Talk:BMW M3/Archive 2

RfC Discussion

 * Hi U1Quattro. To explain my comment question in the Edit Summary about the RfC being expired, I was saying that in the context of me not reverting an edit while an active discussion was happening (a courtesy which you fail to do, due to trigger-happy use of the "Undo" button). 1292simon (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * U1Quattro you might also note that with the RFC not coming to a consensus you need to justify why you are removing it. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean that you automatically assume that the content in dispute at the RfC is allowed . I have requested the closure of the RfC. Until then, addition of this content should be avoided. U1 quattro  TALK  04:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "requested the leisure of the RfC" I am not sure what that means? Toasted Meter (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I meant closure. Also, you wanted proof that I'm right? Here it is. U1 quattro  TALK  18:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The RfC was used as the justification for removing the G80 section. As a goodwill gesture, I did not fight your removal during this time. Now, over a month later without any sign of consensus, I have been quite patient in waiting to restore the section. 1292simon (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have requested some users for its closure. Hope its done in two to three days. U1 quattro  TALK  03:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Where are you finding this consensus? All I see in the close is "overwhelming consensus against speculation, there also seems to be tentative consensus that, under extraordinary circumstances of especial newsworthiness and especially strong secondary sources," the guy who runs BMW M is saying it, that is what I would call "especial newsworthiness and especially strong secondary sources". Toasted Meter (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The RfC closed without resolution, so there is no justification for U1Quattro to delete the section yet again. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's worth reviewing Wikipedia talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not here. There are the same arguments being used on both sides. Both the for and against sides have editors saying crystal ball policy as currently written forbids all "rumor", "speculation", as well as both sides having editors saying it allows that, within reason, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, etc. What is rumor or speculation? Some editors, on both sides, see the current policy as defining it as virtually any statement by anyone about the future, contrasted with other editors who define it narrowly as only poorly sourced, inexpert statements about future events. Some editors believe that there is no clear consciousness as to what the policy means, some say no, really, we all agree, and the policy is not confusing at all, not needing any change. Somehow?this is the second extended discussion of that policy recently, and if you search the archives, there are many more over the years, most of them equally indeterminate. For us here in the trenches, I don't see how we can cite WP:CRYSTAL in a meaningful way. It only begs whatever question you're asking. I'd avoid mentioning it, and instead only cite polices like V, WEIGHT, and NOR to justify or oppose adding facts like what the BMW executive said.I'm sure some will still say they oppose it and cite WP:CRYSTAL, but in response I can only shrug. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, WP:CRYSTAL is frequently mis-applied. Back to the G80 M3 section specifically, given that the RFC closed without any resolution to apply restrictions to upcoming models, I believe these 39 words can be restored to the article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This was the RfC resolution "While there does seem to be overwhelming consensus against speculation, there also seems to be tentative consensus that, under extraordinary circumstances of especial newsworthiness and especially strong secondary sources, this can be overridden." and according to this, the 39 words you added don't account for extraordinary circumstance because the G80 M3 or whatever it is called is just an object of inexpert statements with a BMW executive merely confirming that it is being developed in a brief manner. The development process is subject to change over time so it is improbable to add before the actual car is introduced. I don't know what you find so hard to digest over this RfC decision. Editors don't want speculative BS here, period. U1 quattro  TALK  19:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The switch to all-wheel drive is newsworthy and the BMW confirmation is a strong secondary source. Therefore it is not just speculation. 1292simon (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Mere confirmation doesn't count. Development procedure is subject to change overtime. The switch will only be news worthy when the car is announced. U1 quattro  TALK  03:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Newsworthy"? Wikipedia is not a newspaper and newsworthiness is not a criteria. This continues to be utter nonsense. It is a fact that BMW made an official announcement. When Elon Musk announced the Tesla Roadster (2020), the mere fact that he made such a brash claim under such theatrical circumstances was a notable event. Whether the car ships or not is irrelevant; the event happened. Musk's boasts and promises had an effect on Tesla and the wider industry. It was fodder for pundits and wags. BMW has publicly and official announced this vehicle. Investors can rightfully claim that they were misled if BMW doesn't ship the car. BMW's image will be harmed. Competitors' strategies will change. The announcement of the car is a past event, verified to have happened, an in a thousand years, that will remain true. The fact that they announced this car is not a rumor, not speculation.This obsession of yours is ridiculous, and we have any number of featured articles that violate your tortured reading of the policy against making predictions about the future. It's OK to refer to the future in Wikipedia articles; we only need to be clear that Wikipedia's voice is not promising what will or won't happen. That's all.You have had no success building consensus behind a ban on product announcements. It's not speculation or rumor; it comes from good sources. There's no reason for you to go on with this. Drop the stick. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this the edit in controversy? I contributed to the RfC above (I follow the RfC notice pages) and know next to nothing about cars apart from the fact mine starts up when I turn the key in the ignition, but I fail to see how this edit violates WP:CRYSTAL, as this is neither speculation, nor rumor, nor a standalone new article. (Please ping me, or else I'll probably forget I posted here.) SportingFlyer  T · C  08:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Where has BMW announced this vehicle officially? I just see one magazine bickering about that BMW M development head just confirmed what they were mulling about. The Roadster article is pure BS and should be deleted. It was also made way before this discussion was even started. Yeah, sure Wikipedia is not a guarantee of future events but what is the damn problem in waiting when the car is actually introduced?! The Roadster was atleast introduced in concept form and the company announced the official specifications. Contrary to that, the G80 or whatever it's called M3 does not exist yet. Not in concept or in any other form. It's only limited to imaginary renders and media reports full of claims. Yes it's common sense that BMW will be developing a new M3 based on the new 3 Series. The BMW M boss confirmed some specifications about what will be included but that is subject to change. When it changes, it'd be a credibility issue about the editors who edit here and we'd have other media blaming wiki and it's editors as lame and other stuff. You want proof? Go to the Casio F-91W page and see for yourself. I have said it before and would say it again. This car doesn't exist and we should wait until it is announced and then add information about it. U1 quattro  TALK  12:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which vehicle exactly are you talking about? I see potentially RS confirming the M3 and M4. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What M4? The F82 M4 is currently in production . This whole discussion is about these two to three lines which can be added once the car is actually introduced yet some editors want to be forceable over this. U1 quattro  TALK  13:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * since you're mulling over the Tesla Roadster, let's talk about facts. The Roadster is present on Tesla's official website. This new M3 is not. Customers can order the roadster with planned production to start sometime in 2020 just like the McLaren Elva, Rimac C Two, Chevrolet Corvette (C8) and Pininfarina Battista; not the case with this new M3. Tesla have announced official specifications and unveiled the car in flesh with some changes inevitable to happen in the future, not the case with this new M3 as it only exists in renders. There are a whole lot of differences between the two vehicles. U1 quattro  TALK  13:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If the car's in production, why wouldn't we talk about it on the page? WP:CRYSTAL discusses speculation (about article creation,) there's no speculation on whether the car gets produced, and if the car gets pulled out of production it will be notable at this point. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This car is neither in production, nor it is officially introduced. Other than the mere confirmation that it's in development stage, all things about it are hearsay. U1 quattro  TALK  15:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with SportingFlyer and Dennis Bratland that the section is worthy of inclusion. It has now been reworded to state events which have happened (i.e. the announcements). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * U1Quattro, "hearsay" does not mean what you seem to think it means. If a BMW official announced it exists, that announcement happened. It's a verifiable event. If the same official said the car can bend space and time, that announcement would have also happened. Hearsay would be if an official said it, but the only evidence we have that they said it was an unreliable tweet or blog or forum post. In this case, reliable sources told us they announced it, and that's good enough. We trust those reliable sources, especially since nobody disputes it. If we didn't trust reliable sources, if what they told us happened is "hearsay", we might as well delete 99% of Wikipedia. If we also had sources saying, "no, that announcement never happened", you might have some kind of point. Politicians often say things and deny they said them. That's a valid kind of disputed fact. But this is undisputed.I don't think extraordinary claims that haven't been verified by third parties should be given too much prominence, but I lost that battle on the subject of every word that drips from Elon Musk's lips. So we have to live with the fact that Wikipedia will not ignore product announcements. In this case, we are talking about a mininscule amount of content compared to the quantity of coverage we give to the 2020 Tesla Roadster, 20?? Tesla Semi and 20?? Cybertruck. We're treating the model year 20?????? truck's price of $39,900 as a fact, stated in Wikipedia's voice. This is nothing compared to that. BMW's S58 engine exists. Third parties have seen it and tested it. No reason to oppose this at all.Also, look up what hearsay means. