about deliberate competition with Ferrari. While it is true that a statement about the 350GT and the 400GT being direct competitors to production Ferraris should have been made, the statements that were made (the one quoted at the top of this section and the "This was accomplished..." one) really were not the statements that should have been made.
I maintain that the opinion of a development engineer comparing products he developed for his employer with products from his employer's main competitor cannot be considered unbiased. The quantifiable aspects of the statement may be verified by a third party, and the assessment of the author might (or might not) be neutral and usable, but it would still be better to use the third party's assessment than to use the statement of a man whose reputation rests on the products of which he speaks.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This summary can clarify the role of Bob Wallace as test driver for Lamborghini. One may equally well say that his reputation depends on his ability to find faults in the Lamborghini models. Obviously he did not claim them to be the last word in performance development because he took opportunities to make further improvements. We have to use available secondary sources and there is no reason to doubt Wallace's statements in a published interview that would have been routinely confirmed by the parties before publication. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the opinion of an employee of a company regarding his company's product's superiority to that of a competitor cannot be considered unbiased, regardless of his qualifications and experience. For example, what if President Obama said that the U.S. government is the best government in the world? His qualifications do not make this a factual statement, and his position as leader of that government makes his statement biased (many politicians actually have made claims like that before, and they cannot be included in an encyclopedia). Rodface (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

AniRaptor/Rodface makes a good point by taking as analogy a categorical ("best") statement. Even if we personally agree with the statement, a Wikipedia article is not the place to say so. What is notable is that that person put that statement on the record, in some context (maybe: "during Obama's comment on North Korea"). Similarly we cannot have the sentence below without saying who claimed it and how "surpassed" and "bested" were to be understood.

"Lamborghini surpassed Ferrari with his initial offerings, the 350GT and 400GT, which easily bested the equivalent Ferrari street cars."

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

<- removed indent. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we have a dilemma, as minute details should not be used in the lead section, and broad, unqualified statements of superiority should not be used anywhere. To qualify the statement would require going back to the minute details that should not be in the lead section.

I have made a compromise by including the early efforts as offering a high-quality alternative to racing-based Ferrari GTs. This is not only neutral and substantiated, it also summarizes what is said elsewhere in the article, which is what the lead section is supposed to do.

However, 173.171.234.39 insists on having his statements of chest-beating superiority placed at that point, despite the fact that the statements he makes are inherently POV and should not be in any Wikipedia article no matter how well-documented they are. As such, he keeps throwing us right back to square one.

What, therefore, is the solution to this problem?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Until we find one, I will continue to preserve an unbiased point of view within the article lead. I believe treatment of the 350/400GTs impact on the car world merits inclusion within the history section and in those cars' articles. Rodface (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Some observations:

The IP address 173.171.234.39 geolocates to St. Petersburg, Florida, a suburb of Tampa, Florida.
The user at that IP address, and the new user CHARLES400GT, continue to insist posting information that is hosted on the website www.400gt.com
Said website lists the administrator's e-mail address as: fredparoutaud@tampabay.rr.com
I should hope that this is not a case of someone trying to plug their point of view and content in Wikipedia, even if it's encyclopedic material

If we are dealing with a fellow enthusiast, I should hope that they are intelligent enough to know where to put their opinions of Lamborghini's inferiority or superiority to Ferrari (hint: not in Wikipedia). Rodface (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

if it's his POV then it's not encyclopedic material because encyclopedic material is supposed to have a formal tone and neutral POV. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing this article used to be a pleasant experience in learning about the relatively obscure history of Lamborghini. Now, despite having read through three books on the subject, and surfed through numerous websites, keeping the article in one piece is being made difficult because someone out there can't believe that we shouldn't be trumpeting the superiority of a 50-year-old car. What to do? Rodface (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no "trumpeting" going on here folks. Proof is in the pudding, and the 350GT was an extremely advanced car when introduced, as noted in the various referenced articles. I have to ask, what further proof is needed?

For the first year of the company, there was no Miura -- there was only the 350GT. This is why I have continued to add the reference -- Ferruccio set out to build that car specifically. The Miura came later.CHARLES400GT (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so it turns out in July 1964, when the first 350GT was sold, Ferrari was offering up the Lusso. So I think it's a fair comparison: 350Gt vs Lusso. I'll be back with the comparison... CHARLES400GT (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do that... at the Lamborghini 350GT article, where it would be relevant. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's for the 350GT article -- I'll work on that. For example, this quote from Pete Lyons "Lamborghini's first production model was nonetheless the most technically advanced GT of its day. The 350 GT offered a quad cam, aluminum V 12 engine with individual carburetor barrels for each cylinder, an all synchromesh five speed gearbox, limited slip differential, all independent suspension and disc brakes on all four wheels."

