Talk:Tesla Model S/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) /Archive %(counter)d | counter=1 | maxarchivesize=75K

| archiveheader=

Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

| minthreadsleft=2 | minthreadstoarchive=2 }}

{{Spoken Wikipedia request|Lionsdude148|Because It Is Important}}

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 [1] 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 [2]: 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

Elon Musk recently tweeted that Tesla will stop taking orders for the 75D base model after January 13 for both the Model S and Model X. (Yes, I am sure of this; Car and Driver published an article)[1] As such, the articles for both vehicles need to be updated on January 14. Syntaxlord (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a25844349/tesla-model-s-75d-battery/

Popular Culture References

35.9.38.47 (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC): I'm sure there are others but I feel the Tesla Model S has reached a certain level of popularity in cultural references. Obviously more references should be found before adding this to the page itself. Just an idea.

Infobox Image

Current one
Replaced image
Another option
Grey woodland image

I think there are better pictures than the current one for the infobox. The current one is really reflective especially from the side (you cannot see the door handle at the back door and you can see a supercharger in the window) and the hood looks somehow dirty. And since Vauxford is just replacing my edits, I'm going to start this discussion. Have the other users an opinion? Cheers--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the blue one is better. I agree the light reflection detracts from the photograph on the red one (and to the black/white photo to a lesser extent). I'd only advise revising the photo to eliminate the license number. MartinezMD (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Alexander-93 The red one has been there for a while now and it had no problem. I say it looks better because the background is more appropriate with the supercharger. Your edit summary is a weak reason for the image to be replaced. Just because it promoted as QI doesn't mean it far superior then the other images. I got quite a few image I took which are QI but I don't replace it for that sole reason since there is far more better images that are not QI.
I revert your images in the past because they had numerous problems. You're not even a English user. I got scolded and almost blocked from your Wikipedia just because I didn't speak German and my car pictures are RHD. So why does that make you entitled to go on the Wikipedia I mainly use when the only time you visit here is when you been to your intentional show or something.
Don't get me started with the sly edits you made by replacing perfectly fine photos without including it in your edit summary. --Vauxford (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Vauxford: Just because English isn't my native language and you use this Wiki mainly, I should not edit/use/visit the English Wikipedia? Come on, that's hypocritical! I was here, since I looked for some information, which I did not find in the German one. And then I disagreed with your image. Whats the problem?
Your problems in the German Wikipedia are not my fault! I did not block you over there, but there is this agreement to not use RHD-vehicles, since the DACH-countries usually use LHD-vehicles!--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Stay focused on the issue - is one image superior to another? that is the only question. The rest is not helpful in building an encyclopedia. And just because something has been in place for a while doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't change. MartinezMD (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The red image has a minor glare issue at the rear and the superchargers are visually distracting. I find the blue image has glare issues over most of the entire car, making the details of the car hard to see. The black and white image looks like we're too poor to afford a colour camera - even though the blue on the license plate shows its really a colour image. If those are the only choices then I would use the red image. I'll add another option for a grey car in woodland scenary, even though the rear body work disappears into the distance.  Stepho  talk  09:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Here are guidelines for car photo. The 4 examples here are inadequate, but the red complies best. Of the 100,000 Model S in the world, surely someone can make a suitable photo? It doesn't have to be high resolution, just conforming with the guidelines. TGCP (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
guideline summary: "front three-quarter view (the vehicle parked at an angle relative to the photographer so that the photo shows the front and side of the vehicle) preferably taken against a non-distracting background with appropriate lighting" TGCP (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I am very much familiar with the whole CARPIX guideline and most of the time I take a dislike against it due to how location biased it is, even though people disagreed with my point. It was made back when a active user from Australia was around and tailored the CARPIX guideline mostly to his liking and didn't have consideration for other photographers from different countries. --Vauxford (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the last one isn't fitting. As it was mentioned, the rear is not clear enough. Furthermore the windshield is too reflective and the roof rack is an additional equipment.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Language Needed

This article reads like an advertisement for Tesla. 206.208.229.7 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Is a revised Model S coming in 2020 or 2021?