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the damn car, not the engine. However, I wouldn't waste my time here in this type of discussion since you are resorting to absurd language. Also, everyone knows that the M3 is in development but it's not officially announced. Its not on the official BMW website neither customers can order it. Period. U1 quattro  TALK  03:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So your entire deal here is that you think when a company officer speaks to a reporter on the record, that's not "official". Official is only what's on the website? How did anything become official before websites existed?Let's pick on Elon Musk again. Why Elon Musk's tweets matter to the SEC. See, investors care very much about this kind of corporate officer utterance. If the reports of what the M Group Obergruppenführer said were false, BMW would have a duty to their investors to publicly correct that. Corporate officers can't just shoot their mouths off and expect nobody to take it seriously. Not to mention the fact that I'd much more trust what a live human says in words to another live human more than what appears on a website. Half the time the webmaster uploaded the wrong page and it's all garbage.official" is a nonsense term when you're talk about crap like websites or press releases. What makes it official is when a company officer says it. Officer is a legal term in the context of a public company. The words coming out of n officer's mouth, on the record, are what makes it official.Nobody disputes this. You're treating this like some kind of controversy and it's not. It's accepted as a well understood fact by everyone except you, personally. If it were in doubt, you'd be citing reliable sources saying it's in doubt. And by in doubt I mean, "did the officer say it?", not "will it ship?". We don't know if it will ship. Only crystal ball can say that. What we know is thaat BMW has publically committed to it. If they don't ship, they have to walk it back and that's a big deal. Our job is only to attribute it to the source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you realise what you're talking about? You're constantly bickering about Tesla yet you fail to realize that the vehicle you have been babbling about is on the OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF TESLA and that people can ORDER it unlike this BMW M3. Unlike BMW, Elon didn't confirm any of his vehicles via the automotive press. He held an event and introduced the damn car. The only thing I have seen him mull about recently is roasting Porsche with a prototype of the Tesla Model S and the Cybertruck banter which are scenarios very different than this. U1 quattro  TALK  04:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So we agree. You think what companies put on websites is the word of God, and nothing else counts. All there is to say is that you've pulled this criterion out of thin air. A website is just a website. There's nothing magic about it. It's a medium. Paper is a medium. Before websites, companies mailed or faxed paper press releases. But they also held press conferences, or officers were interviewed by reporters. They still are. Just another medium.If you could cite something that justified why you elevate websites to this all-knowing status, then you'd have a point. Otherwise, all you're saying is you personal dislike about the medium of the spoken word, but nobody else need get so hung up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't pulled out any criterion. You're trying to compare two entirely different things. I'm stating the differences. Also, where in the history of the site has an article been created when the vehicle didn't exist in physical form? The Tesla Roadster had it's article created when it was introduced in concept form. It didn't had it's article created when the media babbled about it's development. This car doesn't exist yet. It's merely confirmed. This is a very different case than the Tesla Roadster. U1 quattro  TALK  04:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Cough Apple electric car project. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Its an article with issues whose reliablilty was questioned on its talkpage. Yet it hasn't been taken seriously. WP:CRYSTAL was cited in defence of that article which has since been deemed inappropriate due to being unclear. U1 quattro  TALK  05:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You asked "Also, where in the history of the site has an article been created when the vehicle didn't exist in physical form?" I think this is quite a good answer to that question. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure. It does answer that and I think the RfC decision here pretty much applies to that article as well. U1 quattro  TALK  07:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I still don't see anything wrong with listing the car as confirmed here considering the sources look fine (to a non-car person.) It's not speculation or rumor. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The thing wrong with that is the object in question is just confirmed. It's not announced nor it exists in physical form. U1 quattro  TALK  08:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So, why should we care? You seem to have declared that to be some kind of rule/test based on? Wikipedia has many pages on things that do not or may not exist List of particles, Hypothetical types of biochemistry, Tyche (hypothetical planet), here is a list of pages about technologies that do not exist List of hypothetical technologies.