Which put it way ahead of the Lusso, which was basically, mechanically, a 1950's design.CHARLES400GT (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

List spinoff

At present, when the list of production Lamborghinis is incorporated into the article, a message comes on the edit page that saya:

This page is 90 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.

It is for this reason that I moved the table to List of Lamborghini automobiles and replaced the table in this article with a link to the list. After doing this, the page size drops to ~~71 KB~~ 76 KB ( Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC) ), which is still larger than the 30 to 50 KB recommended by Wikipedia:Article size.

However, one particularly resilient editor is of the opinion that the table should not be replaced by a link to what is effectively the same table with the 350GTV prototype removed from it and keeps putting the bulky table back. As a result, I here ask that the Wikipedia guidelines be followed and that the table be allowed to be a separate entity accessed by a link.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agee with this change, no idea why FredParoutaud is putting it back. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Veracity of source

Thoughts on the article transcribed on this web page? http://www.400gt.com/articles/compare/lamborghini-by-lamborghini.htm Rodface (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

When someone can find the actual article and give a comparison, I'll believe it. Until then, anything with no provenance with a line like "an engineer who worked days in the testing department of Alta Romeo [emphasis mine] while moonlighting for us" is rather suspect. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If real, this is an english translation of a French article, with Lamborghini's statements probably written in Italian. Scans of an old R&T article are available from this same site as well, I believe, and constitute much better evidence. Rodface (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"an engineer who worked days in the testing department of Alta Romeo -- oops, my bad. My transcription of an article printed in Jim Kaminski's Lamborghini newsletter. I have the original somewhere, but the typo is mine. I'll fix it, thanksCHARLES400GT (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Article scans would be an acceptable source, but a transcription is more difficult, especially when hosted on a third-party website. If you can provide these, it would be great. Rodface (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lamborghini Aventador

>> The flagship V12-powered Murciélago coupé and roadster were discontinued at the end of 2010, with a successor expected in 2011. <<

I am new to wikipedia but can someone please change this the Aventador was anounced in the 2011 Geneva Auto Show And is the replacement of the Murcielago AutoMoose (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

China

>> The most important markets for Automobili Lamborghini's sports cars are the U.S. (41%), Germany (13%), Great Britain (9%), and Japan (8%). The company produces around 400 cars per year.[2] <<

That is old it was on the news that China will become Lamborghini biggest supplier in 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AutoMoose (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

400GT vs 400GT 2+2

Ok folks...these are COMPLETELY different cars, so when you write:

>> The 400GT, like its predecessors, was well-received by the motoring press, with Road & Track calling it "the finest GT car we've ever driven."[19] Lamborghini sold 250 of the cars;[19] <<

That's not correct. Lamborghini sold maybe a dozen or so 400GTs... and 250 400GT 2+2s

I'll try to fix that. But I'm just pointing out that I really do believe that the "editors" of this page really don't know about the early cars. It's just sort of a spouting of popular numbers and models, with no real understanding of what was really happening back then. Then getting really upset when facts are introduced.CHARLES400GT (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New discussions are started at the bottom of the page, thank you very much. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The numbers come from verifiable sources, they are not "popular numbers". If you have a source with more accurate numbers, introduce it, please. "Maybe a dozen or so... and 250 2+2s" is not acceptable. Rodface (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The numbers aren't even the problem here -- it's deeper than that. You have written that 250 400GTs were made. You are confusing 400GT with 400GT 2+2, which are --->entirely different models.<----- This is a huge problem throughout this entire article, a deep misunderstanding of the actual cars...

I'll try to help you with all this.CHARLES400GT (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I myself am trying to learn more about the confusing model range of the first few years. I will go through the article and make sure that they are each identified appropriately. Rodface (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles, do you know how to distinguish a 350GT from a 400GT interm from a 400GT 2+2? I know that there is a difference in the size of the rear window and the position of the gas cap. The headlights and grille are also different, but aren't consistent to each model. Rodface (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 "quick & dirty" ways to tell a 350GT or 400GT from a 400GT 2+2. The 350GT or 400GT are referred to as a "big-window cars" and the 400GT 2+2 as "small-window cars" -- this refers to the rear window. If that is not visible (in the photo) then the 2nd method is to note the space between the top of the front wheel arch and the fender crease above that. There is literally none with the 350GT or 400GT whereas there is roughly an inch or so with the 400GT 2+2, where the body-height was raised.

A 350GT to 400GT comparison or distinction is another matter -- they are pretty much identical to each other, because the cars were made at the same time from the same batch of Touring bodies. Some say you can tell a 400GT because it has no jacking holes on the side, but I'm not sure that is entirely accurate because nobody really knows which cars are genuine 400GTs -- to me, it's a mix.

