Talk:Bugatti Automobiles

Bugatti Small Car

according to last autobild, bugatti built small car with w12 or v8, and not car like EB118

Dorlisheim or Molsheim

• As far as I can see on a map, Bugatti is located in the small village of Dorlisheim near Molsheim and not in Molsheim itself. Hektor (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

bugatti veyron

Now the veyron is a fine car, but what is the point of a car that does 253 mph if you can't use it on english roads? that is the problem, you see. You can not use supercars on everyday roads now so i'm sorry, but I wouldn't buy one if I were you.

---

thank you for your kind advice, sir. I was about to order a bugatti veyron but you have convinced me otherwise. i will now purchase a Dacia Sendero, what is your opinion of this automobile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.182.174 (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Issues" section

I removed the "Issues" section introduced on this edit. Creating an entire section in order to highlight one customer's complaint is giving the issue undue weight. Also, WP:NPOV requires all significant points of view to be presented which means that any negative criticism of the company should be balanced out with positive criticism unless one notably outweighs the other which is not the case here. Also, "Issues" (plural) is misleading and incorrect; one issue only was presented. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

seems like a good removal, IMHO. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Top Gear comments

The 'Top Gear' comment comparing the Veyron to the Concorde wasn't just comparing it as a feat of technology, but as a summit marker that would never be surpassed - airliners since Concorde and cars post-Veyron would no longer push the limits of the achievable. The A380 or 787 may be fine modern machines but they aren't inspiring the way the Concorde was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.44.80 (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

La Voiture Noire

Is this a one-off, or a production car? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47469562 John a s (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who clarified this is a special edition. John a s (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Rimac Automobili

Does Bugatti now belong to Rimac? --37.144.245.248 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@37.144.245.248 I don't think so? it's a joint venture, the company hasn't been sold afaik Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus against move. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

---

• Bugatti Automobiles → Bugatti
• Bugatti → Automobiles Ettore Bugatti

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, most people who search for "Bugatti" are most likely going to be looking for this company, the modern one, rather than the original defunct one founded by Ettore Bugatti. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are three distinct companies here, two of which are covered in the Bugatti article (Automobiles Ettore Bugatti and Bugatti Automobili SpA), so the proposed title doesn't work. I'd be in favour of splitting the article, with the base name Bugatti becoming a dabpage, but that may be a bit outside the scope of this discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Bugatti Automobili SpA was actually a separate article in 2003, before being merged in 2004.[1] 162 etc. (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  I was not aware the Bugatti article covered 2 different companies. Would the title of "Bugatti (defunct company)" work instead? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  @162 etc.: should probably ping you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  My preference would be to withdraw the RM and start a split discussion instead. 162 etc. (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Ok.. but still I don't see why "Bugatti" should go somewhere other than "Bugatti Automobiles" since I'd say that's the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here and I don't think that's something that can be addressed in a split discussion. Additionally, I don't see how a company that only created 1 car and 1 concept and existed for only 8 years would be independently notable. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Automobiles Ettore Bugatti was in business far longer than the current Bugatti Automobiles - and its vehicles are legendary for their performance and success in early Grand Prix racing. To say that its long-term notability is less than that of Bugatti Automobiles is anything but clear.

  To your second point: DeLorean Motor Company only created 1 car and lasted only 7 years. Would you say it's notable? 162 etc. (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Well that's different, for one it probably would've faded into obscurity if it weren't for Back to the Future, and two it only ever existed as the DeLorean Motor Company (although I think GM may have bought it?) and didn't exist as another company prior. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• My 2 cents: In principle, I think it's a good idea to rename these articles. I agree that Bugatti Automobiles (1998-present) is the primary topic. However I've never really understood why the paragraphs about Bugatti Automobili (1987-1995) are in the article about Bugatti (1909-1963), seeing as Bugatti Automobili (1987-1995) is a predecessor of Bugatti Automobiles (1998-present) and has little or nothing to do with Bugatti (1909-1963), apart from the name. Mark in wiki (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose moves - I think there are two ways of looking at this, and both lead me to the same conclusion. Whilst there is no doubt that of recent online sources, there are more discussing the modern company/cars compared with the original, that is not true if you consider older news type sources (of which there are many, and countless books also, due in large part to Bugatti's prominence and success in motor racing) and even modern books which usually either discuss the old company, or discuss the brand as a whole. Which brings me to my second approach: many sources (perhaps the vast majority of books published recently about "Bugatti") treat Bugatti as a single topic. Given also that the article currently at Bugatti is written as if Bugatti Automobiles is a split from it, then as the parent article it should remain the defacto primary topic. A7V2 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm inclined to favour Automobiles Ettore Bugatti as the primary topic of Bugatti by overwhelming long-term significance per WP:PT, as currently. The alternative is to make its destination a DAB. Bugatti Automobiles and Bugatti Rimac are relatively recent corporate branding exercises, they are no doubt keen to promote themselves as possessors of the brand and its history but we should look very carefully at whether the sources that follow their lead in this are in reality primary sources. Andrewa (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2022 (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.