Talk:Volkswagen Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] VW Mission Statement

Can anyone locate VW's Mission Statement?

we don't do that in Europe, we don't hold up signs saying how great we are as their consumers already know it Markthemac 11:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VW and Porsche

How is Porsche VW's active brand?

- No, Porsche is one of the owners of the Volkswagen-Group (Konzern), not an active brand.

[edit] Shareholding of Lower Saxony

This bit needs more discussion, but I am not sure of the details: this link (August 2006) reports that "the German state of Lower Saxony — another major shareholder in VW — is trying to increase its stake in Volkswagen to 25.1 percent from 20.75 percent — a step that would give it the blocking minority that Porsche also seeks." The page currently says 18.1%. There's something odd about the way the company is incorporated, but I can't remember what... Hotlorp 02:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

- More Information about te shareholder at http://www.volkswagen-ir.com

[edit] Wrong Logo

At the Article is the Logo of the Volkswagen-Brand, not of the Volkswagen-Group. You find the Logo of the Volkswaen-Group at http://www.volkswagenag.com (dont know how to change) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.133.125.212 (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

the brand logo is the only logo people associate with Volkswagen, they also put on their brands windows and minor components making it also their cooperate logo as well. Markthemac 11:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] general question

Hi, when I read the phrase "The Volkswagen Golf is the third bestselling car in the world..." I really want to know which one is the best and second bestselling car. i wish there's a link to bring me to that answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.0.71 (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Volkswagon diesels, are they comming back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.64.86 (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titles used in lead

Writing Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft immediately followed by Volkswagen AG is a redundancy. AG is an abbreviation of Aktiengesellschaft. Making a couple of comparisons with randomly selected articles on companies from other countries: we don't write Anglo American Public Limited Company (also known as Anglo American plc); or Total Société Anonyme (also known as Total S.A.); or StatoilHydro Allmennaksjeselskap (also known as StatoilHydro ASA) and so on.

