Talk:Red Bull X2010

This IP is inserting game-guidish content...


See. An anon is inserting game-guidish content, as well as the Template:Racing car template in the article - as if the X2010 was a real racing car. Can anyone handle this? The Junk Police (reports|works) 14:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Where it sais 'category', shouldn't it say none, since this car is built to no racing regulations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchellZ (talk • contribs) 09:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean 'built'? --Falcadore (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, good point, i mean 'designed' 202.45.119.23 (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC) ^Forgot to log in ;) SchellZ (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Image
I have added an image of the vehicle to expand the article. G₩PSP 090  7thAdvisory  09:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone has removed the image of the Red Bull X2010. Apparently, it was done unintentionally, in order to degrade the quality of the page. If anyone would re-upload the X2010 image and post it on the page, would be greatly appreciated. JMBZ-12 (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unintentionally? It may have been removed because it was too large for WP guidelines. I can see if I can obtain another image and upload it - and comply with WP guidelines, of course. 'Ikkian' | 'talk' | contributions  02:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm sure finding an image of the Red Bull X2010 with the appropriate size (not too large or too small) would be useful. JMBZ-12 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential plagiarism
I did a bit of cleanup, but it looks like much more is needed. A recent IP edit from a currently banned IP seems to have plagiarised a large amount of content. I found several sections where I could verify the text had been directly copied ("increase low and medium-speed downforce (much like a vacuum cleaner)." for example) and removed them, but the other sections which are not cited may be plagiarised as well. This needs to be cleaned up, or I will remove the questionable content wholesale where I can't easily find a suitable replacement. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since nobody edited, I reverted all the anon IP's edits. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Vettle promotion
It should be put in that a x2010 is being given away to celebrate seb's championship win with the red bull livery on gt5 and put it on the gt5 page as well. (120.144.188.226 (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Seems relatively non-notable to me. This article is barely notable as it is, a single in-game giveaway is even less so. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

X2011
Would it be appropriate to state that the Red Bull X2011 was recently revealed on October 11th, 2011 on the Gran-Turismo.com website as "DLC"? Will this article be renamed when it comes out or will the X2011 have it's own article? I suggest in the future changing this article to something along the lines of "Red Bull X Series". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.229.197 (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the cars are notable enough on their own to be worth two articles. I figure a section on the X2011 can simply be added to this article for the time being, and once they release more information on the 2011 version we can decide how to rename the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Racing Car
I think, despite this car not being built outside of a video game, it, in theory, could be. Although this car isn't in any particular class of racing cars, it could still have an infobox showing the few stats that are definitively known, such as dimensions, designers, gears... etc. etc. If you look hard enough, you can find a lot of information about this car, and the people describing it, namely Adrian Newey, treat it as a real car, as, in theory it could be realistically built using the in game car as a guide, and it would perform the same in both the game and real life. In the game it is featured in, I am pretty sure that there is some statistical information that is given, and you can find info about it at Gran-Turismo's website. I am trying to remain neutral, but I feel that just because this car is only in a video game, doesn't mean we have to limit the information that we show about it, especially considering that the game it is in, Gran-Turismo 5, has the goal of being the most realistic racing video game out there, so why not show what we know? Please either put the info-box back, or tell me why not having an infobox is more helpful than having one. Thanks. Googol30 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When it actually competes in a race the infobox can be considered. Until then it should be grouped together with other fictional race cars like Speed Racer's Mach 5 or Star Wars Phantom Menace's Pod Racer. To suggest it would perform in real life the same way it does in a game is an assumption which is against Wikipedia policy. Gran-Turismo is fiction and has no bearing on real life. It should also be mentioned the Red Bull X2010 is also not legal for any racing formula currently in existance so if it was built it would have nothing to race against. Why not show what we know? For the very simply reason is that we do NOT know. It is a simulation, not reality. Any statistical data in existance is based on assumed performance, not actual performance.
 * The racing car infobox gives it a legitimacy it does not deserve. It also details a racing history which is completely non-existant. --Falcadore (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think if used properly, the infobox could be used. It should take into account the concern to not imply that the car was actually built. Competition history, for example, should be left off because the car never competed. If that is not acceptable, perhaps a 'fictional/concept race car' infobox could be built and used instead. If that's the case, what would the difference from the current infobox be?
 * That said, using an infobox for such a use is not unheard of. Most concept cars use 'real car' infoboxes, despite many of them never actually housing the engines planned for them (many concept cars are simply empty shells produced just for show). As such, the fact a scale replica was built, IMO, puts this in the same category as a concept car. There are other cars, namely those from Future GPX Cyber Formula which also use the infobox for fictional cars, and should likely follow the same rules. Yes, I'm aware that just because it's done elsewhere doesn't mean we can/should do it here. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Missing the point - it is NOT by any description a racing car. --Falcadore (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a concept race car that has only been built in silhouette form, similar to the concept cars at many trade shows which use the road car infobox.
 * Again, if there were to be a 'fantasy race car' infobox, what would the difference from the current infobox? Is your opposition that it should have its own infobox, or no infobox at all? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My position is it should not have an infobox stating it is a racing car. This is not Gamerpedia, there are plenty of Game focussed Wikis out there to create fantasy statistics for.
 * I would suggest that Infobox VG character would be far more appropriate. --Falcadore (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that standpoint be more along the lines of saying the article shouldn't exist at all or be folded into the GT5 article, rather than whether it should use an infobox as a race car?
 * A virtual car is not a 'character', nor would that infobox give much useful information. Again, I would be willing to create a 'fictional car' infobox, but what would actually be different about it? Aside from a location for the source material, I can't think of anything. I think I would likely base it on infoboxes such as Template:Infobox fictional vehicle. Would you feel any additional differentiation would be needed? What would it need to include or remove to not raise opposition to the infobox due to 'giving it a legitimacy it does not deserve'? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between Super Mario and the Red Bull X2010? Aren't they both representations of the game player within the game? What defines a character or not a character, whether a game designer paints a mouth on the game element or not? Something as arbitrary as that? It's absoluely appropriate is it fulfills the same role as Sonic the Hedgehog or Kyle Katarn.
 * Personally while I have no real objection to a fictional car infobox (depending on the parameters within it, because of breadth of potential subject it would not be able to be very technical, it would mainly describe its place in fiction and the medium it exists in to be relevant) I do not believe there are enough of them in Wikipedia to justify their own infoxbox. Bearing in mind it would have to be flexible enough to cover cars like the Mach 5, KITT, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, the Street Hawk motorcycle, Stephen King's Christine, Lightning McQueen and Roary the Racing Car. --Falcadore (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mario is the character, a racing car is something the player drives. The driver is the character, not the car itself, in most cases. That said, check the VG character infobox, it doesn't have anything relevent to the car-like properties. I think it might end up actually being part of the 'fictional vehicle' infobox, which is currently focused around spaceships only.
 * I think you name quite a good number of fictional cars, for which an infobox might be useful. See also List of fictional automobiles. I'm sure I could make one generic enough to cover all fictional cars, regardless how much or how little technical information is available. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Red Bull X2010 (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Red Bull X2010 (redirect) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)