Jump to content

Talk:List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States

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

Notes

[edit]

This list was obtained from Dykes Automobile and Gasoline Engine Encyclopedia dated 1919. Oldfarm 03:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is not an entirely helpful list since many of these cars are featured in an article about them. So what if they are now defunct -- so is Oldsmobile after a run of almost 100 years. The fact that they are defunct should appear in the article about each of these models. Why is there no link to the articles here? This list should be merged with List of automobile manufacturers. - Cadillac 15:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I will start moving them to List of automobile manufacturers.- Oldfarm 00:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone want to destroy, move, or otherwise bury a complete list of defunct US automakers? Why not let the public know what used to be going on here in the way of auto manufacturing? It appears to be more akin to obfuscation than enlightenment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.174.138 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - First off Oldsmobile Delta 88 is a defunct model-brand not a defunct manufacturer in modern times (despite GM - yet to be determined)

I believe at first, since there was a considerable production and manufacturing hiatus due solely to WWII they should be broken into Antique (Pre-1900), Modern Pre-war and Modern Post-war: with discreet Defunct Manufacturers (Studebaker) and Defunct Brands (Datsun) sections before being later sub- listed as either defunct, sold or currently abandoned brand-models under each. Dating alone (Lincoln, Mercury or Pontiac) does not cope with the misleading impressions.(why isn't Cadillac or Chevrolet also defunct like Durant?)

What is even more complex are the mergers, sales and acquisitions that saw many 'Defunct Manufacturers' original brands become brand names of larger (like the growth of GM or AMC/JEEP into Chrysler) stables thus not so defunct, or similar Desoto or Oldsmobile situations where the brand was reborn thus not defunct and then later just abandoned (maybe not so defunct).

Definitely, Sort of, Maybe or Temporarily Defunct seems a more apt title for this current list.

This Clymer thing in the current page is irritating to say the least as this Clymer company and that Clymer company have no meaning, Modern post-1900, thus less than antique vehicles should pose far less of a challenge to document and sort into one of 4 categories than their Pre-1900 Antique counterparts.

This page should only have names of defunct manufacturing companies and no or little reference to models or brand-models unless they were sold or merged into larger operations. Edsel, Corvair, Fargo, Oldsmobile or Desoto may technically be defunct both as brands and even as manufacturers, but their still in business manufacturer owners could revive them any time, unlike a Hudson, Cord or a Studebaker.

This page definitely conveys the wrong impression Urlborg (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Urlborg (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is missing any reference to DeLorean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.223.26 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

references

[edit]

This article has so many references that ref naming should be used like <ref name="Clymer p.205">Clymer, p.205.</ref> and then use only <ref name="Clymer p.205"/> to reduce ref listing. --— Typ932T | C  18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this article for being too long primarily due to the issue with the way the references are currently displayed. Another editor may wish to work on them. My attempt to correct the problem was quickly reverted.Shinerunner (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of merit, leave it that way. Nit-picking the components are a waste of time and unproductive. Edit each entry as one sees possible errors. There are a few, but insignificant. My 50 years in the business will attest to that. My personal preference would be to separate pre and post WW2. So many prewar were minor insignificant manufacturers that produced limited numbers of units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.46.42.175 (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searchmont

[edit]

Clymer mentions a "Searchmont" steam car being built from 1900-1903 in Philadelphia. This is not correct; the Searchmont was a gasoline powered automobile. I guess the error evolved as the company was mentioned as the successor of the Keystone Steamer (in the article about the Keystone Steamer) - which it was not (see Searchmont article). As this is just a guess (although one that makes sense) I didn't remove the Searchmont (Steam) link but added one to th Searchmont gasoline car that is verifiable. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Kimes is saying otherwise, I wouldn't be too worried about removing the steamer. IMO, Clymer's reliability on details is a bit suspect. (I'd want to have a glance to see if he reproduced an actual Searchmont ad, tho.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tree / Flow-Chart?

[edit]

Is there a tree, showing all the relationships of all the brands to all the parent companies somewhere? Landroo (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merkur (1985-1989)

[edit]

If possible, can you please add Merkur (a Ford division from 1985-1989) to the list. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.67.212 (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have included it in the list. German wikipedia has an article about it. They sold an US variant of the European Ford Sierra and imported the Ford Scorpio via Mercury dealerships. Source mentioned in the German article: Covello, Mike: Standard Catalog of Imported Cars 1946–2002. Krause Publications, Iola 2002. ISBN 0-87341-605-8, p. 557. I don't have this book, so I omitted reference in the List.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki

[edit]

With Suzuki halting sales in the USA, should they be added to this list? KellyCoinGuy (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "manufacturers"

[edit]

