Talk:Audi Q3

Untitled

The Q3 is will not be built on the MLP platform. It will be built on the same platform as the Volkswagen Tiguan which is based on the Volkswagen Golf.

Q3 name change

Here in Sweden, the Q3 is currently marketed and sold as the Q3, despite this article's reference to a supposed name change. Asked for citation. --oKtosiTe ^talk 17:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image 2nd generation

NO CONSENSUS, RESTORE File:Audi Q3 1Y7A4914.jpg (GREY CAR) TO THE ARTICLE

Which image to use in the infobox of the "Second generation (2018–present)" section is a matter of subjective judgment on image quality.

Here is each photo and the supporters of each photo:

1. File:Audi Q3 1Y7A4914.jpg (grey car) – Alexander-93, Sable232, Charles01, and NickCT.
2. File:2019 Audi Q3 S Line 35 TDi S-A 2.0 Front.jpg (blue car) – Vauxford
3. File:2019 Audi Q3 S Line 35 TFSi 1.5.jpg (blue car, alternative photo) – Vauxford, John M Wolfson, YBSOne, and 2800:810:46F:81A5:B508:7264:2AE1:3890

There is no consensus about whether to use the grey car or the blue car.

File:Audi Q3 45 TFSI Quattro, Paris Motor Show 2018, IMG 0448.jpg (orange car) was added to the article on 8 October 2018 and added to the infobox on 17 January 2019.

File:Audi Q3 1Y7A4914.jpg (grey car) was added to the infobox on 20 April 2019.

File:2019 Audi Q3 S Line 35 TDi S-A 2.0 Front.jpg (blue car) was added to the infobox on 25 May 2019. An edit war began over which photo to use.

Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says in part:

Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context:

• In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

"[T]he version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" is either File:Audi Q3 45 TFSI Quattro, Paris Motor Show 2018, IMG 0448.jpg (orange car), which had been in the article three months, or File:Audi Q3 1Y7A4914.jpg (grey car), which had been in the article for one month before being disputed.

I conclude that File:Audi Q3 1Y7A4914.jpg (grey car) should be restored to the article since it has more support than the orange car and was in the infobox without dispute for a month so is "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".

Cunard (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Vauxford (talk · contribs) pointed out that File:Audi Q3 1Y7A4914.jpg (grey car) was added to the main infobox at the top of the article on 23 June 2019. My edit made it so that the image was used twice in the article: the main infobox and the infobox of the "Second generation (2018–present)" section. I therefore will replace the grey car's photo with File:Audi Q3 45 TFSI Quattro, Paris Motor Show 2018, IMG 0448.jpg (orange car) since it is the other photo that could be considered "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".

  File:Audi Q3 1Y7A4914.jpg (grey car) was added to the main infobox on 23 June 2019 and a significant portion of the discussion happened before that change: 23 of the comments in this RfC were made before 23 June 2019 and only three comments were made after 23 June 2019. Therefore, this close is without prejudice against:

  1. Further discussion about which photo should be used in the main infobox.
  2. Further discussion about which photo should be used in the infobox of the "Second generation (2018–present)".
  Further RfCs or further discussion on these points would not be disruptive.

  Cunard (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see my extended rationale here:

I did not give more weight to the uninvolved editors in my close. I gave them the same weight as the involved editors. Which image to use in the infobox is based on what editors' subjectively think is a better choice. I found Sable232's subjective argument to be reasonable, "They're both less than stellar, unfortunately. The image of the gray one is taken from too high of a perspective - it appears as if the photographer was standing on something when taking it. Otherwise, the angle is good, and it has a better background, so I'd stick with that one."

The alternative photo was proposed on 27 May 2019. It did not change the minds of the involved editors Charles01 and Alexander-93. Later on, in the RfC, NickCT suggested using the orange car photo or the grey car photo (each of the photos had at different times been in the article section's infobox before the dispute started). I consider NickCT's rationale, "There is very little meaningful difference in terms of quality between these two images" and "Given there's no real difference with between the image quality, we should probably just give preference to the editor who had thier image here first, which seems to be Alexander-93" to be a reasonable argument.

