Talk:Audi R8 (Type 4S)

Your recent edits




I disagree with the recent edits you did on the Audi R8 (Type 4S). The article did not contain a front view picture of a production pre-facelift (one that isn't a limited edition such as the RWS or the Decennium). It not a big concern that one picture is used both on the main infobox of the model and in it's respective generation article which you have split recently as well. Let try and come up with a civil agreement together without resulting in edit warring. --Vauxford (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As stated earlier. That image is already there in the R8 RWS heading and that isn't a special model. Even the photo used for the Spyder is taken from the FRONT of the car and not REAR. So your claim is not even true to begin with. Since you don't seem to believe me, I'll put the photo here. Now if you start edit warring, that's not my fault and you'd get blocked as a result.

U1 quattro  TALK''  18:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * But it is not a production version, the RWS was a limited edition where they only produced 999. It a derivative of the pre-facelift one, but it not the actual bog-standard pre-facelift one. --Vauxford (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is a production version. That's why it's included with the standard variants. The only difference was that it was rear wheel drive but exterior wise, it has no difference. U1 quattro  TALK''  18:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I still disagree with your edits, that these models should be separate. Do not make any edits until this is worked, I don't want to file a incident again. --Vauxford (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Your disagreement is uncalled for. I only see this as an attempt to feature your photos in the main infobox which I won't allow to happen. U1 quattro  TALK''  18:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I added the Pre-facelift photo. Therefore you don't have any reason to undo the edit and now if you did, I'll start that discussion myself. U1 quattro  TALK''  18:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, well. I'm not playing your games anymore. I will have to write another incident because this is just getting disruptive. --Vauxford (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Go on then because you don't have any reason to do that anymore. I have added the photo which you claimed was not in the article. You'd just be told to discuss in the talk page. About the split, I did it after presenting my proposal and gaining agreement. U1 quattro  TALK''  18:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not concern about the split you done, I was on about how it isn't a big deal to use the same photo from the main model infobox and use it on it respective generation infobox as well. --Vauxford (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Because that just makes it repetitive in nature. Now that a photo of the R8 V10 coupé is in the respective heading. I don't think there should be any problem regarding photos, even if the photo of the R8 Spyder taken from the front was already in the article. U1 quattro  TALK''  19:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that me and U1Quattro served our time. I'm still don't like the idea of using a special edition model as the production model. Since this has become a deadlock I say we need a few more opinions about this. --Vauxford (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The main image should be representative enough that you could recognise one on the road if you saw it. If both variants are visually similar then use which ever is the clearer photo.
 * To me, the cars look pretty much the same. The standard model image has a messy background but the blue colour makes it standout enough. The white car has a similar background issue but also stands out just enough. The grey car has a clear background but the car itself has muted details. About the same to me. Toss a 3-sided coin and move on.  Stepho  talk 00:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. If he wants to be stubborn enough to argue and get both of us blocked for photos, then I don't know what to say. He has already damaged my credibility enough because of these stupid arguments. That image has already been used once and I rectified the issue. Now move on. If you want to complain about pre facelift Vs post facelift, then BMW 7 Series (E65) uses a post facelift image. So using pre facelift or a post facelift image isn't a big deal. U1 quattro  TALK''  04:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes but the chances of someone seeing a Audi RWS or Decennium is far more slimmer to seeing a normal R8. As mentioned. That like using a Ford Focus RS 500 for the Ford Focus infobox. That why I take such a dislike of U1Quattro choice of pictures. This layout which I done I find better because it still has the limtied edition models in their respective places while having a normal production version as it main front and rear picture. If one day I do find a facelifted Audi R8 then I would use that as the facelift example and keep the Decennium in a separate section. --Vauxford (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I was not saying that this is like using the RS 500, I can't tell the difference (at least from the front) between the RWS and the normal one. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It just something you wouldn't do unless you got no other picture in the Commons, it hard to describe. --Vauxford (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The Decennium also looks exactly the same from the front as a regular facelift one. I don't think using it is a problem. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I still want to see what others think about not just from this article but as a practise in general of using limited edition models as the representation of the automobile. --Vauxford (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a hard and fast guidance on using limited edition models, especially considering all the silly "launch edition" and colour based "limited edition" stuff automakers are coming out with. If I had to make a policy it would basically be no significant changes visible in the photo, wheels and colour do not count as significant. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Using the trending first edition models I find is fine because it just a normal production version of a car but with the extras from the top spec as standard. I'm more on about supercars and sports cars where making limited production variants or one-offs is common. --Vauxford (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For the general situation where models are visually distinct, I would agree with using only the standard model. However ...