 * WP:WEIGHT says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I don't see any reliable sources saying that the new M3 is not going to be produced or that it will be an EV or something. Reliable sources quite unanimously say that Markus Flasch said the things that are attributed to him and that him saying these things are indicative of the forthcoming production and specifications of the M3. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * And what exactly is wrong in waiting for the damn car. Okay, I get that it's going to be introduced. I never opposed that. I oppose the inclusion as the freaking thing is just hypothetical. Technology and a car are two different contexts. The Apple car project article presented in defence of this whole damn argument has been nominated for deletion multiple times. It's about existence as the Tesla Roadster, which has been quoted here as justification of this information exists in physical form. U1 quattro  TALK  13:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Nominated and kept. You actually have to give a reason consistent with policy, as you should be able to tell, physically existing is not a prerequisite for mention on Wikipedia. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we can settle this by simply asking the Reliable Sources Noticeboard whether or not an on-the-record interview by the CEO of M division Markus Flasch is in any way not "official". Though "official" isn't really a meaningful term in Wikipedia editing. It's a verifiability question of a) are the media sources who reported what Markus Flasch said reliable?, and b) is Flasch an authority on this topic? I think as a source this will be seen in light of Wikipedia's FUTON bias and the policy of WP:SOURCEACCESS, and the broader issue of systemic bias, that Wikipedia suffers from over-reliance on what can be easily pulled up in your web browser, excluding sources via other channels so that we see the world through a blinkered, distorted lens.On the other hand, if the WP:RS/N says, no, it's gotta be up on the BMW website or it didn't happen, well, then problem solved. Either way, that's the crux of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't help. U1Quattro would keep deleting the section anyway. He simply doesn't want any mention of a model until it has been released, and doesn't seem to care whether this position is supported by Wiki policy or not. 1292simon (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to assume good faith that U1Quattro would respect such a decision. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure. U1Quattro is welcome to argue get a ruling at RSN if he wishes. In the meantime, the section should be restored to the article (innocent until proven guilty, and the G80 content has been in the article since June). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The disputed content should not be restored until a decision is made on this. Also please read the tags on my user page, it'd come in handy when you attach a pronoun next to my username. The only problem I see here is patience. People cannot wait until a car is introduced and they cannot wait until a decision is made about disputed content. This behavior is ridiculous. U1 quattro  TALK  09:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Folks, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard topic has been created here: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. And it turns out to be just a WP:FORUMSHOP of the whole crystall ball argument. It has nothing to do with the reliability of a quote by the CEO of BMW M division. My request to restore the section is perfectly reasonable. I waited through the RfC out of courtesy, despite the text complying with current policy. It would not be fair for the section to remain deleted while U1Quattro keeps trying new delaying tactics. It is U1Quattro's behaviour of knee-jerk reverting any other editor's change that he disagrees with that is ridiculous. 1292simon (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You didn't wait through the decision of the RfC. You added the disputed content on the basis on the fact that the RfC had expired. I had to do the efforts of closing it since you'd not stop adding the disputed content. Your behaviour is of point scoring here. You aren't going any efforts to start a discussion at the relevant noticeboards or even closing RfCs related to the said discussion. You behaviour had been funny ever since I came across you. You discuss a thing on talk pages, agree with the other's points and then start adding he same thing once again. Just like you are doing on the BMW M8 and BMW M6 pages. You don't even respond to your talk page messages. It's you who is adding unfavorable content here. U1 quattro   TALK  18:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, I had to write what had been discussed. I didn't write anything about WP:CRYSTAL there in my initial discussion request. U1 quattro  TALK  18:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You could stop edit warring over 65 words. You've deleted mention of the G80 at least 15 times . Please stop. I don't think 1292simon should re-add them either, but if someone else does, take a step back. You are not Wikipedia's sole protector and if you're right, somebody else will step up. Stop rehashing past grievances and focus on the crux of the problem: you say words spoken by the CEO are not official until they appear on the website. Forget the rest. Clarify that question and the dispute is resolved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This little chunk of text truly ought to be included. Including it does not mean that a million vaporware articles will suddenly appear.