Talk:BMW M8

Article format

1292simon what justification do you have regarding the current article format? We don't know if there is going to be any future M8 models and yet you're making the article like they are going to be introduced. This is nonsense. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi U1quattro. WP:CIVIL, please. If you are referring to the sub-heading for the current generation, it is not "nonsense", it is the commonly used format for automotive articles (even ones that are for a single generation so far, e.g. BMW X7, BMW 2 Series and BMW X2). Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

Non-sense was targeted at how you basically messed up the infobox. As for the examples, that's the only norm for BMW articles. Even the Lamborghini Huracán article was written like this and was only broken into sub-headings when a new generation was actually introduced.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. I believe this version of the infobox works better to summarise the key features. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not about your beliefs. That's not how this site works. Obtain a consensus or let the infobox be. U¹ _quattro TALK 05:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Turbocharging

Hello U1quattro. For the purpose of the infobox, the key aspect of the engine is whether it is turbocharged or naturally aspirated. As seen here, the car is described as "TwinPower turbo", which is a term used by both twin-turbo engines and twin-scroll single turbocharger engines: 1, 2, 3.

I agree that adding the detail of the type of turbocharging is appropriate for the body of the article (so I have added it there) and the infobox of the engine's article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's appropriate for the infobox as well, if you were serious in a discussion, you would've started a RfC at the infobox template. So far I haven't seen any of this by now, only plane reversion. U¹ _quattro TALK 01:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not every single issue needs an RfC.
  I have given you multiple sources showing that twin scroll vs twin turbo is not a significant difference. Do you have any sources that support your opinion that having the turbines in separate housings is a key aspect of the M8 article? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Go and see the Porsche 959 and Ferrari F40 pages and you'd understand what I'm trying to say. In conclusion you're trying to bring about a change which is uncalled for.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi U1Quattro. The continual tactics of re-reverting edits that are currently being discussed on Talk pages and going straight for the Undo button (rather than trying to work with other editor's contributions) are disrespectful and I believe not in accordance with the pillar of WP:CIVIL.

  The Porsche and Ferrari arguments are a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Again, I have provided you links about the types of turbocharging, do you have any sources to support your argument? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have already presented them. However you still relent to radical changes without consensus. U¹ _quattro TALK 14:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Where are these sources that you speak of? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The articles I have linked. See them and then make a decision. U¹ _quattro TALK 12:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Sources" means external references, not wiki articles (see OTHERSTUFF). Also, could you please make the effort to properly format your replies on Talk pages? 1292simon (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Replies on the talk page are indented, they don't contain bullet points, FYI. As for the sources, you saidI should present a proof which backs up my style of article format. I have told you again and again that what I have presented backs it up. These articles which I mentioned are good articles. Plus the selling point of the automobiles, which those articles cover, was not the fact that they were mid-engine but was some other reason. For example, the selling point of the McLaren F1 was the fact that it was the fastest V12 powered production sports car in the world yet the article mentions the proper engine layout (Infact every car McLaren has ever made was mid-engine). Now coming back to your sources, the term "TwinPower Turbo" is BMWs marketing jargon. We cannot use that here. The top Speed article (which is the only independent source besides BMWs own websites) supports none of your claims.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thankyou for finally indenting your reply here.

  More than a month later, you have not given any external sources that support your claims.

  I am not saying that the infobox should use the term "TwinPower Turbo", rather that the way the term is used indicates that whether the two turbines are in separate casings or not is not considered a key aspect of the car. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Where are YOUR sources? The sources you have put doesn't prove anything about that without you have been using. I'm reverting the edits until and unless you have a clear cut source supporting your idea.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, your indentation here is wrong. Please learn how to do it correctly, so that the page is easier to follow.

Trying to bash my sources (I have explained their relevance already) doesn't hold much weight when you have provided no external sources to back up your opinion. 1292simon (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not here to learn indentations especially when you are also lacking in it. You want proof? Here, here and here. Happy now? Now that you don't have any arguments left after this, I'm done with this discussion.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

How am I indenting wrong? And how would that mean you are not required to indent correctly?

Thanks for proving my point about turbo in the infobox with your 3rd reference. 1292simon (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding bullet points after indent is wrong. Sorry but I have already proven my pont. You're vandalising the page. Twin-turbocharged is a commonly used wording and you don't have anything to prove that your wording is correct. The third reference actually mentions twin-turbocharged later on.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the bullet helps signify the start of a reply, but if there is a Wiki policy for not using bullets I will happily change.

The third reference shows that "turbo" is the appropriate level of detail for an infobox summary, with the body of the article giving more detail on the type of turbocharging.