Personally, I believe the "23 were 400GT Interims" quote is a myth, possibly started by Rob de la Rive Box. Nobody can identify these special "23" cars. If somebody could provide a list I would love to see it, because my guess is there would be other cars that belong on the list, and some cars on the list that do not belong there. At best, "it's a mess."

The "classic" 400GT is defined (and differentiated from the 350GT) as having a 4-liter engine, Lamborghini Transmission (350s had the ZF) and a Lamborghini differential (350s had the Salisbury). However, again you run into problems with these definitions as there are cars with a mixture of these features that could be defined as either modified 350GTs or 400GTs. If nothing else, there is no clear list of 350GTs vs 400GTs.

Although there is an excellent list of 400GT 2+2s here: http://www.400gt.com/misc/AutoDigest22h.jpg

And you will notice, even with that article, the term "400GT" is used incorrectly. This is not a complete listing of 400GT cars, this is a complete listing of 400GT 2+2 cars.CHARLES400GT (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Charles. I understand your misgivings regarding the number of Interims produced, but there is little we can do because the number is cited in numerous verifiable sources. We cannot include original research, no matter how exhaustive or correct it is. This is a downside of Wikipedia, but a necessary one.

Taking a look at these two categories on the Commons: 350 GT and 400 GT, would you agree that the red "350GT" is in fact a 400 GT 2+2, based on the wheel well/crease separation, and that all the photos in the 400 GT category are actually 400 GT 2+2s? Rodface (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The "23 interims" is not something I care much about, especially given the Wikipedia rules. Time will sort this out...maybe not in my lifetime :)

I'll look at the pix -- I changed the 350GT photo yesterday because the red car was a 400GT 2+2. (I think that's the one you're talking about, I'll go check)CHARLES400GT (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a 400GT 2+2: Lamborghini_350_GT_with_truck_in_Tenerife.jpg -- clearly. I uploaded my photo of 350GT #102 at Pebble Beach yesterday and substituted it for the red "Tenerife" 400GT 2+2 photo on the 350GT page.CHARLES400GT (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This car: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lamborghini_400GT_and_Miura.jpg on the 400GT page is most likely a 350GT, I know the car and the photo and I can check it out further. It is not a 400GT 2+2, note the lack of space above the front arch, but most importantly, note the jack holes in the side, clearly a 350GT feature.

Ah...here it is, 350GT leading the Columbus Parade in NYC: http://www.400gt.com/photos/350_columbus/350gt_columbus.htm

This page of photos needs to be changed from "400GT" to "400GT 2+2" -- different cars.

The last two photos are of Alf's 400GT 2+2 #1111 at the factory. http://www.400gt.com/articles/Alf/1111.html

Notice also the 2+2s can be slightly jacked up in the back to support the theoretical rear passangers.CHARLES400GT (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I will make the necessary changes over at the Commons. I've also been provided this link by an enthusiast I got in touch with via e-mail, an attempt to come up with a definitive list of Interims: http://www.vintagelamborghini.com/vlgforum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=29634&sid=4fec04989d69d84d20052b0ef21af6bb&start=10 Rodface (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I invite anyone interested to check out the Lamborghini category at the Commons to make sure that all cars are in their appropriate places. I've added name change tags and those should hopefully kick in soon, and we can point the Wikipedia articles to the right pictures. In the meantime, can anyone say for sure what sort of 400 GT the car at the right is?

And one more thing; from what I've read, it appears that it's difficult if not impossible to tell a 350 GT from a 400 GT interim, at a glance. This could mean that many of the cars identified as 350 GTs in the Commons are mislabeled as such. Does the enthusiast community have a position on whether or not there's any point in trying to differentiate between them?

Yes, I run that group (vintagelamborghini) with Jack Riddell. That's my thread, and tho I know it's hopeless to identify exactly which are the true 400GT interims, I figure we might as well have all our discussions in one place.

I have an extensive private list I keep for all the 350GT/400GT/400GT 2+2 cars and I can sometimes confirm or negate claims. Still, I have no idea which are the "23 cars" everybody constantly cites. I don't believe the factory does either -- I've been to the factory. If you want an example of a "slam dunk" car here's one:

http://www.400gt.com/photos/roberts400gt/roberts400.htm

Notice the factory certificate (bottom of the page). That doesn't hurt...

That black car appears to be a 400GT 2+2. That's a tough one because of the photo angle. But -- more clues -- the 350 cars tended to have high-backed seats. Typically, the 350GTs had the single oval headlights, but there are many exceptions and also owner modifications that took place. The very early 350GTs (the first few) like #102 that I posted on the 350 wikipedia article, had the solid front bumper extending across the front and a mesh grill. Again, only a few early cars had those features.

Headlights changed according to US federalizing laws, which is why the four round ones snuck in...slowly. Some are set into the fender with no trim, but almost all the 400GT 2+2 cars have the 4-round headlights and headlight trim.