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This little chunk of text is about a future event that may or may not happen. It should be included when it happens. That's my point. U1 quattro  TALK  06:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Future events are not prohibited, we have a page on the next World Cup (and the 2034 FIFA World Cup) despite it not having been played yet, we can do this because reliable sources say that it will occur, even without knowing the ultimate winner a page about the event can exist. You need to find some kind of Wikipedia policy that supports this view, because vehemently disliking something is not a good reason for it to be removed. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have seen that first the automobile was introduced and then information was added about it. What's the problem in waiting now when the thing is confirmed and introduced? That is my point. U1 quattro  TALK  13:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that reliable sources say the car is going to be made, there is no policy reason not to add it and many editors want to. Saying that you don't like it or that this is somewhat out of the ordinary is not a reason to remove it. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Exactly: it's one editor's opinion, nothing taken from sources. No reliable sources call the CEO's announcement "rumor" or "speculation". None of them cast doubt on whether or not BMW will be capable of delivering this car by 2020 or 2021.One of the ways Wikipedia works is that if none of us was here and a completely different random sample of editors wrote it, they'd tend to eventually approach a similar article because they are using the same methodology with the same input from the same sources. If a non-fringe minority of sources cast doubt, then any random group of editors would take that into account. When our best sources think the CEO's announcement can be taken at face value, then any random sample of editors would follow suit. It doesn't mean Wikipedia writing "It will happen"; it means saying "BMW has said they will ship the car".If the medium was BMW's website, nothing would change. We would still write "BMW has said they will ship the car". Is it certain? Of course not. But the medium of the CEO's words or the website aren't what makes it certain or not. My whole problem with cars like the 2020 Tesla Roadster is that large numbers of expert sources have cast doubt on the extraordinary performance claims, and they argued that it might be technically or financially impossible, and that Tesla's financial woes gave them a motive to hype a car to boost their stock price, calm nervous creditors, and attract millions of dollars in deposits on the future car, and finally that Musk had a history of promising much more than Tesla ultimately delivered. Even when it's on Tesla's website: doubt comes from the boasts of unprecedented performance, and from sources who urge a grain of salt.No sources say the feat of building another M3 is beyond BMW's capabilities, or that they have a motive to lie, or that they have a history of promising cars they can't ship. Things like the 500+ horsepower claim are extraordinary, which is why we should draw the line there, and not mention it until we get better independent verification.The bottom line is that "Believe Tesla or BMW only when it's on their website" is baseless, arbitrary. Websites are not magical, and they don't impart officiality to anything. Tesla has in the past promised one thing on their hallowed website, and later delivered somewhat less. You can overhype on a website just as easily as you can on any other medium. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Then why did you compare Tesla with the new M3 when you now admit that it's a different case? WP:CRYSTAL prohibits rumour and speculation. 1292simon adding sentences such as "The G80 M3 will have 500+ hp" is speculation which is not confirmed by anyone and is just spread by the automotive press. You had made an absurd comparison before and now admit it was BS in the first place. U1 quattro  TALK  06:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * CEOs have confirmed lot of things in the past. Prime examples are Jaguar saying that they are developing the C-X75 and Lotus saying that they would develop a new Esprit and then both making none of those cars. Now you saying that Tesla does the same thing makes the comparison with BMW utterly pointless. I'm not saying BMW won't make the new M3. They'd make one, I accept that. But writing that it would have 500+ horsepower is speculative BS and not allowed here. We should include what is confirmed. Not what is the rumour. U1 quattro  TALK  06:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:CRYSTAL recently? Anyways let's add what is confirmed, perhaps something like this,


 * BMW have announced that M3 version of the G20 3 Series is due to begin production in late 2020, powered by the BMW S58 turbocharged straight-six engine that debuted in the F97 X3 M. All-wheel drive (xDrive) has been announced as being optional on the G80 M3, which would represent the first time that an M3 has used a drivetrain layout other than rear-wheel drive.