Vauxford, John M Wolfson, Ybsone, and 2800:810:46F:81A5:B508:7264:2AE1:3890 preferred the alternative blue car photo. I gave less weight to the arguments made by Ybsone (who did not provide a rationale) and 2800:810:46F:81A5:B508:7264:2AE1:3890 (per WP:MEATPUPPET, which says, "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.").

This means that there is a roughly equal number of users supporting the grey car photo and the blue car photo. Because which photo to use is a matter of subjective judgment, I found a clear lack of consensus to choose a specific photo.

Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." I found that both the orange photo and the grey photo could be considered in "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". See the analysis here about when and how long each of these photos were in the section's infobox. I chose to restore the grey photo since it had more support than the orange photo. But since the grey photo is already used in the main infobox, I chose the orange photo instead.

Regarding "I think defaulting to the orange car rather than just what the article was before the close is an odd choice for a no-consensus close", the orange car photo had been in the article before the dispute started. I did not default to "what [was in] the article was before the close" because that would encourage editors to edit war to their preferred version of the article before requesting closure of a "no consensus" RfC.

Regarding "everyone seems to agree that the orange one would be a poor choice", I found that only Vauxford and John M Wolfson spoke against it while NickCT was fine with it.

As I noted in the revised RfC close, the situation has changed significantly since the discussion started in that the grey car photo no longer is in contention for the section's infobox since it is now used in the main infobox. I therefore recommend starting a new RfC to discuss which photo should be used in the section's infobox so that editors can make a clear choice between the orange car photo and the blue car photo. I restored the orange car photo since it is the status quo photo, but this is without prejudice against a new consensus determining a different photo (such as one of the blue car photos) should be used instead. I hope this longer explanation of my thought process helps.

Cunard (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My suggestion

Vauxfords change

Alternative photo (new photo added to the discussion)

I'd prefer the image of the grey Q3. It has a nicer background and the angle is better, since the distance between camera and vehicle is higher. The argument with the colour isn't relevant in my opinion and if it is, I do not understand his revert here. Also I disagree with Vauxford's behaviour. If I see it right, he was criticized for edit waring and putting the images of him all the time. And again he behaves in that kind of way. Cheers--Alexander-93 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Alexander-93 Don't use the article talk page to air your frustration about another user or include past incidents unrelated to the talk page discussion. I already stated my reason, the colour is quite dullish and the angle you photographed make it seem that you took it somewhere elevated rather on the ground. Overall the image that I replaced it makes it a nicer choice. Despite less pixels, the blue one is alot more sharper and shows more details. --Vauxford (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford Sorry for that, but so there is still 1 against 1. That doesn't mean, that your image will stay. I will ask in the WikiProject for a third opionion.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