Lets get these cars right and give them their due credit! They are amazing vehicles, truly the first refined GT cars. They drive like a new Lexus -- years ahead of anything else at the time.CHARLES400GT (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks for your contributions, Charles; your enthusiasm for Lamborghini's cars is great, and I have great passion for them too. Let's just remember that in order to include statements like "first truly refined GT cars", we need to see a consensus among modern verifiable sources.

At this point, I'm not quite sure what to do. In order to include any of this, it needs to have been laid out in a book, or a magazine article somewhere. Do you have access to any such materials where it discusses the logic of the "big-window" vs. "small-window" cars, or where it specifically mentions that the factory didn't care for making sure that what went into the engine bay matched the label on the car? Rodface (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe a book is underway discussing the logic of "big-window" vs. "small-window" cars. You heard it here first :) -- I'm not aware of it in any existing books, but I certainly haven't read them all...far from it.

As for "first truly refined GT car" it's not important, and not needed. The point is -- and what is missed almost everywhere (because so few folks really know these cars) -- that Ferruccio bested Enzo with the 350GT. This is a very big deal. He bested him again with the Miura, but first with the 350GT.

There were a number of reasons why Ferrari was sticking to his "1950's" technology -- and this is very well documented. What is less-well known is how Ferruccio specifically targeted Ferrari to create a superior GT car. For a few years there Ferruccio led the GT race, a sore point in the Ferrari community, and why you don't see it publicized too much. Not very many people really know the early Lamborghini cars.

As for your question, maybe do nothing. I'll keep collecting sources and adding to the 350GT article, then move over to the 400GT article, etc. I have to be honest with you, I'm not that interested in what makes a great Wiki article, and following specific guidelines, though I do read Wikipedia a lot and think it is quite good.

I'll keep adding information and references, and the Wiki powers that be will do what they want with it...that's the point of Wikipedia, and I'm fine with that.CHARLES400GT (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear that there will be new sources to include. Indeed, I have complete faith in Ferruccio's ability to outdo Enzo, he seemed the right man to put Ferrari in its place. Certainly little is known about the early models; I've been a Lamborghini fan for as long as I can remember, but somehow had no idea up until a few years ago about anything that the company produced before the Countach!

My interest is in perfecting the coverage of Lamborghini cars on Wikipedia. Us Wikinerds wish to preserve the world's knowledge for posteriority; it is up to the enthusiasts to generate that knowledge. Allow us to take care of the technicalities ;) Rodface (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is of course no point in adding information without documentation. There is one problem, which I consider a nuisance ... some of this is not documented. So I will do my best to add what I can.

Again, to beat a dead horse, what is most important to reflect in the introduction to the main article(s) is that:

"Ferruccio Lamborghini decided that there was something wrong with all the existing Grand Touring cars and these were the points upon which he would improve." Chris Harvey in http://www.lambocars.com/archive/bookshr/chris1t.htm
"The 350 was the best car we ever built" Bob Wallace in http://www.hemmings.com/hsx/stories/2008/09/01/hmn_feature13.html

ie:

the 350GT was the car Ferruccio set out to build
it was the best car Lamborghini (under Ferruccio) ever built, for a number of reasons
it was the best GT car of its time, far exceeding the equivalent Ferrari road offerings, not to mention the others

So when it is left out of the introduction, and the Miura is included, which was, frankly, "Hot and noisy inside, it wasn't very comfortable and, in the beginning at least, was as far from perfect" Pete Lyons in http://www.lambocars.com/archive/bookshr/lyonst.htm

It just doesn't make any sense. The introduction is then reduced to the writing of some Miura fans, which is not the real, balanced, objective story of Ferruccio Lamborghini.

I love the Miura, I had one. It was rushed into production, not at all a refined car like the 350GT.

It set the world on fire -- but the 350GT was the car Ferruccio set out to build... And at that goal he succeeded.CHARLES400GT (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have heard much about the Miura's uncomfortable driving experience. And of course it wasn't the car that Ferruccio wanted; he wanted to make a great GT, not the racing cars he so despised! It's clear that he managed to build that great GT, history remembers the Miura and the line of cars it spawned (all the way up to the modern Murcielago and Gallardo), rather than Ferruccio's beloved GT. It is indeed sad, and we need to make sure the GT aspect is well covered. So what does this mean for the intro? We include all cars that were either critically acclaimed or caused some sort of paradigm change, or we include none. It might be a better idea to remove all car models from the intro, and let the reader explore them below. It might not, we'll see. Rodface (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari wiki leaves them all out, the intro is just a few lines. Cars are added chronologically starting in the History subsection. I'm sure they have been through the same battle, but with far more editors. As Jay Leno says (owner of numerous Lamborghinis) "I don't own a Ferrari because I don't have a place to put all those Ferrari books."CHARLES400GT (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Ferrari article, it's crap, and I honestly can't bring myself to give it the same treatment as the Lamborghini article. Rodface (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, referring to it, but didn't read it, just noted how they began. I believe you.