 * For the Focus the RS 500 looks quite different to the standard Focus, therefore it is not appropriate to use an RS 500 as the representative image in the infobox.
 * For the R8, the RWS and the Decennium look identical to the standard R8, therefore it is entirely appropriate to use whichever photo is clearer - without regard to which of the 3 models it actually is.
 * Or to put it another way: Assume that I read this article this morning with any one of the 3 models in the infobox. Now if I was lucky enough to see an R8 on the street then I would recognise it is an R8 - regardless of whether it was a standard model, an RWS or a Decennium. The difference makes no matter in terms of recognising them. In fact, they looks so identical that if I saw an RWS and a Decennium side-by-side on the road then I probably couldn't tell them apart even with this article in front of me. The distinction between these images is meaningless and therefore arguing over which of these images is allowed is also meaningless. The Focus situation is completely different and is not a good parallel to draw conclusions from.  Stepho  talk 21:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Well if that the case, I guess this would be a exception for this car, I still dislike the practise as I find it lazy and make the article slightly tacky. However I think the blue car can be used over the red pre-facelift version which is from a show and it has lots of artificial lights and distraction around it and it also matches with the rear shot. --Vauxford (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I do agree that the blue car is the best photo of a pre facelift example I have seen. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is still meaningless as you have been explained multiple times that these models have no aesthetic differences. Plus it doesn't have any significant distractions around it like the blue car which is parked in the middle of a large parking lot. U1 quattro  TALK''  04:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes but from the looks of it, users prefer the blue car picture over the red one in the article. Coming back to the layout of the article, I'm not the only one who disagree with using limited production variant. As per Johannes comment, he pointed out that WP:CARPIX guideline which you have used before to try and justified your edits states; "However, the image must be representative; low-volume, obscure/unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image.". On top of that, he also pointed out how the Decennium model is quite different to both the pre-facelift and post-facelift production version as well as the RWS which you are using as the pre-facelift example, as per the article, is signified by a matte-black grille, matte-black front and rear airflow openings, and a gloss-black upper side blade. A red vinyl trim stripe that stretches from the front left to the right rear is optional (The picture illustrate that). Eddaido is another person who agrees with what I'm on about "how the main image should not be a limited production version even if it looks identical". Vauxford(talk) 10:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As Stepho said that there are very nominal differences between these "special" versions, using the images of those units is not a big deal. Plus the image of the red car is of higher quality and has a better background. As per the guideline you mentioned, it states the general usage of image. In special cases, limited edition model images which are aesthetically different can be used. Also, I wouldn't hold an editor's opinion on what should be used as the main infobox image as you quoted. However, I will change the image to some other image since you won't stop arguing which is getting out of hand. U1 quattro  TALK''  14:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As per your argument, I have used another image of the standard R8 V10 coupé. There is no problem with it and it is not taken at an auto show with fake "studio lights". As pointed out in your earlier comment, if you find the practise lazy, blame wiki commons for the lack of images on the subject matter. I'm not a car spotter, neither I intend to be one because I don't have time to waste over that. So if you think you can find better images of the subject matter, go on, be active and upload them on wiki commons. U1 quattro  TALK''  14:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I used the blue one based on the discussion and it seem that the best one based on a third opinion. It also matches with the rear end as well. It still irritating that whenever I say something, you twist my words up and then try to make my comment pointless by replacing a image that was never discussed in the talkpage. Like you did here. You already been told off for doing that. --Vauxford (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh so your excuse is that the photos don't have a matching rear end? Seriously? About your latest comment, since you couldn't stop complaining about photos of the pre facelift model and were arguing that the one I used had "fake lighting" so I used another one. U1 quattro  TALK''  15:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Well I guess we have to go back to square one, it clear that the blue one was agreed on in the original talkpage discussion. We almost solved this dispute if you didn't act so sly and used some random image that was never discussed on here, now we are back at the beginning and made things more difficult. I never said I agree with the CARPIX guideline I'm just saying that where the person got it from but cherry picking bits from the guideline and ignoring the ones quoted by the user, these are some dirty tricks you are playing right now and it just making yourself look bad. Also how is the blue picture is not a "standard V10 coupé." when it clearly is, it seem like you just trying everything to prevent the ones people are agreeing on being used. --Vauxford (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

