Talk:Audi Q7

Untitled
Is the Q7 the A7? I hadn't heard that they were one and the same... --SFoskett 00:30, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

No they are not. The A7 is a coupe. I didn't see it mentioned in the article, though. Bok269 23:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Audi watching this article or something?
Ahem? According to this article, the MMI is a "user-friendly" interface. Nevermind that Car & Driver and Consumer Reports both reviewed the system throughly and said it was nothing short of demonically possessed.

Worse, I have the MMI in my A8, and its demonically possessed as well (nevermind the gearbox).

I think this article needs clean-up, besides "user-friendly" is a subjective term anyway so it must go.


 * the idrive, mercedes' thingy, and the MMI are all "user-friendly".. thats what the companies call them, but many say they are not.. i agree, we should remove it.. ??

Hello, of course this is a big Audi advertising :)

Stef

--World arm lamp 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pedestrians safety
Hello

Please, in this article there is detailed information about a aluminium interior trim and nothing about the drivers visibility and pedestrians safety.

what is more important ??.

I do not own this car but sometimes i have to deal with it in the traffic.

Stef

--World arm lamp 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox is wrong
The manufacturer is the Audi AG, not Volkswagen. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Q7 Can anybody fix it? Thanks 'n' regards from Gool Old Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.199.168 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks for the tip off, i corrected "Audi" to "Audi AG" as someone already changed it from VW  J e n o v a  20 11:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Audi Q3?
This article says there will be no other Q-series Audi. What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Q3 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.156.53 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - not taking credit as i didn't do this, but it's done  J e n o v a  20 11:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Safety ratings
Let's take this debate once and for all.

This article revision shows tables with safety ratings by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and IIHS, apparently for model year 2015 : 2015 Audi Q7 (NHTSA) and 2015 Audi Q7 Large SUV / 2008 Audi Q7 (IIHS), but they are based on older crash tests : IIHS says "Ratings shown are the latest available for this model year" and "Applies to 2007-15 models". For NHTSA, 2011-2015 show same roll-over rating but no reference, whereas 2007-2010 all reference the same 2007 Side Crash document number #5852, 10MB for rollover.

It is common; see these other examples of ratings spanning multiple years from the same test : Mercedes E 2014-2016, Buick Regal 2012-2016, 2016 Infiniti QX60 2014-2016 (set up newest and oldest test in separate windows side by side to compare document numbers)

Audi (and other car manufacturers) pay for the tests, so they only perform the tests when necessary. When new test is not necessary, they carry results over from year to year rather than pay for a new test with the same result. Q7 and Cayenne has not been crash tested in USA after 2011, perhaps piggybacking on the 2011 Touareg test as they share the same PL71 platform. IIHS has chosen to explicitly display 2008 result for 2015 model, NHTSA indirectly so.

Whatever the case, Wikipedia goes by Verifiability, not truth; all content must rely on reliable sources, not opinions by individual WP editors. NHTSA and IIHS are generally considered to be very reliable sources. If NHTSA has made a mistake, it is up to Audi to contact them. Until then, NHTSA shows Q7 with a rollover risk of

Long story short; NHTSA and IIHS are reliable sources, and they say the 2015 Q7 has these ratings. If you have reason to believe otherwise, please supply source. TGCP (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The 2015 model year Audi Q7 is the first generation not the second generation, the data applies only to the first generation and does not belong in the second gen section. Also the results carry over year to year within a generation, they do not carry over to the next generation.  As of now the IIHS and NHTSA have not published results for the second generation Q7.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolipopprag (talk • contribs) 11:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me spell that out for you again: NHTSA and IIHS *have* published results for 2015 Q7 : 2015 Audi Q7 (NHTSA) and 2015 Audi Q7 Large SUV / 2008 Audi Q7 (IIHS) "Applies to 2007-15 models" - read the sources; it says so right there. It is the choice of Audi and IIHS to carry over results. TGCP (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, the results go in the first gen, I will fix that. TGCP (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Audi Q7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081128173040/http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1007 to http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Audi Q7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022033606/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article687697.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article687697.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Audi Q7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091025174134/http://www.carautoportal.com/audi/audi-q7.php to http://www.carautoportal.com/audi/audi-q7.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105192259/http://fourtitude.rely.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/1662 to http://fourtitude.rely.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/1662
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813220733/http://microsites.audi.com/q7-globe/ to http://microsites.audi.com/q7-globe/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Audi Q7 great example
Hi everyone, I hope you are all having a Merry Xmas and a happy new year !!

I was going through a few edits and found that in some articles such as List of sport utility vehicles, there happens to be (in my honest opinion) an image that does not look up to par. Ok now this is my personal opinion, however I have found a nice assortment of images which I would like to discuss with everyone, more importantly, , and. Look, I know we have reach consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS, however this was a 2 way only discussion, and to ensure reduced bias, I have decided as per this and this one (This is however a different issue altogether) discuss with everyone. I will however not replace the current version (Vauxford's) for the front and rear, because for mine, I did the front view shot (I did the rear but it was damaged, so chose not to upload). I've identified the faults of the images, so therefore it would be nice to rank them from best to worst. I've listed the faults below, based on my opinions.