Here's another example of how the first Lamborghinis are confused on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Auto_Show

It was the GTV that debuted at the 1963 Turin Auto Show, yet this reference both states that it was the 350GT and displays a photo of a 350GT...even though the 350GT had not even yet been designed.CHARLES400GT (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, I'll fix that. Rodface (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote the 350GT wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_350GT

Let me know what you think. The GTV is mentioned throughout because the GTV and 350GT were developed largely in parallel -- so much of what was designed for the wild GTV was simply toned down for the 350GT. This where the 350GT and subsequent cars get their racing heritage, as it were.

Bizzarrini, Dallara, Stanzani, Wallace...all wanted to build a race car. The 350GT is a toned-down and sophisticated race car for the street.

It's important to understand that every Lamborghini had the same V-12, from 350GT to 400GT to Miura to Espada to Countach, etc. The exact same motor (3.5 liters for the 350GT, the rest 4.0 liters). Many of the parts are interchangeable. A friend of mine had pistons made for his 400GT and a friend's Countach lp400 at the same time, in the same batch, because the motors -- though 10 years apart -- used the exact same piston.

This engine was created by Bizzarrini and detuned for production by Dallara. So all the cars, from 350GT through lp400, are basically the same... save for body work, weight and engine layout.

Cheers,

FredCHARLES400GT (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Great content, I'll reformat it to match Wikipedia style. I'm aware of the engineering team's desire to build a car with more racing pedigree than what Ferruccio wanted, and that the V12 used today is largely the same engine that went into the 350. Rodface (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That new photo is of a 400GT -- my photos:

http://www.400gt.com/misc/DSCN006622.JPG

http://www.400gt.com/misc/DSCN006524.JPG

I know the car well, photos taken in Monterey in 2006

here is it at Bonhams before that:

http://www.400gt.com/articles/Brians/Brians.htm

RM had the wrong serial number listed, it's chassis 454, engine 445 (not chassis 445)

"There are nothing but mistakes when it comes to these cars" :)

CHARLES400GT (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

btw, I like that quote: "Reviewing the 400GT in its 2+2 form in 1967, Autocar magazine voted it "better than all the equivalent exotic and home-bred machinery in this glamorous corner of the fast-car market."

Yes!CHARLES400GT (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

>> "Enzo, Orsi and David Brown had better look to their laurels!" gushed Sports Car Graphic magazine, after testing one in 1966. In truth, none of them had a machine in production that could hold a candle to the young upstart from Sant'Agata. Bob Wallace, the man who really made it work, has said he considers the 350GT to be the best Lamborghini ever built. And quite right too. <<

Italian Legends, Nov 2009

CHARLES400GT (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised we're still having problems with the 350 quotes up front. Honestly, I think the vast majority of car nuts just don't have a clue.

Here's another quote from July 2010 Hemmings -- is this current enough?

"If you compare them (350GT) with the Ferrari of the period, it was always the more stylish, mechanically more sophisticated...and if you look at the road tests when the car was new, they always said the Lamborghini was the better car."

CHARLES400GT (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding the latest lead section impasse

If the widespread acclaim of the quality of the 350GT, 400GT, and 400GT 2+2 is established in the body of the article, with the about five or six citations that are claimed to be available, then the objection to the statement about these early Lamborghinis in the lead section just might be withdrawn... Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

happy to do that. From the latest Hemmings, July 2010, for example (one of dozens and dozens) -- of the 350GT: "If you compare them with the Ferrari of the period, it was always the more stylish, mechanically more sophisticated...and if you look at the road tests when the car was new, they always said the Lamborghini was the better car." This is just such common knowledge, that one would need "about five or six citations" just shows the complete ignorance if the folks editing this article. I can't say I'm shocked, but I can say I'd expect a bit better knowledge of the high-end 60s exotics, considering wikipedia is international. 173.171.234.39 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's please not start calling names in here. Indeed, even as a Lamborghini fan I'm surprised that there's this much consensus regarding the superiority of Lamborghini's early offerings. Has Ferrari really managed to overshadow Lamborghini's early success in the modern era to the degree that it's been almost completely forgotten? Rodface (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please have valid information as in correct numbers of 400GT and 400GT 2+2 sold, a lot of us Lambo fans are wanting valid information that are up to date. As well, one of your referencing should be reconsidered because I see invalid information that you've gathered for this article. I believe it's your 12th point on your referencing that you should be looking at. Check out the link and the author who posted the image and named each Lambos for yourself. I'm pretty sure every lambo fans know which model is which. ~1AZNFlare~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1AzNFlare (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Article protection

Almost all the edits on this article are reverts, unnecessary changes, and vandalism. Can we protect this article with Pending Changes, or some other form of protection?Rodface (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

New discussions are to be started at the bottom of the page, as per WP:TOPPOST.

