Talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration

Issue with this article

Out of honesty, I preferred this "list" when it was about the fastest production cars by acceleration, now this "article" is simply another original research article tailored for teenage bedroom wall dreamers. My biggest criticism with this article is that "today" is far too subjective for an article, from what do you mean as "today" and when did the "today" era began - to me, all these were a progression since the beginning of the motorcar. This article reminds me of the former supercar article. Also, the McLaren F1 wasn't deliberately "Limited to 100 produced", they were discontinued after 106 cars after selling a fraction of their original goal right when the global recession was still in effect. Donnie Park (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The title change needs to be reverted. This is not encyclopedic by any measure. As far as I can tell there was no discussion for this move. It looks like the article move was done by some kind of cut and paste because all the talk page comments are gone. Not sure of the best approach to revert or request that be done. Bahooka (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally I do support reverting it as Wikipedia does not need another WP:OR article but I think this article is at best WP:AFD as there is nothing encyclopedic left in this article. Donnie Park (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally am a little concerned with these self-made, prone to original research, pretty arbitrary and difficult to validate lists, I have made clear I'm against them in some past discussions. I know Wikipedia consensus is paramount but, in my opinion, at some point is necessary to define if the project will still describe itself as an "encyclopedia" or will become something else. Having said that, if the list is kept I agree it should be reverted to the prior title and content. At least that gives a relatively clear-cut criteria for inclusion. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Many cars had been lacking verified data, others were lacking the manufacturer's claims. All of those gaps are now thoroughly completed. Three 2017 models are added to ready the new year's publishing now due.
• Data sources unreliable were removed, only credible journalism was used such as the major car journals which perform rigorous testing, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Road and Track (in that order of frequency). Few other journals were used and only needed for certain cars which were there also using instrumentation and so were also reliable sources.
• All speed data in the first two tables are now complete (a total of 52 referenced citations from reliable sources regarding each element of speed data).
• Data entered on top speed and rarest cars is already thoroughly complete -- preliminarily using what's available on each car's article page so that sources can be less of a problem.
• All 56 references are properly formatted in the same way, all rechecked April-May 2016, to include name of the author, date of the article, title, website, date retrieved; each title is directly from the source's html page code.
• Note is made on cars which are included on one table but not another (whether because of incomplete data or ineligible data), to avoid thinking that the car had been omitted in error.
• A compilation of this kind is not available anywhere else on the Internet.

Altanner1991 (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a contentious series of edit and a contentious move. There has been no discussion of whether this list article should be changed to what Altanner1991 thinks it should be, and there is clearly no consensus that the move should be made. Restoring the move to Today's fastest cars is a contentious move against talk page consensus. Meters (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally disagreed with it but had not been aware of any serious changes to it until yesterday when I realized the title was changed. When I saw this, my thought was this has become the bastard child of the pre-2008 Supercar article. I originally removed the WP:OR top speed and rarity part as I feel they have no business to be on this list (should be elsewhere and there already a list for the former) but self-reverted it because I have decided it is at best a WP:AFD candidate as nothing here is sourced except for performance data. Also I believe there was an edit-warring between Altanner1991 and F-16 Viper, am I correct there? Donnie Park (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Viper ended up with a CU block, the other a 3RR block. Note that an unblock was requested but rejected with the the comment by User:Ohnoitsjamie "Next time, use the talk page. If you continue to edit war after the expiration of this block, your next block will be for a longer duration." The wholesale hijacking of the article without discussion and the repeated move against consensus need to be undone and discussed. Meters (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As an occasional contributor (anonymous, but always using the same IP) I have to say that I think Altanner1991 has overall done a rather good job of cleaning up this list, but I agree that he seems to "edit war" with other contributors and isn't as consistent with his own rules as he could be. Again, I think he has really improved the article compared to what it was a year ago (filled with vaporous claims about people's pet kit-cars and such). But it appears that he has taken this page as belonging only to him (bad) and has done a good job of making rather strict criteria for inclusion (good), but only loosely applying those same criteria to his own pets (bad). Although I think Altanner1991 is a great contributor here and really appreciate all the cleanup he's done, he shouldn't be allowed to control every single aspect of the page, especially given his apparent bias toward one manufacturer. (I say "apparent", because obviously I could be misunderstanding his edits and the motivation behind them.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.61.250 (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted to the original article title, as the "today's fastest cars" is decidedly unencyclopedic and silly. Do not change the title unless there is a consensus to do so. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Carrera GT 1/4 mile time

I think the Carrera GT should be restored on the 1/4 mile list, as it is shown here to do the 1/4 mile in 11.2 seconds @132 mph, which fits the (arbitrary?) criteria listed at the top of the article. The 0-60 of 3.5 does not. Source: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/porsche-carrera-gt-road-test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.61.250 (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Tesla

It needs to be reiterated here, some of the requirements of this article: "Because of the inconsistencies with the various definitions of production cars, dubious claims by manufacturers and self interest groups, and inconsistent or changing application of the definitions this list has a defined set of requirements. For further explanation of how these were arrived at see the above links." It is premature to place the newest Tesla upgrades here, _yet_. These are only "expected" times from a manufacturer press release. There has been no verified timing of this, either from Tesla themselves or a third party. Achromatic (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)