Jump to content

Talk:Audi Q5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.119.159.60 (talk) at 10:33, 29 June 2022 (→Infobox image: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The article says the Q5 will compete with the Mercedes-Benz B-Class, but what about the X-Class? —Vespristiano 22:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added template message boxes to Audi Q5 ABT section, which seems to be an advert. The ABT tuning company is independent of VW Group and bears no official relation to the car in question, certainly no more than any other tuning company in the world.

Size

Why it's written that q5 is a mid-size crossover, it's compact one, it competes with compact crossovers such as bmw x3 and mercedes-benz glk (not with mid-size crossovers like mercedes-benz ml or bmw x5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.229.101 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Audi Q5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Audi Q5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Audi Q5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Audi Q5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image revert

Current infobox image
Alexander-93's suggested improvement

Okay, here we go again. @Vauxford: replaced a more or less fine image firstly. I accepted this contribution since in my opinion his images are a little bit better. What I think is not okay, is how he reverted my replacement of another image. I think this is an obvious improvement, but he just goes on a personal level (again). The image I inserted is less washed out, and the Q5 has less reflections. Probably therefore it was featured as QI and VI on Commons. The fact that is the latest version doesn't matter and I'm totally fine with this argument, although I never noted that argument. The argument of the long standing image doesn't matter as well. I don't want to have this discussion on a personal level, but from an objective point of view. I listed the arguments above and if there is an agreement, I would insert it again.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The black Q5 with the Stuttgart number plate is better suited for the infobox. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The black is reflective and dull just like most of your photos. Also bias much? You two are both German and wanted cars to show German plates, and correct me if I'm wrong but you also worked together photographing the same cars at some point. Your comment isn't sufficient enough reason to replace the image. Alexander isn't even active on the English Wikipedia, he just drive-by here every 1-2 months to dump his photos where 8/10 they are subpar at the best of times and the only time I ever see Johannes is when he defended his friend on these talk page discussions. The fact I don't even want to touch the German Wikipedia with a 10-foot pool just from the unwelcoming and rude atmosphere, all because I didn't speak your language, I don't see the harm in making Alexander's presence here unwelcoming as well. --Vauxford (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to stay out of image consensus discussions because it's always gets unnecessarily heated, but here I couldn't resist not to voice my opinion. @Vauxford: your images usually looks impressive but frankly this isn't one of them. I've noticed you're the one that is usually concerned with blur photos and and this one is actually quite noisy and washed out. I agree that Alexander-93's image is an obvious replacement, it's sharper and less wet as well. Although if I could pick another image I would pick this:
Andra Febrian (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Argumenta ad hominēs are boring, and I suppose you know this, Vauxford. Your 2017 photograph leaves much to be desired – it is very noisy, blurry, and full of artefacts. The lens's focal length is small (I'd say a tad too small), yet, there are chromatic abberations visible. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original image is washed out (making the concave door sections hard to pick out and looking slab-sided) but is otherwise good. In particular, it stands out from the background. The beaded raindrops do show up in the full image but not in the thumbnail. The raindrops do cause artefacts but are only obvious in the full-size image.
The proposed facelift image has a lot of glare but the concave door sections do standout. The car tends to blend into the corrugated iron in the background. The much fewer beaded raindrops likewise show up in the full size image but not in the thumbnail. The raindrops do not showup as artefacts.
The 3rd image (proposed by Andra) has no raindrops (it rarely rains here in Western Australia), has good light which shows the panel shapes without glare and is distinct from the background. No artefacts. This would be my choice.  Stepho  talk  10:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above; Andra's proposed image is better than the other two. The vehicle isn't wet, doesn't have distracting reflections in the paint, and the body lines are well-defined. --Sable232 (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know of the photo Andra proposed. It looks similar to the original image but sharper and with a better camera. Lot less duller and reflective than the black one. --Vauxford (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the front is slightly underexposed. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The front corner detail in the right of the picture is slightly hard to make out. Luckily there is an identical front corner that is perfectly shown - so, no loss of information. This is a very minor imperfection compared to the other 2 photos.  Stepho  talk  22:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Andra Febrian's suggestion being best. The first image looks fine in thumbnail but very blurry when expanded. The background in the second image is bad, the car blends into it too much and it manages to be both too busy and too boring, in my opinion. The third image has a good background (not too much going on, but not too boring or similar in colour to the car) and the car itself looks fine. A7V2 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

Considering that the car is European the lead image should be with a European plate, because that's how the car was designed with in mind. The American plates look completely off and even the specs are different, imagine if an American pick up truck had European plates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audi_Q5&oldid=1095612407"