Talk:Aptera Motors

Old vs. New "Aptera"

There's certainly a relationship between the current Aptera Motors and the original - same founders, same basic concept. But the product lines discussed in the article are muddied between old Aptera (ca 2007-2011) and new Aptera (2019-present). I'd suggest that any discussion of old Aptera be confined to a "History" section, or possibly separated into a completely different Wikipedia page. 172.59.73.165 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with more clearly separating the old Aptera Motors Inc. company from the current Aptera Motors Corp. company. Unfortunately I am being blocked from editing this article by CNMall41, so someone else will need to do it. Fotoguru (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41 (talk · contribs) as several editors support the separation and you seem to be the only one opposing it, you should stop reverting edits that separate the companies and note their differences. HueSurname (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

"Several editors" I do not see. Consensus is not based on a vote count. You are free to make the case for splitting them but you need to do so per WP:ONUS as the change you are attempted has been objected to. Also, I would advise you to read WP:CIVIL as while you may not have intended it, your comment comes off as condescending ("you seem" "you should"). --CNMall41 (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If three or more editors support separating the prototypes by company and you're the only editor opposing it, then consensus lies with the editors who want them separate. HueSurname (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

False. I see an IP editor, an editor with a COI, and you. I would suggest RfC but you do not have consensus. Do as you wish as I do not WP:OWN, but regardless, this is ripe for another noticeboard discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

"Do as you wish" - does that mean I can restore my edit and you won't revert it? HueSurname (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

No, it means exactly what it says. You do whatever you feel right, but if you do not have consensus and do so in violation of WP:ONUS, it will be brought to a noticeboard. I invite you to read the linked discussions. I would also invite you to answer the question posed on my talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I'm here talking to you, we can have a civil discussion here. As I want to restore my edit, I took "do as you wish" as agreement for me to restore my edit. Three editors, even if one of them is an IP address editor and one has a COI, are still consensus. I think the article will be far more readable for the reader if there was a short summary of the different companies in the lead and if the Aptera Inc prototypes were placed under the Aptera Inc section. Two other editors agree with me (one having a COI, one not registered) and one editor opposed. That seems a strong enough consensus, when only one editor objects to the change. HueSurname (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not. If I have 1,000 of the investors come here per WP:MEAT and disagree with your edits would that be consensus to keep your edit out? I have objected to the content for reasons already stated. You are free to elicit more opinions (I already pointed out how). No need to argue at this point. WP:ONUS is on you. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

To add after your edited comment, an editor who "admits" (you may want to strike your "deny" comment) to having a COI based on being an investor. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I looked at that user's user page and they had no COI disclaimers so I assumed these were unsubstantiated allegations. Now it's clear why their opinion does not count toward consensus. HueSurname (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I am curious why you didn't look when I supplied the link previously and also reiterated it but I understand. I would also invite you to look at the deletion discussion on the prototype. If you like, ping all of the editors involved in those discussions to get more opinions and maybe lead towards a consensus. No way would a lone IP and COI editor be taken into account to show consensus one way or another. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see any COI disclaimers from that user on those pages. I am not seeking to spin out the prototypes into their own articles, I only want to put them in different sections. I have read the deletion discussion and it doesn't address my edit one way or the other. HueSurname (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I am not sure how else to assist. You can always seek opinions at the WikiProject Companies page or start a Request for Comment, but I do not see consensus for this split. Maybe focus on reducing the information on the page that is based on press releases as that seems to be the majority of the page at this point. I trimmed a little but a lot more needs cut out.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I already have, thank you. Unrelated, but why do you keep restoring "It was founded in 2005 before liquidating in 2011" to the lead? Aptera Motors Inc was not founded in 2005, and Aptera Motors Corp (the company "it" in that sentence refers to) is not the same as Aptera Motors Inc anyway. HueSurname (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Prototype section layout

• prototypes in respective company sections
• all prototypes in the same section

Please discuss which article layout is preferable. HueSurname (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I like the existing format where the various company incarnations are at the top and the prototypes are in a separate, lower section. As long as the prototypes remain in calendar order then it works quite intuitively.

Splitting it so that each company section also contains its prototypes makes it harder for people who are only interested in company details (the company incarnations are widely separated) and similarly, people interested only in the car details will find it hard to read.  Stepho  talk  02:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Greglocock (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Are you asking about the lead or the layout per MOS? Those are two different things.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking for the Aptera 2 Series article?

It was hidden by redirection by our favorite destructive editor, CNMall41. You can still find a full saved historical version by clicking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aptera_2_Series&oldid=1173950654 Fotoguru (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree with needing two separate pages. Also, last warning on WP:CIVILity. You are clearly WP:NOTHERE. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for my use of sarcasm. Also I agree about the lack of need for separate articles for the 2 companies from the same founders, if that is what you were referring to.

However, removing all the historical information about the 2 series Apteras by redirecting that topic to a page where it is not mentioned, rather than moving that information back to that referring page or anywhere else is clearly a destructive edit. If someone today came to Wikipedia looking for information on those historical vehicles, they will be misdirected. That is clearly poor editing. I had to work to find that information in the historical record. I would be willing to work to move that infomation back to the Aptera Motors page if you'd let me. But your past behavior leaves me to believe I'd just be wasting my time. Would others be wasting their time as well? Fotoguru (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say based on your previously admitted COI with the topic, use the talk page for recommendations to the page as opposed to working on it yourself. I have not gone through the information added recently information but will when I have the mindset. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No new information was added. I only moved a paragraph about the Series 2 Aptera from the company's History section to the more appropriate Design History section. Fotoguru (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about this which on its face does not seem like it is supported by reliable sources. As stated, I will look closer when I get some energy for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

it's a scam

It's the same people, using the same name, to do the same thing, for 20 years now. Bilk "investors" out of money and not deliver product. Is there not one single source that points this out? https://www.nanalyze.com/2022/10/aptera-stock-solar-cars/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.222.101.58 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

No, Aptera is not a scam, although I'd agree that the company is a very risky investment. Thanks for the link to that old 2022 Nanalyze article. Reading their responses to readers' comments on the article make their biases against Aptera and all other 3 wheelers very clear. They also did not get their facts right. Fotoguru (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Article needs updating. Aptera Motors is now a public, not private company.

Time for someone to update this article. The SEC and NASDAC have approved public trading of stock in this company with the symbol, SEV. The Infobox needs correcting to indicate this. A sentence or 2 regarding this change should be appended to the Aptera Motors Corp. (2019) section.

In addition to the company's SEC, press releases and multiple social media postings and videos, the following business news web articles give details.

1. https://list.solar/news/aptera-motors/ (Try to ignore the horrible inaccurate AI generated image in that article.)
2. https://accessipos.com/aptera-stock-ipo/

Fotoguru (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Unclear which details were removed before revert

This revert says "removed the founded details". The details about the founding is still there. They were only removed from the sidebar because they don't fit there: "founded = 2009; liquidated 2011; founded 2012; [etc]". At any rate reverting an entire update instead of just the sidebar is overkill. HueSurname (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)