Talk:Tesla Model S

Sales by country

The table under the Sales by Country section has percentages for each country of the total worldwide sales...They're all wrong. I don't know how they were calculated but they all appear to be wrong. Someone with more time than me will have to sort that (I'm semi-retired). Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Not only that, it hasn't been updated since 2018 or something and the electric car landscape has changed vastly in the meanwhile. Somewhere in the article it says that the Model S is the second best selling electric car when in fact the Model 3 and Y have eclipsed it long ago. dllu (t,c) 07:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have references, then you are more than welcome to update them yourself. Ask for help if you need it.  Stepho  talk  06:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

For example, here are the sales figures for the third quarter: [1] and it is straightforward to find the figures for every quarter prior to then. Since I work at Tesla, I have a conflict of interest so I will abstain from editing the article directly; however, in the upcoming days, if I have time, I can write some draft sections and suggest them with {{request edit}}. dllu (t,c) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Body conversions

There are three shooting brake conversions commercially available, should these be mentioned? Wiki pages for other car models sometimes includes this. 2A01:799:952:4500:E84E:8E6D:88E3:65AA (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It is rare for us to mention custom (ie non-factory) modifications on any car article. If we did, each article would have a near-endless list of modifications possible to the body, engine, brakes, suspension, etc. The particular modifications are often limited in geographical location and the time period they are offered for, so they are of limited use to the majority of readers. So we restrict ourselves to factory offerings.  Stepho  talk  11:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Version section needs a rework

The version section is an absolute mess. Some versions get a long text, some don't, some references are made to models that aren't describbed ("The 70D replaced the 60, 60D, and P85", with no 60D ever mentioned), one of the images mentions a P85+, which isn't talked about anywhere... I suggest that the section is replaced by a table like this (values are from https://blog.clutch.ca/posts/understanding-the-different-tesla-model-s-versions , to be checked before the table is added, maybe data from ev-database.org ):

Versions of the Model S - the number in the name relates to the battery vapacity in kWh, "P" indicate a Performance version, and "D" an AWD version.

Version	Build period	motor specification	range	Notes
40	2013-2013	Back 235hp and 317lb-ft	224km (NRCAN)	Very small production run
60	2013-2019	Back 302hp and 317lb-ft	335km (NRCAN)	motor updated to 315hp in 2015
85	2013-2016	Back 362hp and 325lb-ft	426km (NRCAN)	motor updated to 380hp in 2015
Performace (85)	2013-2014	Back 416hp and 443lb-ft	426km (NRCAN)	motor updated to 380hp in 2015, its that the P85+?
90	2015-2016	Back 362hp and 325lb-ft	426km (NRCAN)	First with option for AutoPilot
70D	2015-2016	Back 328p and ???lb-ft, front ??	386km (NRCAN)	First AWD version
85D	2015-2016	Back 376hp and ???lb-ft	435km (NRCAN)
P85D	2015-2016	Combined 691hp and ???lb-ft	407km (NRCAN)
P90D	2015-2017	Combined 691hp and ???lb-ft	426km (NRCAN)	range up to 435km in 2016+ models
Facelift from black nose cone to the new body coloured facia
70	2016-2016	Back 315hp and 325lb-ft	377km (NRCAN)
75	2016-2018	Back 315hp and 325lb-ft	401km (NRCAN)
60D	2016-2017	Combined 328hp and 387lb-ft	351km (NRCAN)
75D	2016-2017	Combined 328hp and 387lb-ft	417km (NRCAN)
90D	2016-2017	Combined 417hp and 485lb-ft	473km (NRCAN)
P100D	2016-2019	Combined 503hp and ???lb-ft	507km (NRCAN)
100D	2017-2019	Combined ???hp and ???lb-ft	539km (NRCAN)
Abbandon of (P)kWh(D) naming scheme
Standard Range	2019-2019	Front 382hp and back 260hp	459km (NRCAN)	Replaced 60D and 75D
Long Range	2019-2021	Combined 541hp	595km (NRCAN)	Replaced 100D, range up to 600km in 2020
Performance	2019-2021	Combined ???hp	555km (NRCAN)	Replace the P100D, "Raven" drivetrain
Long Range Plus	2020-2021	Combined 541hp	629km (NRCAN)	"Raven" drivetrain
Plaid	2021-	Combined 1020hp	630km (NRCAN)	First Tri-motor version
S	2022-	Combined 670hp	652km (NRCAN)	"Palladium"

With a break at the facia redesign.

NilsTillander (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Your scheme looks fine in general. Thinking about international readers and readers not well versed in car stuff, some details to change are:

1. What does "NRCAN" mean? A link would be good.
2. Values and symbols should have a space between them - see WP:CARUNITS and WP:UNITS.
3. Those "hp" and "lb-ft" look suspiciously like power and torque figures but in ancient units used by our grandfathers - see WP:CARUNITS and WP:UNITS.
4. "??" values should be left blank.
5. "Abbandon of (P)kWh(D) naming scheme", misspelling of "abandon". Perhaps replace with "After (P)xx(D) naming scheme abandoned".
6. Are those calendar years or model years? Non-Americans mostly use calendar years and do not understand US style model years. Americans assume model years unless told different.

But these are minor things that can be tweaked.  Stepho  talk  00:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hei @Stepho-wrs,

Thank you for your input!

