This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.10.55.11(talk) at 02:31, 14 October 2019(RFC Discussion - consensus vs voting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:31, 14 October 2019 by 203.10.55.11(talk)(RFC Discussion - consensus vs voting)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BMW 3 Series (E36) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria articles
The image of the red E36 saloon shows a car in a bad condition. That cannot be a representative of how the E36 generally looks like. The photo of the white coupe shows a much cleaner car without any reflections and stuff. If anyone disagrees, there has to be a concrete reason for that. I don't want an edit war to happen. U1quattroTALK15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've only changed the image because Vauxford was the photographer and you obviously have issues with him, Please present UK-based images of the vehicle and we can all decide together and collectively. –Davey2010Talk15:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010 Vauxford isn't the reason why I changed the image. The condition of the car is. Also you're being biased that only a UK-based image should be added on the infobox. I strongly disagree with that. An image of a clean E36 taken anywhere in the world works fine. An example is the image I chose. The car in that image is clean and the background is better.U1quattroTALK16:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I thought it should be replaced with a UK car but agreed not all replacements are done per the last image location, Given we all came to an agreement over the image above IMHO this shouldn't be changed and imho it doesn't need changing .–Davey2010Talk16:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Davey. I agree with U1Quattro that the red photo should be replaced due to its poor condition; the summary you made of the previous discussion "Given we all came to an agreement over the image above" is very... ahem... fanciful.
Why are you proposing we discriminate images based on their country and number of doors? Regarding the latter, both the sedans and coupes are common body styles, therefore both are representative of the series as a whole IMHO. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again Davey2010 no where does any guidelines say that one should have a photo of a 3 Series saloon as a lead infobox image. That's why there are lead images of a coupe on both the BMW E46 and BMW E90 articles. Both images are Australian and are perfect. Your criterion is self made and biased.U1quattro [[User talk: |TALK]] 04:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of agree the vehicle could be in better condition, I've included a few images as a way to resolve this, It may seem OTT but I really don't see a need to replace a 2 door with a 4 door I genuinely don't –Davey2010Talk08:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we should care, as long as the variant was somewhat common (not the compact or M3) we should pick the best photo. Also, I would not call OSX's photos perfect, they have some unwanted reflections and brake dust, they are very good but perfect is probably not possible to achieve, outside of a studio with a new car and $20,000-$200,000 worth of equipment. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the lineup and I must say that Vauxford's black 316i is definitely the one I would choose of them, as annoying as the crunchy rocker panel is. There are no undamaged E36s in Metro New York, or I would have photos to add... Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
U1Quattro, Toasted Meter and Mr.choppers - Could you all look through Commons and pick 2 or 3 images (2 or 4 door) images that you think are the best and I'll start an RFC tomorrow or Sunday as we all have different views as to which we consider the best one so it only seems fair to get consensus on the best one,
My 3 would be those above (1,2 and 4) - Red one's okay but condition-wise yeah not the greatest.
Hi all. I hope it is ok that I've numbered the images added so far, it's just to make them easier to refer to. My vote is option 4, 6 or 7. PS Davey, why do you keep ignoring me? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added the red one as #8. Faves: 1, 8, 2, 5. But really it's just that I like the focal length favored by Vauxford; it helps show the whole car with less distortions than all the "wide and high" shots. Personally, I don't think it worth all this time discussing until there is a clearly better photo added, which really shouldn't be hard. My problem is that I simply don't notice E36s as my brain registers them as "already available on Wikipedia." Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted photos of clean E36s which Vauxford wasn't able to find when he was taking photos of them as that is unfortunate on his part. I think we shouldn't really have rusty cars with faded paint as the lead image which is the problem this red E36 saloon has.U1quattroTALK06:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 1292simon, Sorry I missed your post, Inregards to country "At the time I thought it should be replaced with a UK car but agreed not all replacements are done per the last image location", Inregards to doors I thought this mattered (and I still think it does) however I'd rather give everyone inside of this discussion and outside that choice,
Also User:Mr.choppers and 1292simon - You're both more than welcome to pick any other images they don't need to be those listed above :),
@Davey2010: - I spent a lot of time trawling the Commons (you can see that I organized a few pics that were in the wrong place), but couldn't find anything better.