You can follow the procedure prescribed at WP:SILVERLOCK and try to get the article semi-protected again. That should give us a month or three of relative peace. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The nationality of Lamborghini

To all editors insisting that Lamborghini is a German company: Lamborghini Automobili is an Italian company. It was an Italian company when it was owned by Indonesian companies, and it was an Italian company when it was owned by Chrysler. It has not ceased to be an Italian company now that it is owned by a German company, and it will still be Italian when Audi sells it to someone else. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But do you know the old german saw: "Wer bezahlt, bestimmt die Musik". I think it can be translated with "He who pays the piper calls the tune" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.53.210.169 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

German saws notwithstanding, the company is located in Italy, the company is registered in Italy, the company is Italian. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The economically correct description is: Italian subsidiary company of a german corporate parent. Unfortunately no room for local patriotism. The Germans decide about Lamborghinis own scope of action. It is the same with Opel: The Germans decide......... as long as the Americans (GM) agree with the decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.53.217.182 (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

@SamBlob: Deleting my opinion does not mean that your opinion is the right one!

Nor is this conversation doing anything to help the article. I will therefore not continue it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

But at least it taught you some discussion culture. Homework for next lesson: Learn the meaning of "troll". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.2.7 (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... anonymous antagonist consistently making unhelpful remarks. Yep. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is time for you to reconsider if it is helpful to call someone a troll who is not a troll. Just imagine someone really starts trolling around in your articles the next years?!

Do your worst, and see where it gets you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A invitation for trolls.......don't know how far that gets you?

No further than otherwise. Trolls are vermin, to be exterminated. The sooner the exercise begins, the better. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That kind of phrases sound like phrases that were used in the third reich. It reveals your character significantly.

As has this entire thread revealed yours. Смерть Интернет тролли! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

At least I did not go so low that I had to use Mr. Goebbels` language and his use of media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.39.50 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And maybe you should not delete opinions or comments in the "talk" section of wikipedia. That is what commonly is called censorship. And this is not and should never take place on wikipedia.

The talk page of articles is for content relevant to the article. Content relevant to me goes on my talk page. You, as a wandering nomad series of IPs, do not have a talk page, so I can't tell you there exactly where you can place your comments. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

But you deleted content related to the article. Call it to mind. If you can' t use the "view history section"!

Removed pointless discussion, unrelated to anything currently happening in the article

Obviously you know what i mean. Someone who deletes that and calls this trolling (as you did in the title) is probably the best example for a troll by himself....and a master of censorship. Of course it was related to the article. You are not the person who decides what is pointless and unrelated. This is wikipedia and you are not the owner of that article since you typed the first letter of it. Of course someone can offer the opinion, that Lamborghini is a german company because it is the subsidiary of a subsidiary of a german company. This is a economical fact. You on the other hand only offer emotive facts.

Nope, I don't recall deleting anything related to the article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How are the time periods in the history section chosen?

I'm not sure I understand how the time periods in which the History section is subdivided are chosen. Today, the subsection 1998-present, which covers the period during which the company has been owned by VAG and administered by Audi, has been further subdivided into 1998-2007, 2008-2010, and 2011-present. Is there any particular reason for this?

I also don't understand the sectioning of the time the company started production to the time when Ferruccio Lamborghini sold controlling interest in the company in 1972. What is the significance of 1965-66, 1967-68, 1969-70, and 1971-72?

At least I understand 1973-77, which is between Ferruccio Lamborghini selling controlling interest and the company going bankrupt, 1978-86, from receivership through sale to Mimran to the end of Mimran's ownership, 1987-93, the period of Chrysler's ownership, and 1993-97, the period of ownership by Indonesian interests.

Could someone please explain the reason for the time periods under Ferruccio Lamborghini's control and under Audi's control? The time periods used to have captions explaining their significance. Why were these removed? Why should they not be replaced?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Renamed the captions. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

old SUV image replaced

right|60px

yeah, i replaced the image because the previous image had poor graphics. Jawadreventon (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Germany

"This project covers the creation and editing of articles related to the nation of Germany, its cities, counties, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Germany in a fair and accurate manner." – Scope of WikiProject Germany

Lamborghini's only relationship to Germany is that it is owned by a German company. It has nothing to do with Germany's cities, counties, geography, culture, or history. The only link it has to German transportation is that it is owned by a German automobile manufacturer and that some wealthy Germans might have bought some of them.