They're both less than stellar, unfortunately. The image of the gray one is taken from too high of a perspective - it appears as if the photographer was standing on something when taking it. Otherwise, the angle is good, and it has a better background, so I'd stick with that one. There's doesn't appear to be anything better on Commons at this time. --Sable232 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 The white reflection effect on the windshield and bonnet isn't a good factor as well, while the blue one has less then that and the headlights aren't fogged up due to where it was taken and are clear and sharp. These photos were both taken in dealerships so it almost possible to not have this sorta background, I'm not referencing the CARPIX guideline but IMO a car picture should be taken at a standing, level position, taking it from some elevated place just looks weird. There also red splodge sources around the grille and bumper which the blue car also doesn't has and the car itself doesn't look tilted, I think Alexander-93 has to make it like that just so it can be promoted to QI, one of the guidelines for promoting a image to QI is the tilt/perspective should be corrected, even if it means the car isn't at a angle you want it to be. (Happens to me before). --Vauxford (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The picture of the blue car has already been added to wikipedia entries in fifteen different languages (with apologies if I counted wrong) so I'm not sure picture quality is the only issue here! Nevertheless, if we were to judge in terms of picture quality, the blue car is a more interesting colour but it is let down by excessive distracting reflections on the paint work. And of course the background is indeed messy. A grey car on a grey background is not necessarily a winning combination, but it is a combination that Vauxford would no doubt defend to the death where such a picture had been produced by him. Neither of the angles is perfect. As one of you pointed out, it's hard (though not necessarily impossible) to get it quite right when looking down on a car, as with the grey car, while - at least to my taste - the photographer stood a bit too close with a blue car. I guess opinions can reasonably differ on that. But yes, the picture of the grey car is the tidier composition if we are invited to vote on the matter. Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved, I'm not sure how far voting really comes into it. Happy days! Charles01 (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 For starters I would never photograph above a height like that. But the sharper picture, nicer colour and doesn't have weird red splodges around the car is the reason why I'm defending the blue car, yes it was taken by me but I feel it justified enough to replace a image like the one Alexander-93 has put in the article. --Vauxford (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are allow to do this during a discussion so forgive me if I shouldn't of, but I added another photo which is at a different angle, same colour but slightly reduced messy background and I haven't photographed so up close like the previous one. --Vauxford (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Besides the point, but am I the only one who hates it when the rear view mirrors move out of the way automatically, messing up my photos?  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Where we're at

I thought it might be useful to summarize where we have got to with this.

• A contributor invited people to choose between two pictures of a second generation Q3
• We seem to be agreed that both images are pretty indifferent
• But three of the four of us think the picture of the grey car is less indifferent aka better. (And Mr.choppers abstains!)
• The only "vote" for the blue car comes from a man with a unique approach, who links his own pictures to wiki-entries on an industrial scale without regard to whether they are good, indifferent, or bad. He then routinely launches damaging edit wars in defence of the mediocre and bad ones if anyone dares to replace them. (Presumably no one would feel the need to replace such good pictures as he might link. Though I still think linking one's own pictures to wiki-entries is not something that is normally justified. Till Vauxford came along it is not something that people usually did.)
• The blue car vote came from the man who linked it in the first place. You can make the case that his vote is of lesser weight because he is "marking his own homework"
• Despite the involvement of Vauxford, I thought that it would probably be "safe" to replace the picture that got one vote with the picture that got three votes.
• So I did.
• Less than ten minutes later I noticed that my consensus based correction had been reversed by Vauxford.
• Unfortunately I am clearly too dim to understand the loopy logic of the Vauxford vanity project to which wikipedia had been subjected with increasing determination over the past couple of years. The behaviour seems to me to have become strikingly worse since Vauxford turned savagely against his former partner in crime, EurovisionNim a year or so ago and then triggered a (successful) action to have EurovisionNim removed from the scene.
• As far as the Vauxford vanity project is concerned, am I the only one who finds the Vauxford's narcissistic and arrogant actions unacceptable?
• As far as the picture of the second generation Q3 is concerned, I propose to reverse the Vauxford reversal. Oh dear!
• But please feel free if you think I got it wrong, to tell me how.
• (Unless you're Vauxford, in which case I think your actions probably tell their own tale far more eloquently than the endless rather odd verbals about yourself which you love to scatter round the place!)
• Three days later Vauxford without further explanation reinserted the picture. His own picture. He evidently thinks his own judgment of his own picture is of more value than the judgements of the rest of us. It's part of the remarkable Vauxford philosophy of wikipedia and, cumulatively, it has done a lot of damage. Unless you think he unfailingly takes brilliant photographs: I think there is only one person who (apparently) thinks that!
• The real solution concerning the Audi Q3 illustration will be for someone to find a decent picture of the car. Indeed there are still several needed here, but this dismal Vauxford image of the blue car is the one that Vauxford has chosen to go to war over. In the meantime, I propose to revert the Vauxford disruptive action. Again. What is it with this guy?

Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Picture of the Day 6 March 2010

Charles01 For starters, you should quit scapegoating me all the time. I find this whole discussion unfair and hypocritical, especially when Alexander-93 does the EXACT same thing as I do, yet I'm the one getting the scolding. A very small portion of examples of Alexander-93 doing exactly what I do\; [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7][8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

and the fact that during motor show seasons, he will usually replace better images such as MB-One and use his instead and plant in almost every Wikipedia he could reach. Why isn't he getting condemned, why isn't he getting accused his editing to be a "personal vanity project"?, Why his edits isn't getting reverted simply because it was done by a certain user? People are now frowning upon me because of this and simply makes me feel I'm not wanted here despite the fact there others who does the very same thing as I do. You can pretend that this comment or my ANI report including 8 months worth of evidences of misconduct towards me like it doesn't exist but the facts shows that you have a personal bias against me. --Vauxford (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If an image uploaded by Alexander-93 is replaced by someone else because they think they have a better solution, I don't recall him launching soul-destroying time wasting edit wars lasting days or weeks because some vanity project of his has been pricked. That's one major difference between the two of you. But maybe I simply didn't look in the right places. Don't know.

More generally, your habit, and that of EurovisionNim, of linking the pictures you yourselves have created to wiki entries not on rare occasions, but routinely and on an industrial scale, puts what you do on display for an awful lot of folks.

And it certainly IS the case that because you do it so much, there are other people who have looked at what you do and decided that it must be "normal" behaviour. It really isn't. Even if it's (still) the only way you yourself know how to behave.

Although you cheerfully agree that you are unable to communicate in any language except English, many of your "less than stellar" pictures get linked BY YOU to wiki entries in ten, fifteen or twenty different languages. People may very well conclude that if this behaviour is becoming mainstream on english language wikipedia, and there's this chap called Vauxford who does it on an industrial scale, they might as well do the same, not just on the wikipedia versions for which they are linguistically most competent, but even where they are not. Fair enough. And the English language is a special case, of course, because there are millions of people across mainland Europe (and further afield) who can communicate very competently in English even though it is "only" their second, third or fourth language. So you can understand what they write even though you (and in most cases I) would not have a hope in Hades of communicating with them in their own mother tongue.

Dear Vauxford, someone could very easily come along and produce a 5,000 or 10,000 word outline charge sheet about all the damage you do and paste it somewhere and invite comments. But it would take weeks. Most of us only have limited amounts of time available. Inter-acting with you on wikipedia is a nightmare which most of prefer to try and avoid most of the time. Even, I am thinking, the "admins" who think they have a duty to try and sort out problems on the noticeboards that you like to frequent, mostly don't have the necessary patience and psychological skill-sets. People do not know what to make of you and we - I at least - do not know how best to at least try (sorry about the split infinitive...) and inter-act with you. We prefer to use our wiki time more constructively. But the more Vauxfordy you become the more damaging you become and, looking at my talk page over the last six months (twelve or twenty-four even, though maybe initially more gently than latterly) I think I have captured and repeated at least some - not all - of the issues you create. I also seem to have captured your attention, on my talk page, far more frequently than I should wish. But then so have an awful lot of other talk pages. You have determinedly made yourself the problem. Not me. Not Alexander-93. Not all the other people with whom you aggressively and bone-headedly inter-act. My starting point a year or two was that you are young and have much to learn, but will presumably "grow up" at some point. Sadly, it didn't happen yet. And here we are again for the millionth time on a talk page which is meant to be used for discussions about how to improve a wikipedia entry instead wasting time and wiki-comupter-memory discussing Vauxford. Would it help if I screamed?

Wikipedia talk pages are there to discuss how to improve wikipedia entries. The odd one-liner digression? - no problem. But how come that where you are involved they have become swamped with "stuff" about you? .... Evidently I know nothing. And I'm getting repetitive. Need a rest. Or at least a(nother) coffee. Your behaviour really is exhausting!

Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC about 2nd generation infobox photo

Current one

Proposed change

Alternative photo

I dispute the previous consensus, because it was ended prematurely by a user. A lot of the reason for the closing were more personal rather then about the image and I find this unfair and both the initial proposed and alternative image I added on there didn't get a chance to be evaluate properly, again, it was mostly personal remarks about the user (me) then the actual photo. I just want to see what others think/decide which of the follow should be used at a unbiased, neutral approach on it.