• I put NRCAN values here (the canadian authority for car stuff, I assume), but maybe having the US and EU standards listed (as well?) would be best. It is rather tricky to source the data for all models.
• Good point for units
• I agree that kW and N⋅m are the better units, but the car industry still mostly communicates in hp and lb-ft. I would convert the values before publishing the table as well.
• Yes, I was hoping for other users to chime in before the table makes it to the page
• ok
• These are production years. Tesla doesn't use the odd American "model year" concept, as far as I know.

NilsTillander (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hit piece-ish

Somehow, nearly every section has to stay from factual and balanced data into negative and misleading coverage territory. It is true that media coverage of Tesla vehicles has always had that sort of cognitive dissonance and that Wackopedia likes to rely on (selected) mass media for its plagi^H quotes but I wonder if that is the only reason.

It makes for very distracting reading when one comes here looking for cold, hard facts (don't be childish and try to argue that 'piece of bullshit X' is a cold hard fact, if you're of sound mind you know exactly what I mean). 37.188.184.244 (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Confused here. The article is 100% cited via reliable sources. It’s a comprehensive article, so i have no idea what you’re talking about. 750h+ 23:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, point out a couple of concrete examples of where we got it wrong. Once we know what the issue is then we can see if it is a systematic problem throughout the article.

Re: Wackopedia, childish - name calling isn't the way to encourage us volunteers to help you.  Stepho  talk  02:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Talk pages are for talking about improving the article, you're not helping anyone, including yourself, by simply ranting about how bad the article is. This 6,000 word article has nearly 300 citations from reliable sources per sources that are reliable per numerous discussions, as well as many prominent automotive sources like Car and Driver and Road & Track. By far this is most likely the most comprehensive article/source on the Tesla Model S. 750h+ 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Opinion stated as fact

The article says "critics have called the Model S one of the most significant and influential electric cars in the industry." with no citation or elaboration as to who these "critics" are, and where these declarations have been made.

I attempted to put a "citation needed" tag on it with an explanation, but it was quickly reverted. How can this statement be left hanging in the article with nothing to support it? As it stands, it is either an outsourced claim, or the personal opinion of an editor. Neither belong. Hugzz (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hugzz The content is cited in the Reception and legacy section. Lead sections are supposed to summarize the contents of the article body. Therefore, except for complex, current, or controversial subjects, citations are not required in the lead so long as the content is cited elsewhere in the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! Hugzz (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of ChatGPT/LLM on this article

Hello Wikipedians and editors,

I need your help! I am conducting research for my master's degree in environmental communication and I'm interested in the learning more about the use of LLMs during the editing/writing process of Wikipedia articles. In true Wikipedia fashion, I am entering this inquiry from a neutral standpoint - I neither support nor oppose the use of LLMs on Wikipedia articles. I am writing here in hopes of reading your anecdotes on how LLMs have been used or even encountered on Wikipedia articles within the WikiProject Environment.

You may see this topic a few times in your notifications, but please don't dismiss it as spam! I am posting the same topic on the WikiProject Environment talk page, as well as the Earth, Climate Change and Tesla Model S talk pages - because they are the only three Wikipedia articles that are both of FA quality and of Top importance according to the WikiProject Environment Article Assessment table. I am open to hearing experiences with using or encountering LLMs in the editing process of other Wikipedia articles as well, but I do want to remain within the limits of articles under the WikiProject Environment umbrella.

It is understandable if you want to remain anonymous to other Wikipedians in this discussion. If so please feel free to reach out to me via the "Email this user" feature on my User page! Otherwise, I encourage a conversation to take place on this Talk page so that it may inspire others to contribute.

Finally, I am only in the design/digging around phase of this research. If anything that is said will be used in my actual research, all contributors will remain anonymous (unless requested otherwise). Consent forms can be made available at any time for anyone involved in further research that may be published to the public.

Some questions to inspire your storytelling:

- How have you encountered the use of LLMs on editing/writing Wikipedia articles within WikiProject environment?

- What impact has it had on article quality?

- Where do you stand on the use of LLMs in editing/writing Wikipedia articles dealing with environmental topics?

- What about the use of LLMs in editing/writing on other topics in Wikipedia articles?

- Do you have a community on Wikipedia that you communicate with about the use of LLMs in editing/writing Wikipedia articles? If so, please mention which one(s)!

All the best,

Wikipistemologist (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

LLM AI's just summarise their input data. But if their input data is wrong then the AI is also wrong. Many (most?) AI's are trained on data indiscriminately scrapped from the web, so their input data is questionable. Trusting an AI's summary is like trusting a 13 year old's school report made by scrapping social media websites. It may look good when read by a layman but an expert in that subject will pick mistakes immediately. The AI doesn't know what is good data and what is bad data, so it accepts both and generates rubbish.

That doesn't make it entirely useless. I know many people who routinely use AI as a starting point, from buying electronic gadgets to writing computer code. But they then go away and independently verify each point that they want to use.  Stepho  talk  06:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here! You bring up some points I hear quite often in the broader conversations of AI/LLMs. Can you speak more on these points you brought up, in relation to the Tesla Model S Wikipedia article?

- Have you ever used an LLM for your own starting point for editing this page?

- Or do you know of any others who have done so? If so, no need to name, but maybe an example of the kind of edit that occurred.

- Do you think that using an LLM for this page could benefit/tarnish it's quality? Wikipistemologist (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)