For this reason, I have removed the WikiProject Germany tag. If it is replaced, I will place tags for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, as these would be equally valid due to former ownership.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

SAME acquires Lamborghini Trattori in 1970, 1971, 1972 or 1973 - Take Your Pick

A BOT editor added a contradict tag because the article states that SAME purchased Lamborghini Trattori in 1972, then later states 1973. The unfortunate part of this is that the sources of both dates are SAME Deutz-Fahr official websites. A South African SDF dealer website claims 1971. The Lamborghini Trattori article on Wikipedia Italia claims LT was sold in 1970, but there isn't a single reference in the entire article. Ideally, someone has access to 1st tier media of the period and can research what was reported in newspapers and trade magazines that were covering the events as they happened. I'll look around for online resources from the UK and Italy. 174.21.26.107 (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheetah listed as destroyed, but the citation note says the exact opposite

"In the 1977 Geneva Motor Show, Lamborghini unveiled its first prototype military vehicle, the "Cheetah", powered by a rear-mounted Chrysler V8 engine. However, the only prototype was destroyed during testing by the U.S. military,[50] causing the company to lose that contract, which ultimately led to the cancellation of a contract from BMW to develop the M1 sports car."This amazing car also called "lambo" have the fastest engine and the best rendimentation.

http://www.lambocars.com/off_road/cheetah.html says "As mentioned earlier the original Cheetah prototype was sold to Teledyne by MTI, and despite mentioned by multiple sources the one of a kind Geneva show car was never lost in an accident or destroyed beyond repair … it still exists today. Rumor has it the actual 1977 Lamborghini Cheetah prototype that was shown in Geneva is now located in the United States … in fact we’ve red Automobili Lamborghini SpA is eager to get it back to be displayed at the factory museum in Sant’Agata." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.83.45 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this should probably be discussed at Talk:Lamborghini Cheetah instead of here. Since it was posted here, however, I will continue the discussion here.

The site as it exists today reads as you say it does. The access date stated in the citation is 18 March 2006, and the date of publication is given as 17 November 2005. An archived copy of the site as it existed on 21 February 2006 (after the date of publication but before the access date) says the following:lambos rock and ferraris are trash

"...it was however tested in dessert (sic) runs, and was subsequently crashed during one of those test (sic).

"The Cheetah was completely destroyed, but the wreck was never returned to Italy, it's (sic) whereabouts today are unknown."

This explains why the text did not reflect what the source said; the source changed its story while the text stuck to the old story. Really makes one wonder about the reliability of the source, doesn't it?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned it HERE because it is on this Page, not the Cheetah page (Which I haven't read actually). I'm not sure why you seem to be so defensive of this, I am just trying to help, but if you don't want the help and want to have your panties in a wad when someone adds something to the talk page then I don't see the point of the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.83.45 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

So you're not the guy who changed it at the Cheetah article, then. Fair enough. What I said about the source still stands, however. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

1967–1968 - Islero replaces 400GT, Stanzani replaces Dallara

The name Scgarzi is introduced from nowhere. It appears again in the article, but later on.Nigelrg (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! I hope my small addition has given Sgarzi a better introduction. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Spin off the history section, maybe?

The article is over a 100 kB in size. I am not quite sure how much of that is prose, but the target for the amount of prose in an article is about 60-70 kB.

The largest and most subdivided section of the article is the history section. I suggest that the history section be split off into History of Lamborghini with a summary retained as the history section here.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The History section and the Intro repeat much of the same detail. Seems like a cut-and-paste, without much added or different content. Suggest reducing the detail in the Intro to mostly current relevant info, and leaving the company history in the, uhh, History section. SquashEngineer (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Audio file

The audio for the pronunciation of the word "Lamborghini" should be changed, seems like it has been done by someone with French accent and it's not even near to the real Italian pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5025:9DF0:8F9:A8E4:464C:7262 (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The audio file is probably vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:521:400:7815:B448:5616:AC56 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Contacc

The word Countach comes from the Piedmontese word contacc which is the proper spelling for the exclamation. The pronunciation in the audio file is wrong. In fact, the sound of contacc is more like kuntach. Also, the word it's just an exclamation. All that typical stereotypical garbage about seeing a beautiful woman is completely idiotic and incorrect. I fixed the spelling, the explanation and removed the link which points to nothing anyway.

ICE77 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for any of this? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, contacc is part of my own native language and I have a dictionary to prove it. The way the word was spelled, countach, would sound like kountak which is totally wrong.

ICE77 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So you have a source. Cite it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Should I scan my dictionary and upload an image of contacc? Also, since the pronunciation is wrong and there is no source, there is no point in having the audio file up.

