Talk:BMW 5 Series (G30)

Production in Infobox
Having just sourced and provided the previously nonexistent start of production date for the current 5 Series, it is also welcome in the infobox and not solely the prose. I favor both, simply because readers will mostly glance at infobox and call it a day. Some of the rest will look at the first few paragraphs and feel they've got enough info. Hiding production information within the article doesn't really help inform them about the timeline upon first sight. Thus: It is not Wikipedia standard for the automotive infobox, to not be allowed to include production months+years and instead, in a separate section. Over 80% of Automotive articles with production sections included, have months within them, but not the full date included as stated by. Three users having a discussion among themselves independent of myself and Stepho-wrs, does not exactly dictate how article inboxes are configured across Wikipedia, since it is not even listed here. A much deeper discussion, with a widespread panel of users and not just a few out of many, would be a more proper form of consensus being firmly established. A dispute resolution might end up needing to be opened, on the premise this is not even the standard across this site anyway and is being pushed regardless. It is somewhat disruptive, to be undoing work of a user, when it doesn't particularly violate existing guidelines. Carmaker1 (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Huh? I agree with what you said - apart from where you say I disagree with you. says "Dates should be expressed in years (for example, 2001–2006) or in months and years (for example, April 2001 – November 2006). Full dates should not be used in the production field of the infobox (for example, 7 April 2001 – 16 November 2006); full dates can be stated in the body of the article." Which is what I have upheld for a long time.
 * You have put this same comment on 4 articles. Better to put it on one and then the other talk pages can have links to the one discussion. Or raise it at project page if you want more visibility.  Stepho  talk 08:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think there is some miscommunication LOL. I 200% support fully what you pointed out to me last month, and I actually pinged you mistakenly across multiple talk pages for some in input. Thank you for responding, despite that and for your Project Page suggestion.--Carmaker1 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No prob.  Stepho  talk 04:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think it's fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input Toasted Meter, as I didn't think there would be an issue with the format I followed. I do understand if mentioning it too many times in the prose, is excessive. As for the infobox, it should be fine I imagine, so I was puzzled understandably. Thanks again.
 * Putting months into the production field of the infobox is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input JM, I thought so too. In fact, I'm not really sure what is going on with that all of a sudden becoming an issue. As long as good citations are provided, I would think there would be no issue. My general idea is to provide both in some areas. Like Stepho-wrs helpfully warned me about and reiterated above, this is correct. Provided a full date of 2 November 2016 isn't included, which I understand fully.--Carmaker1 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Development Information
I want to embark on some research regarding G30 development, but I have to wonder if some of it might be considered excessive to add to an article? I don't want to format it like a sales brochure or marketing junket, just straightforward information about start to finish. If anyone is interested in chiming in, that would be nice.--Carmaker1 (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image


I disagree with your replacement over the one taken by me. Although it a nicer, less reflective colour as well as quieter background but the crop is too tight. I'm not suggesting of getting rid of it since it a good photo of a non-M Sport example with different exterior design whilst my one is the M Sport one. My suggestion is to put back the previous image on infobox and put your one in the Body styles section next to the long wheelbase model. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As you say, less reflective and a much less busy background. I chose to crop it where I did, so obviously I do not agree on that one, but I do agree that where to crop is subjective. Anyhow, the crop is of much less importance than the other qualities imho. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You haven't answered my question. My proposal is to switch the previous image as the infobox one, but use yours in the body style section as a non M Sport example. The non M Sport example exterior design is very distinctive compare to the M Sport one. Or alternatively, the replaced image will remain and use the grey M Sport one in the body style section. I'm gonna post this on the Project talkpage for others to express their thoughts. --Vauxford (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that the better picture should be in the main box.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think a picture of a base model should be used in the infobox. That's why I prefer the white one.--Alexander-93 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * They grey one looks better because of its more realistic viewing angle. However, it is not ideal. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally use a tripod; unless it is a weird situation I situate the camera at eyeball level of a 180cm person. Not sure what more can be done...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yet again, you still haven't mention anything about my suggestion of putting the grey image in the body style section, it clear that the white example should stay as infobox. --Vauxford (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't realize. And yes, that works great.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

My preference would be the white car for the infobox pic. The grey car has a cluttered background that distracts the eye. The white car has a nondescript background which does not distract from the car itself. Both pictures are otherwise fine.  Stepho  talk 21:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Why would you use a tripod in a well-illuminated place? Looking through the viewfinder usually ensures that the camera is on human eyeball level. Anyway, what I mean is not the height of the camera (which is fine in your pic), but the distance from the object with your lens's focal length, and the angle from which the picture was taken. I am convinced that you stood too close, and not in the right position – frankly speaking, I find it easier to take car pictures with greater focal lengths; try using something in the 70 to 85 mm range (if using a 35 mm camera which I know you own), and looking at the car rather from an acute angle. The viewing angle isn't ideal either in Vauxford's picture, but due to his camera's crop factor, it has a "greater focal length" effect that makes the picture look more natural in my opinion. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There was not a ton of lighting (overcast and drizzly), but there was still some glare so I used a polarizing filter (=blocking even more light). The tripod also allows me to take two pictures with the polarizer in different positions and merge them in photoshop, minimizing glare in a natural manner. The tripod also allows me for more depth of field and using 50 ISO, minimizing noise and showing detail on the entire car. The exposure time was 1/6 second, impossible to do by holding the camera.


 * As for location, I have been told a thousand times not to stand to far away and zoom in because it looks unnatural, with this old photo of mine being a prime example of what not to do. For the BMW photo I stood about a car length away from the nearest corner of the car, hardly an unnatural place. The human eyeball's field of view is generally described as between 35 and 50mm, so 50mm is really the maximum desirable zoom. Here is a little article on it. Next time I have a chance to spend my time on a car I will take several photos at different distances; it will be interesting to see what comes out as the most useful. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose photography is very subjective and hardly something that you can do "right". Your Volvo pic was taken with a 144 mm focal length equivalent, which I think is too much from that particular position where you stood (80° angle maybe?). As I have said, I'd choose an acute angle; this is a Volvo 245 that I have taken a picture of back in 2019. I don't know exactly what angle this is, but it definitely is acute (45° maybe?). The technical quality of your photograph itself is fine (far less noisy than my pics, and greater depth of field), but I'd argue that it's difficult to see what the car looks like. Possibly, the "headlamp" rule helps: both headlamps should be well-visible. I'd take a picture like this one, or like this one. But I don't have a G30 pic at hand, and since I was very lucky last monday not to get shot dead (earlier that day I had been at Schwedenplatz), I currently don't really want to go out more than necessary… Either way, best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I miss my Volvo 245. I think I agree that a touch more headlight would be good, but it was easier when cars had straighter fronts. With soap bar designs it's hard not to have one headlight melt away. Be safe; post-election US still feels a bit jittery as well. Luckily I spend most my time in Harlem where the risk of encountering trigger happy Trump supporters is quite low.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Successor of BMW 5 Series (G30)
The BMW 5 Series (G60) will be launched in 2023. Bachelor 200 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)