I thought Tesla had indicated they were doing something new on the Model S in the near future, essentially a new model like many car manufacturers do with some year's models. Came looking at the article; and don't see that explained. Do I have a wrong impression? Or is the article just missing some description of the newer/updated Model S? Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What's not explicitly covered in the article, but implied by the specifications section, is that Tesla does not conform to the traditional Chrysler approach to model years, and instead introduces changes periodically, without considering the car to be a different model. "Model year" is essentially a build year, and nothing magical happens except that a single VIN character changes each January. That's why the specifications section shows periods often spanning years for any given configuration. Those configurations might have VINs that indicate multiple "model years." Tesla uses the original Ford approach, which Ford no longer uses, which is to make different products just as any manufacturer of any product does, and introduce periodic changes that aren't related to the calendar. That means that there isn't going to be a distinct change when going from the 2019 model to the 2020 model, although new variants might or might not be introduced at some point in 2020 or any given year. Essentially, other manufacturers adopted an approach where the "model year" is essentially an extension of the model name, and differentiates it from models with the same name but a different model year designation. Since that approach was essentially codified into US law, which requires a "model year" character in the VIN, Tesla has "model years" nominally only. Hagrinas (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Aluminium

I'm surprised that the article does not mention the way the Model S is built, including the use of aluminum parts.

Surely this is a notable feature of this car? Aluminium is realy used to build cars.

Marchino61 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Page Display

We need the sales by country table to be modified. The current table is so long that the table will flow over the right edge of your screen unless you have configured your device/Wikipedia to display it in tiny characters. It is technically difficult to display it. We need this to be fixed. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It fits on my screen with room to spare. And even if it didn't, that it needs formatting changes would not be a reason to revert back to an old version with out of date information. MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
On my iPad screen it is an issue. You need to change the format, so that it fits on every device by every user. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
"Fits on every device" isn't a necessity. For example, it is impossible to fit the table for mobile users as the mobile web version or the mobile Wikipedia app didn't recognize small fonts. Currently it looks fine in desktop without any overflow, no need to make it smaller. Andra Febrian (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
It is just you, doesn't affects my device (14-inch laptop and 24-inch monitor) either. And since when, we accomodate content to device sizing, that's for Wikimedia Foundation to decide whether they want to adopt responsive web design or not. By your logic, we should accomodate for mobile device as well by removing all of the columns so it fits well ... which clearly ridiculous. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
One can use the horizontal scroll bar under the table or drag across the screen on both mobile and tablets to see the other columns. The formatting is perfectly fine. QRep2020 (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Please see my screenshot. The entire screen is getting affected just for that one table. So, I am really against it. I am also pinging wbm1058 for some helpful suggestions. Remember Talk:Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon#Requested move 11 August 2021 where the nominator was propose a substantially different title for this exact same problem. wbm1058 decided to add hyphens to the title. So, we need similar suggestions to fix that table. Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This screenshot doesn't help because it doesn't show the table spilling over the right margin. See Talk:RGB color space#Page Display for a parallel discussion of the same issue. wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The large number of footnotes included in some cells of the table is causing some columns of the table to be much wider than necessary. If all the citations were pulled from inside the individual cells and placed immediately below the table, the table would not require as much screen real estate. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that the table would look much better if the note numbers were consolidated, perhaps in the "Country" column. That would also allow the numbers to be aligned to the right, which would make the table much more readable. Also, the years are in the wrong order. They should increase from left to right. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The refs should be adjacent to the statement they are confirming. Having one at the bottom and making the reader guess which statement that relates to is wrong. However, the current setup of placing everything in the country column when there is no statement there to source is horrible. Each source, I'm assuming, relates to the other cells, if that is the case then each source should be at that cell. That would a) make each cell slightly bigger but decrees significantly the country cell and b) make it more clear what facts are sourced and what are unsourced. Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Gonnym You see that I am currently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Neel.arunabh for competency issues. I am facing the same display issues with the userboxes even in your user page. And in your user page, it is not just on the iPad. Even the desktop is showing a gray background on the right. I request you to now read Wikipedia:Userboxes to help decide what is best in these situations. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what my user page has to do with anything. Seeing as it has no relevance here or anywhere, just leave it alone. Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Neel.arunabh, user boxes are off topic on Tesla Model S. Please take that issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajlurie2001, CarabasiJ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia entry, or an advertisement?

Why is a single reviewer's opinion that the car is the "best ever" mentioned right at the start of the article? How is that in any way "neutral", if not accompanied by the criticism of the car, of which there is plenty including from reliable sources? 2001:569:57B2:4D00:580B:CC92:1A3E:2135 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Heya! I'm undergoing a rewrite of this article and I agree with your assessment regarding neutrality on this article. I'll try my best to make it seem less like an ad. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla_Model_S/Archive_6&oldid=1210661678"