 * What do you think is unverifiable? I might drop the 2020 production start, it could also specifically attribute things to Markus Flasch. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The 2020 production thing because the press is divided on that long with the X3M engine. Yes I have read the revised WP:CRYSTAL. U1 quattro  TALK  10:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Removing 2020 sounds fine, the S58 seems strongly supported with Markus Flasch saying "This S58 engine will of course be the base for M3 and M4" . Toasted Meter (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. U1 quattro  TALK  11:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you think it needs any other changes before being added? Toasted Meter (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The G80 thing needs to go. It hasn't been confirmed. U1 quattro  TALK  17:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus! Good work everyone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Objections? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate to see yet another revert. So everyone agrees with this addition?


 * I think this would be better than 2020, as I have seen both 2020 and 2021 in reliable sources. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

<P>
 * Yes, they said production begins in late 2020 and sales in 2021, so we don’t want to create any impression that it will ship before 2021. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ better? Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That seems good. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with it. Probably much better than the content being added before. U1 quattro  TALK  14:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I added it. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Production status of the M3
While the addition of an upcoming generation of the M3 was allowed, it DOES NOT mean that the M3 is currently in production. One cannot simply say it is in production when the latest generation ended production nearly 2 years ago. The infobox should reflect the latest production status rather than mislead the users about the production of the variant. When the new generation of the M3 is unveiled and begins production, the production status can be updated. U1 quattro  TALK  01:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

E46 M3 In Need For Speed
The appearance of the M3 in Need for Speed is notable and is covered by source unlike what likes to think. It is not a common trivia and has merit to be mentioned in the article. U1 quattro  TALK  12:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . I agree that the use of the M3 GTR for the cover art and as the "hero" car is significant. Otherwise, the normal inclusion of a car in a racing game might be significant in the context of the game's article but not that of the car. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * So why did you remove it ? U1 quattro   TALK  04:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That is not correct, please check the edit in question carefully. The content about the M3 GTR hero car was not removed, only the references to other games where the M3 made an unnotable appearance. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The M3 made an appearance in those games due to it appearing in Need for Speed Most wanted and Carbon. If you don't know the context of the edit, don't edit that and cause disruption. U1 quattro   TALK  16:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware of the context of the edit. Could you please follow WP:AGF and not assume that the purpose of the edit was to disrupt? Also, could you please provide sources supporting the claim that it appeared in the other games for this reason, and why these appearances are significant in the history of the M3? 1292simon (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The M3 GTR using this livery that debuted on Most wanted and the fan fare is the reason as you can see here with EA themselves responding about the M3 GTR's accuracy as in Need for Speed Most Wanted.


 * I have no reason to assume good faith about you when you're violating WP:HOUNDING. U1 quattro   TALK  09:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF is a mandatory part of editing Wikipedia, not something that you choose to follow or not. Regarding the source you listed, internet forums are not WP:RS. 1292simon (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Violating a policy does not give you a chance to use WP:AGF in your reference. About the site, I posted that because you asked about the relevance of the M3 GTR's subsequent appearance in other News For Speed titles. U1 quattro  TALK  11:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CARTRIVIA, media appearances are only notable if they had an influence on a tangible aspect of the vehicle. By that measure, Simon's removal was correct. However, did the appearance as the cover art and "hero car" in Need for Speed have an impact on the M3 itself? --Sable232 (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it increased the sales of the E46 M3 as it was still sold at the time Most Wanted launched. If we go by WP:CARTRIVIA, then the appearance of Aston Martins in James Bond movies did not have any impact on the sale of those automobiles, unless Aston Martin launched a special edition for sale related to an appearance in a James Bond movie. Same goes for the rest of the cars that appeared in those movies, like the BMW Z3 and the Lotus Esprit. U1 quattro   TALK  04:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . It is not established that even the "hero car" had a tangible impact on the M3 itself, so I would support that being removed too. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither did James Bond have any impact on the sales of Aston Martin or any other vehicle that made an appearance in it. The same applies to movie appearances of most of the automobiles listed on wiki.  U1 quattro   TALK  16:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi U1Quattro. Plese see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What I'm discussing is relevant. If this didn't have a tangible impact on the M3 then same applies to James Bond movies. U1 quattro   TALK  03:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This issue at hand is the M3 and the Need For Speed video games, not Aston Martin and the James Bond movies. As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the current state of another article is not a valid justification here. 1292simon (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)