This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Musk, Elon (2022-06-22). "Elon Musk Unfiltered: Interview Part 3 (Bonus Material)" (Interview). Tesla Owners Silicon Valley – via Youtube. he suggested that we put a Tesla in; I was like, okay, that's a good idea: I've got one in my garage … we could use that one. It's not serial number one or anything, it's a later, like 1500-serial number, or something like that—so literally the car I was driving around LA, is now in orbit around Earth and Mars.
Followed up with Gruber Motors and got a swift reply noting that US Roadster serial production ended at #1459; followed by the final five #1460‒#1464. Will inquire if Gruber have any photos (most US Roadsters have visited Gruber at some point). #686 appears to still be correct; but we don't have a cite, yet. —Sladen (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given was that it was trivia and the policy WP:NOTEVERYTHING was cited. I am thinking it was a good call, but I am willing to be wrong about it. The video cited by the ip just above is a CNBC video post on YouTube and the relevant part can be directly access with this: What Happened To Tesla’s First Car — The Roadster? on YouTube. There are already several identifiers on the page. The VIN number would seem to be useful to roadster aficionados. Other then that it does seem to be trivia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this article was debated and found wanting, what with Musk having multiple Tesla Roadsters, The key distinguishing identifier is the VIN and S/N, with the make and model uniquely distinguishing this Roadster from the several others used by Elon, and from the alternate name of the article SpaceX Roadster also having problems with the prototypes with cold gas thrusters and the new package that will ship with the new Roadster. Also the changes mandated to the original Roadster design were pushed by Elon, so the change from the Elise+Tzero test mule to the finalized Tesla design could also be referred to as the Musk version of the Roadster, unlike the Eberhard version. Thus this "cherry red" Roadster is Tesla Roadster 686, as a unique name -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key identifier of this Roadster is its location in interplanetary space. Who cares about the VIN. Even if Musk has other Roadsters - I don't know if he does - only this one got large-scale press coverage. --mfb (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality: long quotes instead of summary style, without evidence these views are eminent enough to be quoted in such length; it's really suggesting that Advertising Age agreed with Business Insider that the Roadster space launch was the "greatest ever car commercial without a dime spent on advertising", demonstrating that Musk is "miles ahead of the rest" in reaching young consumers, where "mere mortals scrabble about spending millions to fight each other over seconds of air time", Musk "just executes his vision." is totally neutral and not trying to suggest partiality?
Bad sourcing: tons of primary sources used, violating due weight (why is a random fan suggesting something on Twitter worth mentioning? If secondary sources didn't significantly cover Easter eggs or stuff Musk tweeted about, Wikipedia shouldn't be either); blatantly unreliable sources such as Bored Panda, questionable ones such as Mashable.
Sourcing choices: I've read through the archives, and I don't see any evidence of any consensus that issues raised with the article were down to "Musk-haters". I do think it's interesting which sources discussed were left out.
