Jump to content

Talk:Volkswagen Group/Archives/2012

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


Major Hirst

Major Hirst was not the first "leader" of VW. He was a member of the british commission controlling VW. The first general director after World War 2 was Hermann Münch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.219.181 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

To reopen this seemingly unresolved discussion (and ignoring the fruitless Aktiengesellschaft vs AG debate), I think it is important to distinguish between Volkswagen Group (the whole group) and Volkswagen AG (the parent/holding company of the group). This article fails to do that at the moment. Volkswagen AG's 2008 Annual Report makes the distinction clear in the "Key Figures" page (near the front) and the "Structure and Business Activities" section (p.106). Referring to the Group by the (rarely used) acronym "VWAG" doesn't help either. Letdorf (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

I've now edited the article to try to clarify the difference between Volkswagen Group and Volkswagen AG and reduce unnecessary verbiage. Letdorf (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
I read in this WP article that "...Contrary to popular belief, "V.A.G" HAD NO OFFICIAL MEANING ...". But this is not accurate enough. I believe it should instead be underlined that the V.A.G. abbreviation is officially mentioned to be rather a play on the names of both Volkswagenwerk AG and Audi. In the official 'Volkswagen Chronicle' (http://www.volkswagenag.com/vwag/vwcorp/info_center/en/publications/2008/05/chronicle.-bin.acq/qual-BinaryStorageItem.Single.File/HN7e_www2.pdf) in the page 108, it says "[July 1978] ... With the introduction of the name ”V.A.G“, the Volkswagen and Audi sales organization acquires a crossbrand identity. THE CRYPTIC ABBREVIATION WITH ITS ASSOCIATIONS TO BOTH VOLKSWAGENWERK AG AND AUDI, HAS THE CHARACTER OF A TRADEMARK. ..." .(LeonCR (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

Brand differentiation between SEAT and Skoda

What's the difference? It'd be a good idea to add a brief description of all the marques in the group. matturn (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oddly

The article is missing the core transition from where Volkswagen became Volkswagen Group." Thoughts?842U (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Autoeuropa

I'm portuguese so I can say it: This section, it is totally unintelligible as it seems like machine-translated from portuguese. Would anybody please delete that or write it in proper english? anyway it's not that important. the will sure have bigger plants anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.144.24 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Porsche / Volkswagen relationship

For the time being Porsche Automobil Holding SE own more than 50% of the shares of the Volkswagen Group. This is discussed in more detail at Talk:Automotive industry#Porsche / Volkswagen naming. -- de Facto (talk). 13:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Under German company law, Porsche would need to exceed 80% of VWAGs shares before it can legally be declared the 'owner' of VWAG - so Porsche do NOT own Volkswagen AG (just like VWAG do not 'own' Scania, even though VWAG have something like 70% of Scanias shares). --78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

World's largest automaker

is by "sales" number. It is not how much they produced. "world's largest automaker" is sales. GM sold 6.6, toyota sold 6.8 and they take the title. 97.124.248.185 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Problem with "worlds largest automaker" at this point: -It is not full year -It is by sales not production -Not written in credible large newspaper. Small website is not enough. It needs to be covered by ny times, wallstreet journal etc. to be really credible.

World's largest automaker can really be taken by 1) end of full year 2) by total sales in the given year. At this point it is premature. 97.124.248.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Does anyone have a credible source instead of Yahoo Autos? Toyota claims the March 2008 to March 2009 global sales were 7.57 million units. [1]  Stepho  (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
And VW group claims Jan 2008 to Dec 2008 sales of 6.272 million units. [2] Obviously this might change up or down for 2009 depending on how Scania's acquisition in Feb 2009 is counted and whether Porsche decides to keep Scania in the group.  Stepho  (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of "VWAG"

VWAG is clearly used less often than "Volkswagen AG" or "Volkswagen Group", there is no question of editorial opinion about it. To give "VWAG" an equivalence with the other two is patently misleading.