 * This would make life a lot easier and also would be good examples. I would like to do that. I hope thats ok with everyone :), , how about that? I think it'd be for the better and to prevent the discussion from going out of control. I want to settle peace, but that'd only work with a compromise. Besides the majority voted on the Australian image, so shouldn't that be the one that we use? Also whoever created the photo doesn't matter, what matter is the image is higher quality, which I know mine is out of a lot of examples I have found on Commons. Besides even if I were to replace your examples for the stubs on the foreign Wikipedia, you will still have your image in use because unlike your one, the rear is good so don't need to retake whilst I did only the front view so it should be a compromise we split the use of the images as I suggested underneath the image -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've edited the page a few hours ago. I've relocated the pictures from their respective infoboxes to their new spot. And it's fine if the photo that Vauxford shot will be used in Foreign Wikipedia. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I confused you didn't I ? No, I mean't my image is going to be used in articles like Audi, List of sport utility vehicles & J-segment. I would like your opinion before replacing it. There will be no further reverts after this, unless its been approved on this discusson page, along with the wikidata infoboxes and the Simple Wikipedia article on Audi Q7. Is that good enough to explain? Like this, this, and the other ENWP articles along with this. -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , In my opinion, Your pictures are quite better than Vauxford's pictures because the pictures you've tooked are totally high-quality and very highly detailed (the latter goes to Vauxford's pictures which looks great also especially the license plates are censored). But I've both liked your and Vauxford's pictures. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I really want to compromise. I am happy 😃 with the photos however i mentioned it firmly that I think to be fair with each other, I think we can use mine for the EnWP, Simple Wikipedia and Wikidata infoboxes, whilst Vauxford’s can be used for the foreign Wikipedia’s which I don’t have interest in. It’s a deal which would work for everyone and I think we can close it up and do so. — Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't like this "compromise" of yours. I think the images are fine as they were. They are still being used some way or another. --Vauxford (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your image is very grainy as seen by your Audi Q5 photo. This way by laying out a comrpomise, we are able to use both images which are of equal quality. I'm not going to really continue much anymore editing, as I don't see the value of my images being used. I cannot focus on Australian cars exclusively, as then you'd be having more of a chance. Thats my only concern and also the bollards. The majority have decided the Australian Audi was the better example, so I want to use that as suggested. Please do not make any further reverts when I replace it back as this was discussed as a majority. If everyone agreed with yours, then I would end the discussion and leave as is. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the "majority" haven't agreed with yours, only at least one, which was Victor. The rest either picked a different one or at this point doesn't care because at this point is futile. --Vauxford (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Umm, that also includes . So thats 3 votes. In respect, why do you believe yours is better? Please explain. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You do not count because it your own photo! This was before he knew this was going to spiral into yet another argument, this is no where near reached a consensus. --Vauxford (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Look, I am not going to be continuing this argument. I think for the best of everyone here, its best I retire. I don't see how I can contribute much with the limits you are restricting me. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection of page
So, I noticed that a wave of (possible) sockpuppets have been changing the size to mid-size. IT'S A FULL-SIZE. But no matter how many times I revert their edits they keep on carrying on. So I was wondering if you could semi-protect the page for a few months so this whole thing can stop. 73.2.129.126 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Absurd "mid-sized" claim
This is one of the largest passenger cars on the road anywhere that isn't the US or Canada. It is objectively enormous. Calling it "mid-sized" is an insult to reader's intelligence. The fact that a Boeing 747 is smaller than the Spruce Goose doesn't make the 747 a medium-sized plane. Reliable sources call it "huge" (and those were just the first three I grabbed off of Google) because that is an objective description of its size. If I was being "subjective and unencyclopedic" I would skip the reliable sources and call it "a buffoonishly-large zeppelin on wheels". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really taking any sides, but just to offer an insight, the "mid-size" claim is coming from U.S. publications:
 * https://www.forbes.com/wheels/cars/audi/q7/ "Audi Q7 has remained a benchmark in the midsize three-row luxury crossover SUV segment..."
 * https://www.edmunds.com/audi/q7/ "The 2023 Audi Q7 is a midsize three-row SUV..."
 * https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/audi/q7 "The 2022 Audi Q7's #7 ranking is based on its score within the Luxury Midsize SUVs category..."
 * https://www.kbb.com/audi/q7/
 * Also a bulk of Q7 sales were coming from the U.S. (source 1, source 2). Again, just offering an insight.
 * - Andra Febrian (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources can be cited with in-prose attribution regarding how large they think it is, but it seems the article cannot make any claims regarding the size in wikivoice. Personally I think we should be doubting the reliability of any source that doesn't call it at the very least "large", however. Such a claim gives the impression of a writer that has not actually seen a Q7 in person or even just looked up its dimensions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted the adjective "huge" as inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I would prefer the industry-standard terms of full-size, mid-size or large, whichever reliable sources state. Personally, I would be in favor of removing that description completely. Bahooka (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and the Sunday Times both call the first-generation model "vast". I'm not sure where you're going to find more reliable sources than those. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I think we should be doubting the reliability of any source that doesn't call it at the very least "large", however. - I have a problem with this. I think it boils down to where the publication is based on, not the reliability of the publication. To U.S.-based publications, SUVs in this size are mid-size SUVs because the "full-size" distinction is reserved to gigantic SUVs over 5.2 m in length, which Europe doesn't have, so over there it is called large. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)