Main reason why I oppose the grey image being used is stuff such as the white reflection effect on the windshield and bonnet on the grey car, the blue one has less then that and the headlights aren't fogged up due to where it was taken and are clear and sharp. It also been taken from a weird elevated place while the blue one was photographed at standing height. There also red splodge sources around the grille and bumper which the blue car also doesn't has. The image tilted which I believe was done so it can be promoted to QI, since one of the guidelines for promoting a image to QI is the tilt/perspective should be corrected, even if it means the car isn't at a angle you want it to be. I also believe preferring a image over the other simply because it a QI (the grey car) is irrational due to the several problems I stated above. --Vauxford (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. RfC statements are supposed to be neutral and brief. M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The previous one said otherwise, so I was clarifying. Even if it was obvious. --Vauxford (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned above I find the grey vehicle more suitable. My reasons: Better background, higher distance between camera and vehicle and a calmer colour.--Alexander-93 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Question - What was wrong with the orange one? That picture seems to have more provenance. If you kids can't agree on which of you gets to show your pic, why not just use someone else's? NickCT (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The orange one was also taken by Alexander-93 before any of these, I dislike photos from motor shows due to the overwhelming distraction and artificial lighting. I believe it better to have a photo of one in the "wild" rather then at a show. --Vauxford (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Stick w/ current grey image - 1) There is very little meaningful difference in terms of quality between these two images. 2) We seem to have two editors warring on WP to include the images they've made in WP articles 3) Given there's no real difference with between the image quality, we should probably just give preference to the editor who had thier image here first, which seems to be Alexander-93. 4) I'd strongly echo the comments of User:Charles01 above, re "linking the pictures you yourselves have created... routinely and on an industrial scale..... "normal" behaviour. It really isn't.". I think the pair of you should just stop. It's great that you contribute images, but you should just be uploading them to the commons and letting others decide which ones are best to use in articles. Edit warring your own images is not helpful. Frankly, if you guys continue, I think a discussion about banning you from inserting your own images might be in order. NickCT (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

NickCT That's irrational, there is nothing against inserting images that you created yourself, I done it far more long enough that I didn't need to ask people every time I do these edits. Alexander-93 isn't even a active user on this Wikipedia, he usually active on the German Wikipedia but dumps any image taken by him to any Wikipedia he can reach, whatever they are constructive or not and does it even on articles on different language Wikipedia which are regularly maintain. I do that myself but only on pages that are often neglected and no one has updated them. I once used to do cross-wiki edits on regularly maintain articles but stopped because people do it their own way which I respect, I left the Italian and German (which is Alexander is most active on), Russian, Ukraine Wikipedia alone to do their own thing. Why does that make Alexander a exception to indiscriminately replace images on other Wikipedias? All he done was cause hassle and made people hate me even more. The face that their a possibility of me getting revoke the ability to add my own image in good faith just because of some foreign user wanting to hypocritically get his own way is just blasphemy!

It unsurprising that you side with the person who has talked me down for over a year now, telling me how much a nuisance and degrading I am on Wikipedia, no matter how many times I try to ask him to help me improve he just ignores and drop his condescending personal remarks about me everywhere where I made a talk page discussion about content dispute. Charles01 does has some good in him, but he need to stop with the insulting and derogatory comments, talking about how everything I'm doing is a "personal vanity project" and slip in another user who no longer active on here and I haven't seen him for over a year, having those comments shove down your throat every time you try to resolve a dispute with someone just makes you feel worthless in a way. --Vauxford (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Listen matey, I appreciate you're trying to help. I like your images, and think we need more images like this on WP. So thank you for your contribution.

That said, the way you're going about this is wrong. Both you and Alex should be putting your images on the Commons, then letting others decide how they ought to be best incorporated into WP.

I'd propose the you and Alex accept self-imposed interaction bans, and commit to change the way you're contributing images.