Below are the number of search results found on the Volkswagen Group website (www.volkswagenag.com) for each of four search terms:

  • "Volkswagen Group" - English-language site: 634 - German-language site: 320
  • "Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft" - English-language site: 235 - German-language site: 294
  • "Volkswagen AG" - English-language site: 467 - German-language site: 537
  • "VWAG" - English-language site: 3 - German-language site: 3

I await evidence to the contrary. Gr1st (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already had this discussion with 78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - see here and here. Sadly, this editor still insists on inserting this rarely-used abbreviation into various articles related to Volkswagen Group, even resorting to reverting and edit warring to ensure its inclusion. Also, as I have mentioned previously on this talk page, even if it was in common use (and I agree that it is not), using this abbreviation to refer to Volkswagen Group results in confusion between Volkswagen AG (the parent/holding company) and Volkswagen Group (the business group). I'm also concerned about the edit summary "rv editorial opinion" - is this supposed to mean 78.32.143.113's opinion is the only one that matters here?! Letdorf (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC).
It is an extremely narrow minded attitude that one could think that VWAG is not a common acronym. Just look at all FOUR of those urls - they ALL have the acronym in them! The German Wiki site uses VWAG. BMW owners in North America use VWAG, etcetera, etcetera. Furthermore VWAG is an active registered trademark in both the UK and USA - as I have PROVEN by way of citations. Furthermore, VWAG is also registered as a trademark in the European Union 'Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market' - I can't provide the full url for the actual search - but start with this link - http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/QPLUS/databases/searchCTM.en.do - and it will list VWAG under the 001064997 trade mark registration number - VWAG is regularly renewed, it shows it was last registered 16 March 2009, and has an expiry of 4 February 2019! So, the simple fact that it is registered in the UK, the EU and the USA is more than enough justification to include the VWAG acronym!
And to Letdorf, 'editorial opinion' is where an editor adds their own personal emphasis or opinion on something. It is your opinion that VWAG is 'rarely used' - but it is my opinion (which is also supported by other non-Volkswagen Group sources) that it is a 'commonly used' acronym. The fundamental ethos of editing Wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point of view - so the correct way to address this issue is NOT to place any emphasis one way or the other on how much VWAG is used. And YOU are just as guilty in engaging in edit warring! Kind regards 78.32.143.113 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not disputing (nor is it relevant) that it is a registered trademark of the company - what I am saying is that it is not nearly as widely used and therefore it is misleading to give the term full equivalence with the others. As you yourself say, "the fundamental ethos of editing Wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point of view", so we certainly wouldn't want to be giving anything undue weight, would we? Note also that I did not remove "VWAG" from the lead altogether; I merely noted that it was less widely used. I have presented evidence to support this above. Gr1st (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Without taking any position on this article as I just closed a related AN3 report, might it be acceptable to state sometimes abbreviated as VWAG or something along those lines? Failing that, I recommend starting a thread at one of the WikiProjects listed at the top of this page rather than continue this disruptive slow edit war. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To address 78.32.143.113's points in turn:
  • URLs: Studying a URL (or at least the part after the domain name) doesn't really tell us much apart from the acronyms and encoding schemes used by the content management system used, or by the people who implemented the website and its back-end.
  • German WP: a search reveals that "VWAG" doesn't actually appear at all in the body text of any German WP articles.[3] "VW AG" (sic, two separate abbreviations) does appear in some articles, but only to refer to Volkswagen AG, not Volkswagen Group.
  • BMW owners in North America? Do you mean this web forum posting? Are you really suggesting they are a reliable and authoritative source for matters of Volkswagen Group corporate identity? And besides, I have been informed in the past that Internet forums are not reliable sources[4].
  • Trademark: You can't really deduce very much from a trademark registration, apart from the fact that the trademark holder does not want other parties to use that trademark. A trademark registrations tells us nothing about what the holder uses the trademark for (apart from the very broad classification of products or services), or even whether it is being used at all. Hence, citing the EU trademark database doesn't really support your assertion. Volkswagen AG has 250 Community Trade Mark words registered with OHIM - by your reasoning, you could also argue that Volkswagen Group should be referred to as "Driving Ideas", "Missouri" or "Caravelle", which are all trademarks registered under the same classifications as "VWAG".
  • Editorial opinion: where a difference of opinion occurs between WP editors, the correct procedure is to abstain from repeatedly reverting other editors' edits, and to try to engage in debate in order to build consensus. See WP:EW, WP:CONS and WP:BRD. I generally try to follow this rule myself [5][6].
Letdorf (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

Page layout - 2x ownership

I've just realised that there are two distinct sections in the article which deal with ownership. The first is a sub-section of the History section, which deals with the "VW Law", Porsches aquisitions, etc. The second is further down the article which has the shareholder info. Would it be better to merge these two sections? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Letdorf (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
Now done it - hope it is OK. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lower Saxony edit war