The company is "officially listed" under just one name: Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (abbreviated as AG in the same way as PLC, S.A., ASA, etc.) Whether Aktiengesellschaft or AG is used here is a moot point, but both are not required. One of the recommendations on Wikipedia:Writing better articles is "be concise... reduce sentences to the essentials". Gr1st (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that writing Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, immediately followed by Volkswagen AG may be a redundancy, or even duplication. However, that is where my agreement ends!
I do think it is important to list all three names in the article ("Volkswagen Group", "Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft", and VOLKSWAGEN AG") in the lead paragraph (WP:Lead) (and ONLY in the lead) (quote:"summarize the most important points") - for two specific reasons.
The first reason is that Volkswagen Group is officially known as both "Volkswagen Group" and "Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft" (from their own official communications) - however, it is also officially listed (by way of official German company law) on company trading indicies as VOLKSWAGEN AG (and NOT "Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft" - kindly check your facts). I would consider that the three "official" names are indeed "important points".
The second reason regards good practice when referring to acronyms. When you inlude acronyms in written articles, the good practice is well-established (in British English, at least) to write the name/words in full at the begining of an article, and immediately follow with the acronym in brackets, and in the remainder of the article, simply use the acronym only (unless an article is lengthy, and it is prudent to re-introduce the reader with the full meaning). Take, for example, Volkswagen Groups twin-clutch gearbox - you would initially write it as: "Direct-Shift Gearbox (DSG)", and then refer to it as "DSG".
A final comment - the "public limited company" acronym is legally displayed as "p.l.c.", and not "PLC".
In the remainder of the article (after the lead and TOC), it is perfectly reasonable to simply use either "Volkswagen Group" or "Volkswagen AG".
Kind regards -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 08:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
My point, however, is that AG is merely a convenience shortening of Aktiengesellschaft done across the board as a matter of course - there is no distinction at all, legal or otherwise, between them. Almost every other incorporated company in Germany is an AG as well, but this redundancy is not replicated across their Wikipedia articles - check the pages of the DAX constituents. Why should this article be treated any differently? In any case, the company is not "listed by way of official German company law" as Volkswagen AG as you claim, but rather Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (capitalised, but MOS:TM requests lower case). Check the judicial register (Germany's rough equivalent of Companies House) for proof. I won't immediately revert your edit, I hope we can find consensus here first. Best, Gr1st (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree about the AG abreviation. Under normal circumstances, one or the other would suffice. However, as I've already stated, "Volkswagen Group" uses three official legal titles, and whilst I agree it is a pain in the rear using all three in the lead para, because Wikipedia is meant to be an encylopedia, it should report facts, otherwise, even if there is concensus NOT to report all three, then it fails to report the facts in full, and therefore, Wikipedia is liable to be seen as factually incorrect (which is evident by well-reported media complaints on Wikipedia).
Regarding the comment on checking the DAX page, Wikipedia itself should NOT be used as a reference. However, on the DAX own website, Volkswagen Group is listed as "VOLKSWAGEN AG". I did try the German register, but can't read German in detail, so I couldn't find the link - can you post the appropriate link?
Regarding the MOS:TM - it is very clear that it recommends going against established facts - no wonder WP gets bad press!!! I would strongly recommend some serious discussion on amending that particular policy.
I really can't see what the problem is with reporting the full facts! -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 12:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
My quibble over what might seem a relatively minor issue is that the casual user not familiar with German company statutes may well be unnecessarily confused by having a trio of names presented at the top of the article - it implies a difference between Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and VOLKSWAGEN AG when they are in fact one and the same. Wikipedia:Writing better articles stresses brevity and clarity.
To the other points you raise - yes, the Deutsche Boerse website does list it as Volkswagen AG, but it lists every Aktiengesellschaft as "Foo AG". I don't see any evidence that this is a distinct official legal title rather than simply a space-saving abbreviation (in the same way that the London Stock Exchange website lists all its companies as "Foo PLC" rather than Public Limited Company). The example of Fresenius Medical Care probably explains why - to write that lot out in full would give Fresenius Medical Care Aktiengesellschaft and Company, Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien!
With regards the Handelsregister, I can't post a direct link as it is a database search, but if you click on Normale suche on the left, enter "Volkswagen" into the Firma oder Schlagwörter field and hit Suchen, you'll find (amongst a raft of subsidiaries and other related companies) a listing for VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT in the Wolfsburg office (HRB 100484). Access to further information is behind a pay wall, but I'd wager that the company only has one official legal title - Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft - with any others merely being "brands".
With regards to the other DAX (and indeed MDAX and TecDAX) companies, I agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a source - my point was that a convention has clearly been established across the encyclopaedia of simply using AG after a company name.
Finally, I think you would have a tough job in altering the stance of MOS:TM - there is a pretty solid consensus that the current approach (to ignore any capitalisation preferences that the company may have) is the way to go - see the stiff opposition to this proposed move of Nvidia as an example. Best, Gr1st (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you have completely mis-read the guidelines. You are quoting WP:MOS guidelines which ONLY relate to the main "title" of the "article" - ie, the wording which appears in the address bar of the browser window, and also in the search box on the left. There is nothing in the MOS which refers to the body text of the article (from what I can work out). Rgds, -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 09:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you have blanket-reverted the edits of two editors (who presumably agreed with the points I have raised above) without taking it to talk first. I'm afraid that it is your interpretation of WP:MOS and MOS:TM which is incorrect - nowhere on either page does it say that the contents refer solely to article titles. Gr1st (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
OK try this Wikipedia:MOS#First sentences - I'll quote some salient points. (1) "If the article title is an important term, it appears as early as possible" - That means "Volkswagen Group". (2) "Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface" - pretty self explanatory, but for the sake of any doubt that would include "Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft" and "VOLKSWAGEN AG" (both being legalised formal names), final quote, (3) "If the topic of the article may be unfamiliar to some readers, establish a context" - that would also support the use of all of three differing methods of nomenclature.
As I have repeatedly stated, all three of these "names" should appear ONLY in the lead, purely to establish the FACTS of the names. For the remainder of the article, it is perfectly reasonable to use just one of the names, or even the acronym, though I do accept that it would be sensible to try to standardise the nomenclature - for the sake of consistency.
I've just had a look at your example regarding Nvidia (sorry for missing it earlier) - but that merely relates to the actual name of the "article" - and that is NOT what we are discussing here!
Fianlly your comment regarding MOS:TM is also irrelevant<sp?> Kind regards -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 20:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
But "Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft" and "VOLKSWAGEN AG" are not both legalised formal names - they are indubitably one and the same. There is no distinction, formal or legal, to be made between them - the latter is just an abbreviation and nothing more. The current lead sentence implies such a distinction when in fact there is none, and thus is liable to be confusing to the casual reader.
If you're also prepared to stick to your guns on this one, I think the best course of action is to request a third opinion. Gr1st (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)