I think you should branch out. Your photography is great. Why not contribute stuff other than cars? NickCT (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

NickCT But we haven't edit warring or clash with each other, I hardly encounter him because we are active on different Wikipedias, he only drops by on here if he has recently uploaded something on the Commons. I don't think a interaction ban is needed because this isn't that sorta situation. If we want to make a deal without sanctioning involved, I guess we should stick to our own Wikipedia rather then replace photos cross-wiki, I admit I first started going by Wikipedia-to-Wikipedia because I wanted my images to get out more and I think Alexander had the same idea but obviously people naturally pick them up anyway over time, both of our motive are good-faith but it can be easily misinterpreted it as disruptive and problems like me and him are having right now doesn't help our case. --Vauxford (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Having seen your behaviour over the last few months with greater frequency than NickCT, I am not entirely surprised, but I am nevertheless depressed, to see how you, Vauxford, react today to his carefully framed suggestion that, "you and Alex should be putting your images on the Commons, then letting others decide how they ought to be best incorporated into WP."[19] The crazy thing is that for most contributors to wikipedia articles on automobiles, following that recommendation would be not very much of a burden. Most of us already reckon that we are not well placed to "mark our own homework". We are happy to leave it to people who didn't produce the photographs to assess which should be included on autombile articles. I confess that I myself have taken to making an occasional exception where a picture has been uploaded by you, because as I think we have already established, where Vauxford is involved (and ok you were not always alone, where EurovisionNim was involved), different rules apply. Then again it seems a bit like overkill to recommend that as an enforced "same rule for everyone" solution on automobile articles simply to address the problems created with impressive ...um.... single-mindedness by just one person.

I suppose that on a personal level I draw comfort from the fact that despite the abundance of careful and well intended advice you have received since you kindly launched a complaint against me on the adminstrators' notice board, you show no sign of taking any more notice of the suggestions from other people than you take of suggestions from me. Where were we? ... yes .... Then when you didn't get the answer you wanted from the notice board and your complaint shuffled off into the archive you copied and pasted it back again. So more kind people have given you more advice which, strangely enough is not so completely different from the advice you have been receiving already from me, and from others, for months. And then, when you still didn't like the reaction you were getting to your complaint against me and it shuffled off into the archive for a second time, you pasted it back a third time. Bitter? Me? Hell no, but somewhat irritated and more perplexed by the Vauxford project than ever? Well, perhaps a little.

Seriously, Vauxford, (as in even more seriously) I do not really expect you to care very much about my feelings, nor indeed about the feelings of Typ932 to whom recently, even by your own standards, you were appallingly rude. But leaving aside the feelings of people other than yourself, please try and understand that what NickCT and all the others have in common is that they want to make wikipedia better. Please try and understand what drives them and take notice of what they write.

And yes, I get the message that it is less than generous where I become so frustrated at you persistently damaging behavio(u)r, and use "Vanity Project" as a short-hand for identifying what you do to wikipedia. I get that.

But, please, Vauxford

Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I like the alternative photo the best, followed by the proposed change and the current photo, in that order. That is simply due to an aesthetic judgment, however, and if there are any encyclopedic or licensing concerns that override that feel free to disregard my !vote. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Alternative photo. YBSOne (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Alternative photo. It's a better looking photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:46F:81A5:B508:7264:2AE1:3890 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seem that three users prefer the "Alterntive photo" over the grey car and likily the orange one as well, yet the orange car was discussed nor it was even a choice and was used along the lines of "prior to the proposal or bold edit". Why isn't the image with the most say isn't being used on the second generation infobox?. --Vauxford (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added an extended rationale to the close that I had posted here in July. As I noted in the extended rationale, "I therefore recommend starting a new RfC to discuss which photo should be used in the section's infobox so that editors can make a clear choice between the orange car photo and the blue car photo. I restored the orange car photo since it is the status quo photo, but this is without prejudice against a new consensus determining a different photo (such as one of the blue car photos) should be used instead." Cunard (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)