As I understand it, the Landtag of Lower Saxony is a parliament, and Lower Saxony is, of course, a state (Land) of the Federal Republic of Germany. Christian Wulff is the current Ministerpräsident of the Land, and Hermann Dinkla is the President of the Landtag. Herr Wulff is the one who sits on the Volkswagen AG supervisory board. Seems obvious that the article about the Landtag isn't the most appropriate one to link to here. Letdorf (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

Quite. I'm now being accused of "harassment", apparently, but I've suggested that the discussion be moved here and that a wider set of opinions be sought in order to bring a swift end to this one way or the other. I'll also note, incidentally, that the same editor altered the Christian Wulff article earlier to change instances of "Minister-President of Lower Saxony" to "Minister-President of Landtag of Lower Saxony". Gr1st (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting, I've had a similar accusation before [7] when trying to reason with this user. I've now corrected the Christian Wulff article. Letdorf (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

Top motor vehicle manufacturing companies by volume 2008

The template Top motor vehicle manufacturing companies by volume 2008 lists Volkswagen as the worlds third largest car manufacturer. Toyota, GM, Ford etc all list their 'rank' in the introduction to their article. I.e. ' Toyota is the largest car manufacturer in the word'. Why doesn't Volkswagen? --134.2.3.196 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead currently reads "according to figures published by economic research firm Global Insight in November 2009, is the largest automobile maker in the world by vehicle production", although this is contentious - see Talk:Volkswagen#Did not beat Toyota in 2009 --Letdorf (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Strategy 2018

I think there should be a whole section on this recently launched strategy as it is very important to the future of the volkswagen group. Also, the history section is pathetic... --VMIKEW (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Introductory Paragraph

It states that "As of 2011, Volkswagen was ranked as the world’s Second largest motor vehicle manufacturer and Europe's largest.[7]" The source provided in [7] dates back to 2008 and shows Volkswagen as 3rd on the list. So please provide a new source for the info or add the citation needed tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.18.40 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Good change! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.18.40 (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Scheduled Service

I have done some needed cleanup.

  • Intro: The Group was never called VAG. Never ever. See source. Dealers, importers, financial services, leasing, diagnostic computers, all were renamed to V.A.G - the Group never was. It was the intention, but it never happened. I know it's confusing. It always has been. The ranking has been moved to a separate chapter. The 2011 ranking is not decided by the middle of 2011. Please stop these senseless edits.
  • Overview: Has been cleaned up. Too much outdated information. Replaced with truly overview data.
  • History: Expanded the part on V.A.G, which had been contradicted be the erroneous intro.

Volkswagen founded with confiscated Union assets

I am missing information in the article about the role of confiscated labor union assets in founding Volkswagen during the Nazi dictatorship. That is one reason why Lower Saxony and the Federal government received such a huge stake in the post-war company. The labor unions declined reimbursement and in exchange got more influence in the running of the company (the "Volkswagen Law"). Mumi009 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)mumi009

Do you have a reliable source for this? Letdorf (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

Upper case "Group"/ Lower case "group"

Hi. I can understand the occasional need for something else after "Volkswagen" and group seems like a plausible solution. However, it is NOT part of the company names as is the came with many others and "Group" should therefore not have a capital letter. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. See the Volkswagen Group website - http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/content/en/homepage.html - and notice they use Volkswagen Group several times on the front page alone. Get into the annual report (e.g. here) and you'll see it even more. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not wrong, you are!. Of course the 'group' exists! I never said it did not! I said it is NOT part of the name of the company. Show me a logo or similar where the word "group" appears, as it does here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_del_Gruppo_Fiat. Therefore - with the exception (perhaps) of chapter sections titles etc, group should NOT be written with capital letters. I hope I was clear(er) enough this time. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
No, sorry, as Biker Biker explains, in English, the group of companies which has Volkswagen AG as the parent company is officially called Volkswagen Group, capital V, capital G; (in German, Volkswagen Konzern) that is the name of the group, not just a description of it. Just because the group doesn't have a logo of its own doesn't mean it doesn't have a name. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC).

Porsche AG - A subsidiary

I updated this page to reflect the fact that 'Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG' is infact the subsidiary company of Volkswagen AG, not 'Porsche Automobil Holding SE' as was stated. I note that these changes have been reverted without reason. See here: http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2012/08/Volkswagen_and_Porsche_finalize_creation_of_Integrated_Automotive_Group.html and here: http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/content/en/investor_relations/share/Shareholder_Structure.html --Eight.valve (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2012 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Volkswagen_Group/Archives/2012&oldid=697528707"