This list contains many items lacking notability to have Wikepidia articles and/or being brands which never went beyond the prototype stage. Suggest both be removed. --Cornellier (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose removing the redlinks just because they don't (yet) have a page; just because somebody hasn't gotten to it yet doesn't mean it should be deleted. As for companies that only built prototypes, or were only paper formations, you have a point...except, the page is "defunct", so, why are they defunct? They intended to manufacture (one hopes...). If they aren't listed as "manufacturers", how should they be listed (presumably not on this page)? "Defunct automobile projects"? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to dictionary.com, manufacturer means a person, group, or company that owns or runs a manufacturing plant. This makes the second entry on the page ABC, WP:OFFTOPIC. --Cornellier (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any time anybody relies on the dictionary, I begin to think they don't have an actual argument. And ABC is just one of several pages on Brass & Veteran Era vehicles where the product & company are treated as the same, because there isn't enough sourced information to justify a separate page for both. Your proposal would have companies that did produce cars, like Colt or Riker, deleted. As for whether these companies actually produced cars, IMO there's good reason to suspect records may have been lost or destroyed over the course of 100 or so years... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a company did not run a manufacturing plant, it should not be in a list of manufacturers, since it was not a manufacturer.
  • The article has too many unreferenced red links. Per WP:LISTCOMPANY: if the company does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list.
Does anyone dispute either of the above points? --Cornellier (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. I disagree with the need for cites for redlinks, but not enough to fight over it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I think it would be more convenient for readers if the defunct manufacturers were included as a section in List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States, as is the case for other countries. Therefore I propose that the two articles are merged. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the size of the defunct list, I would leave them separate. And I would be reluctant to bring in so many broken references (although they are really just one missing Harvard reference).  Stepho  talk  23:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listing models instead of manufacturers

[edit]

Hello SimonX. In my opinion, the list entries in an article titled "List of defunct manufacturers..." should be manufacturers, not models. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing list entries

[edit]

Hi Trekphiler. Sorry for my lazy lack of explanation last time. Here are the reasons for the entries that I've removed. Also, I hope that restructuring my edits makes it easier to follow now.

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

♠Most of these still belong, if only as piped links, IMO. Where do you find the Auto Two, frex, if not on this list, otherwise? Especially considering the page has numerous links to models, not manufacturers, already; removing only some of them is inconsistent & mistaken. I'd agree on the Nash Ajax, frex, & the truck makers. Alco, according to Kimes, was produced by the loco maker, but it was a car brand.
♠On further reflection, IMO your proposed deleting of models & not makers is opening a gigantic can of worms. Where do the marques with no information on the maker go? Since you're deleting the links to the model pages, rather than piping them for the maker. And a list of defunct car models will get insanely large in no time. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:15, 03:27, & 03:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, I should clarify that for the models above which say "manufacturer is X", the manufacturer is already listed in the article so they haven't been deleted. And for Alco, the change was to rename it to the manufacturer's name (with "Alco" now added so that people can search for that), not delete it. Sorry for the confusion. Entries are not being deleted if there is no article for the manufacturer (otherwise 90% of them would go), instead the link to the model is being retained but the list is ordered by manufacturer.
I think we agree that a "List of defunct automobile models" isn't workable. Since it is being listed by manufacturers, I think the focus needs to be on the company. Regarding the Auto Two etc, feel free to add in significant models where they will help identify the brand.
I think we mostly agree, then. I have a small twinge over deleting companies that existed but never actually built cars, but I can live with that. :) If I have any other gripes in future (I don't atm), I'll let you know. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, feel free to gripe away if something comes up! If there is a company that is significant despite never building any cars, I have no problem with it being included. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List format

[edit]

Continuing the discussion from above, perhaps this format might allow significant models to be shown while keeping the formatting tidy?

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks, unsourced entries, inclusion criteria

[edit]

Hi Trekphiler. Regarding the redlinks, WP:Red Link states "It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable". The redlinks being removed from this article have no indication that an article will be created soon or references supporting that an article should be created.

For the unsourced entries, WP:LISTCOMPANY talks about the importance of sources in establishing whether a company should be included in a list article.

There are also many entries for companies which did not produce a meaningful volume of cars, or do not meet the definition of "manufacturer" discussed above. I do not believe that the article benefits from being a combined index page for Clymer and Clarke & Kimes. In the 1900s and 1910s every man and his dog had a crack at forming a car company, most of which disappeared without a trace! Therefore I think these entries are not useful inclusions. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want. I'm done. I'm not wasting any more time on this. And I'm damned if I'm wasting the time & effort research & creating a page that's just going to be challenged as "not notable" in two goddamn minutes, or waste two weeks arguing with the trolls that want to delete it. I have better things to do. I begin to think WP is entirely a waste of time & effort. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List Format

[edit]

There is currently an inconsistency between the listings in letters A - F and the rest of the list. Letters A - F have the names of defunct manufacturers with links in blue bold font, while the rest of the list is not. Articles like List of automobile manufacturers and List of truck manufacturers show no bold listings.

To be consist with the other articles mentioned above, I propose that all of the defunct manufacturers with blue links that are in bold font be changed to normal text (with the blue link intact). All of the listings that do no have links would remain in bold black text so that articles with links and those without remain differentiated. I will gladly make the changes necessary if we come to consenus to make the change. Zcarstvnz (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency, all company names should be in bold or all company names should be not bold. I'm not fussed which of these 2 options we use. But we should not do what we have now, where some items are bold depending on whether they have a link or not.  Stepho  talk  13:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_defunct_automobile_manufacturers_of_the_United_States&oldid=1205945559"