@U1Quattro: - To me it is important that the car is unmodified, at a good angle, well lit, with an uncluttered and preferably contrasting background. Obviously it is nicer if the car is undented and clean, but it is pretty far down on my list. If the car is too shiny, the reflections can make it hard to tell the shape of the car. So slightly faded paint isn't the end of the world; this is not a BMW showroom nor a fansite. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.choppers the images I chose show all feature, clean and unmodified E36s with a good angle and less reflections. The images Davey2010 chose have all distracting backgrounds/reflections and bad condition cars except image number 4. So it is not that hard to find such E36s which contradicts your statement. You just go to be at the right place at the right time.U1quattroTALK12:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Number 6 is a weird angle in my opinion (all bonnet), number 7 is the convertible and not the best illustration for the main box, and number 5 is on my list. It's just a bit gloomy and the old PowerShot used by IFCAR doesn't make for the most amazing quality when compared to newer cameras. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's a convertible. As long as its a clean and unmodified E36, it will be a contender for the lead image as the E36 convertible was produced by BMW and was not an aftermarket conversion. Bauer convertible is an exception.U1quattroTALK04:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C andG - The cleanest E36s out of the bunch with a good 3/4 angle and less distracting background IMHO. Way better than the current image used.U1quattroTALK20:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cor B or E or G (see below regarding my multiple selections). The majority of readers will see the image as a thumbnail, so I think that needs to be the priority. These images have a good angle and allow the car's shape to be easily seen without a distracting background. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C - I would have chosen E. But the part of another car was included in the photo. The brickwork in the current image competes with the car's color. Darwin Naz (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A - (Summoned by bot) Funny things how tastes differ. IMO B,C,E,G are out simply because they look like promo photos with an exaggerated hood, which produces a nice but distorted appearance. D is out because of other distracting cars, of remaining between A and F, if you look at the enlarged image the overall quality of A is far superior, (better surface, the front grill is clearly seen, etc., despite a piece of rust. Also, no licence plate. i.e., privacy :-). Finally image description says that black bumpers and red color are not typical, whereas IMO we have to have a "typical" image here, for recognizability. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
B, C, E or G (invited by a bot) I find all of these acceptable based on the condition of vehicle and lack of distracting background. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C has less distraction in the background than some and seems to be a typical appearance. The current one has a rather prominent licence plate number, although that could be "fuzzed". I am not a person who notices the appearance of cars much, though, so I don't have a strong preference. Called by the bot.—Anne Delong (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Davey. Sorry to be difficult, but I believe that editors should be able to state multiple preferences. As per WP:VOTE, the purpose is to determine consensus, and Wikipedia doesn't decide things by traditional voting. Allowing us to provide more detail about our preferences will be helpful to the process. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1292simon, Apologies for sounding grouchy but the whole purpose of this RFC is to obtain consensus as to what image should be used ... not what images but what image,
I'm not coming back time and time again with multiple RFCs ..... It really isn't rocket science to simply pick one image,
I appreciate there's a few good ones there however as I said people need to pick one, You're more than welcome to pick multiple ones but then your !vote will simply be ignored. –Davey2010Talk16:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: I appreciate your determination to come to a resolution on this, select a single image, and move on. However I cannot see anything in 1292simon's response that suggested ending up with more than one image or running multiple RFCs, and I believe he has rightly brought up a valid issue about consensus vs voting.
Using this RFC as an example, say we receive five hypothetical responses A+B, A+C, A+D, A+E, and F+G. No hypothetical responder has indicated a preference for a single image as you desire, but a fairly clear (but not unanimous) consensus would have been established for A. Sometimes it will not always be clear cut, but it is the job of the closer to take neutral account of all contributions (and the quality of their arguments) when determining if a consensus position has been reached, not to simply count votes.
Even as the RFC requester, you cannot constrain how others respond by saying you only want a straight vote, or discount their input because they have not responded in the way you would like. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I already have, I didn't set the RFC up so we can chose between 2/3/4 images - I did it so that we can pick the best image out of a few already selected above this RFC, I'm not prepared to wait half a year to get a consensus on something (RFCs remain open for 30 days). If the closer wants to completely ignore my RFC fine however the status quo will then apply and the current image will remain until such a time where someone wants to waste 3/4/5 months of their life coming back here with 4-5 RFCs. –Davey2010Talk00:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Davey2010, as I did not suggest choosing multiple images, taking a long time to arrive at a decision, or undertaking several RFC's I assume you believe that all of these things will be the outcome of a consensus approach and that it is for this reason you want everyone to follow a voting approach to decision making in this case.
While I certainly believe that you have good intentions in this, I am going to exit this conversation with a polite request to please consider that Wikipedia does have an explicit policy regarding decision making which is to seek consensus. Please give it a chance to work (you may be surprised) and please show respect to those who want to follow that process even when they are not complying with your own desired approach. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
_sedan_(18555132392).jpg)
Option 5
Option 6
Option 7
Option 8
_coupe_(24136751000).jpg)
_convertible_01.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