it is the V10 Plus model, not the standard 5.2 FSI coupé. This shows that you don't have adequate knowledge about the subject matter. Yes I'm cherry picking, just like you are so who's playing the dirty tricks? I leave it up to the others. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * So you are just using everything, phrase, metaphors, assumption I say and turn it around against me? Tell me what I'm cherry picking at then, the quotes I used isn't, I simply quoted fully what other users said without removing any context? Is this how you treat other members? You mislead their comment and disrupt any attempt of civil discussion with other users and then you insult them for not knowing what things are? I seen you do that to other users on here before, it bullying-esque tactics to getting your own way. This is already breaching WP:OWN, you ignore the consensus and other comments on here and barriered off any attempt of people trying to make any sort of changes, good faith or not! What next, you going to turn around the sentence "This is already breaching WP:OWN" against me without any valid context? --Vauxford (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Civil discussion? You're the one who decided to be childish and take the matter to the admin discussion on the Toyota Hilux page. Then you got the idea about the talk page discussion and now you say I'm insulting you. I'll let others decide who's being the bad one here. I know my behaviour isn't the best out here but atleast other editors who were introducing changes had the decency to be involved in a talk page discussion. About the concensous, it wasn't reached just yet, you assumed it to be done and introduced the changes any how. About me using other photos, the photo of the red R8 wasn't involved in this discussion either. About WP:OWN, never did I say I own this page or any page that I have created. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That was simply a mistake I did, which I learnt from now. Regardless you are making things far more complicated now. From how you treat other users, it very much look you want to keep the article "your way". --Vauxford (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

My talk page is there if you want to see how I treat other users and how I reach a concensous. I'm done with this fruitless discussion. U1 quattro  TALK''  18:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Since when you have reached consensus? To me you use very aggressive tactics and talked down on people about how they don't know about something which they then usually walk away. For now I'm just going to seek consensus about using the blue image in the pre-facelift section as it matches the rear shot as well and it like any other Audi R8 V10 plus. It your fault for misleading and confuse users and preventing them giving a stable opinion. --Vauxford (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't talk down on anyone but to those who were disruptive. Go see on the talk page, you're claiming something that never happened. I can say the same about your behaviour which has been nothing short of aimed at damaging my credibility. I just pointed out that you were wrong in assuming that a R8 V10 plus is a standard R8. Shot matching isn't required while placing photos at all and neither there is any rule or guidance which encourages it. You said that there was an absence of a pre facelift R8 front image, that meant you were referring to the standard model. U1 quattro   TALK''  18:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Which I have been repented for and sticking to discussion based rather then simply edit warring. I'm doing anything but being disruptive, I just know how you do things your own with these aggressive tactics of yours and it unacceptable. --Vauxford (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * you're just shifting the blame. That's all. U1 quattro  TALK''  18:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford has summed up what I have said, except for the "photographical quality": The photo of the blue car in the car park is of better quality. Compare the focal lengths because focal length is an objective criterion. For a car photo, the focal length should be somewhat around 50 mm to 70 mm to get a result without viewing angle distortion, (and the camera should be held at human head height). --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help which I forgot to point out is that the previous image U1Quattro inserted without consensus is quite blurry which is what you expect for a vehicle in motion but the double vision on the wheels is off-putting. --Vauxford (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't blurry but now the other users say so, the blue image would be there. U1 quattro  TALK''  04:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)