ICE77 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The correct template to use for a dictionary would be Template:Cite encyclopedia. Instructions for using the template are at that site. Use "|dictionary=" instead of "|encyclopedia=" in the template. Put <ref> before the template and </ref> after it and put it all after the full stop of the sentence you're citing. Remember to add the language in the "|language=" parameter. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue how to do the things that were suggested above. All I know if that 4 years passed and both audio file and pronunciation are still wrong. At least I am glad the fabricated story of the woman is gone. The pronunciation should be kuntach with ku as in cool and ch as in cheese. The blasfemy goes on.

ICE77 (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Suv

http://www.motori24.ilsole24ore.com/Industria-Protagonisti/2015/05/suv-lamborghini-posti-lavoro.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.48.74.219 (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

At the end of this year Lamborghini will show the world its new SUV. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have found this source, is in Italian but , almost is all ready for the debut.[3].LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2016

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Lamborghini has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As of February 23rd of 2016 the CEO of Lamborghini has changed from Stephan Winkelmann to Stefano Domenicali. Please edit the article so that it provides the correct information.

Fastcar9595 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

New Era for Lamborghini

In 2012, a minor movement in the company caused the eldest son of one of the shareholders of the company to be introduced to the CEO of the Executive branch of Lamborghini, Stephan Winkelmann. The young man helped the very intricate CEO in the creation of the hopeful Lamborghini SUV. In Geneva the young man took part of the reveal of the latest Aventador evolution, the Superveloce; Winkelmann spoke about the future of the brand—and in particular, what a third model, the long-rumored SUV, will mean for the company from Sant'Agata. The young man may one day turn to hold the office of the CEO at a young age. His skill as a businessman showed right through when he was seen presenting the pack that investors needed to support the funding of the SUV project for Lamborghini. His alias in the company is "Mateo" the true identity of the young man has never been confirmed; All that is known of the young man is that his role is major in the corporate sector of the company.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Lamborghini has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Museo Lamborghini" section, please add a hyphen between "two" and "storey." It's a compound adjective, so it should be hyphenated. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Hyphen added. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not a simple fix, but would it be all right if you merged the "Museo Lamborghini" and "Museo Ferruccio Lamborghini" sections into one new "Museums" section? They're closely related, and both are really short. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Lamborghini has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Lamborghini Aventador has a top speed of 216.859 Mph (349 Km/h). 173.70.147.198 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Lamborghini has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

117.243.198.117 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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. NiciVampireHeart 14:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

{{cancella subito|This page is not really related to the real one of Lamborghini}}

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Lamborghini has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Andmac1478 (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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. – Þjarkur (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Lamborghini has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{cancella subito sezione Licensing|motivo= la sezione/sottopagina presenta informazioni non confermate/non vere}} Andmac1478 (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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. – Þjarkur (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Lamborghini has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the section on Automóviles Lamborghini Latinoamérica as it is false. They are not an authorized distributor nor a licensee to any of Lamborghini’s IP. Source: ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielblock1 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done. All you've given is a link to a court filing. There's no indication how it applies to this article. Also, this is a primary source; ideally, there'd be a secondary source that discusses this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He is correct, maybe if you even looked at the included link, you'd realize that they are not authorized to do anything they have attempted to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.131.67 (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Jolliffe, p. 39
^ https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/1:2018cv00062/381431

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Lamborghini has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article currently says Lamborghini produces sports cars and V12 engines for offshore powerboat racing.

Either remove sports cars or seperate the sports cars from the engines thing as a sports car is not a powerboat and it could be confusing to newer English speakers 64.222.180.90 (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Done I've reworked the paragraph for clarity, and moved the tractors part down from the introductory paragraph as well. NiciVampireHeart 22:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

edit request on 19 December 2019

We request that the reference ^[1] be removed as it contradicts Lamborghini Latin American Automobile License, stating that it has permission to be an authorized manufacturer — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRsmeke (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

References

^ "Lamborghini Latinoamérica quiere radicarse en Santiago del Estero"

Change the main product from "Sports Cars" to "Supercars"

I suggest that we change the main product from "Sports Cars" to "Supercars"

Lamborghini is a manufacturer of supercars, not sports cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.131.67 (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Lamborghini has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Capitalize the first word of the last sentence in the introduction.

Change "reality star and singer Elettra Lamborghini whom is granddaughter of founder Ferruccio Lamborghini is the heiress to Lamborghini fortune. " to "Reality star and singer Elettra Lamborghini whom is granddaughter of founder Ferruccio Lamborghini is the heiress to Lamborghini fortune. " 103.51.73.173 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not done. That recently added unsourced statement has been removed entirely. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

[Jolliffe39-1] Jolliffe, p. 39

[2] ttps://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/1:2018cv00062/381431

[3] "Lamborghini Latinoamérica quiere radicarse en Santiago del Estero"

[1]

[2]

[1]