Could you please learn what vandalism actually means, rather than throwing it around as an accusation about edits you personally don't like? 1292simon (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Its not about my personal dislike. I have shown you the sources and also other Wiki articles which use this term. Present a good reason with a source supporting your claim that "turbo" should be used. Else let the article be. You are just arguing and not actually showing proof in support of your claims. Yes I know what is vandalism and you have been involved in it. You were restoring your overly summarised edits just because of a citation and restoring disputed content when a RfC decision was against it. That amounts to vandalism. You haven't shown one proof about why others should think that your summarised version of articles is better. See any good article about an automobile on Wiki and even the lead paragraph in it is detailed. This is a start-class article, your changes would just make it a stub-class article. I'm trying to improve the article ranking here.U¹ _quattro TALK 07:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please learn what vandalism actually means before hurling accusations at other contributors.

  There are three sources I have provided (plus the source you provided) supporting that "turbo" is the appropriate level of detail for the Infobox. 1292simon (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Manufacturer sources don't count. They are using marketing jargons which are unacceptable as sources. That third site you mentioned has its own rules relating to infobox not applicable to wiki.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This argument is very lame, but you seem to have unilaterally declared an entire category of sources unacceptable for no reason. This is about language not secondary sourcing. I would also draw you attention to this Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Marketing terms. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes I'd agree that summarising an article to this level is lame. About this convention, this doesn't apply to "twin-turbocharged" as its not spelled incorrectly or misused.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The lame remark is directed at the the somewhat excessive amount of bytes spilled on a argument about the inclusion/removal of "Twin-". Toasted Meter (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Then this other user should stop stressing on the excessive summarisation Toasted Meter. It's degrading the quality of the article. I've had multiple discussions with him with regards to infoboxes yet he adds the same changes over and over. I've had to go over and restore damages to various pages of BMW 3 Series just because of that. This whole dispute is over this fact.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The questions to be considered here are these. Does adding "FR layout", "F4 layout" and likewise terms improve the quality of the article? Does summarising engine related terminologies improve the quality of the article? Does overly summarising the infobox and removing fields like assembly, weight, transmission, designer along with with merging engines improve the article when the infobox is meant for these fields? Does excessively shortening the lead paragraph improve the quality of the article? I can only think of one answer and that is a big, fat No.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Petrol engine description

Just a random comment from a different perspective: In its current state, the infobox does not include a key word that would explain how the engine works. We have the engine layout/configuration (V8), the displacement (4.4 litres), and the aspiration (twin-turbocharged). The rest is left for the reader to guess. To sum this up, the given information is not that useful, and instead of fighting over some turbocharging terminology, I would rather add something like "Otto cycle", so that the reader knows that the car is not powered by a Diesel engine. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian its also about layout and summarising the lead section. Over summarising does not improve the article quality. So is adding abbreviations like FR layout and F4 layout. 1292simon doesn't seem to understand that.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to point this out because it had come to my eye. You are right, terms like "FR layout" etc. ought to be avoided, because the reader most likely does not know what they mean; I reckon this is what you mean by "over summarising". Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the layout acronyms, you should not have to click on a link to understand them. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That and shortening the lead paragraph to just 3 or 4 lines. Just compare the recent edits made by 1292simon which he keeps restoring and ask yourself whether that improve the article.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johannes. That's a very good point about the fundamental characteristic of Otto vs Diesel not being mentioned. I guess it was overlooked because BMW fans know that an M engine is petrol, but it definitely needs to be added for the casual reader. Just on the wording, I think "petrol" is preferable to "Otto" because this is more widely understood in English. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This car isn't available as a diesel and everyone knows that. So no need to add petrol in the engine. Also, stop restoring your summarised version.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The normal 8 Series can be had with a diesel, I don't have a strong option on including it. Also stop using reverts in such a blunt way, you don't want random pipes in cite titles, but you keep putting it back, why? The edit function works just fine and will allow you to only change what you want. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• U1Quattro, "everyone" does not know that it has a petrol engine (more people would probably know that the engine is at the front!). The reasons for the other changes are described above. 1292simon (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not the normal 8 Series but a high performance version of it. I'm restoring the un summarised version which 1292simon here keeps restoring. I don't want to use the edit button to restore the damages he has been causing again and again when it has been made clear that his edits are not an improvement. If there are pipe links, they can be removed via the edit button.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

On a second note. I haven't seen any kind of pipe links being removed by 1292simon in his edits which you have restored Toasted Meter so I don't know which pipe links are you exactly talking about.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

BMW offers M-cars with Diesel engines nowadays, (virtually every factory M BMW I see is a Diesel), and ever since the introduction of the M21 Diesel engine in 1983, BMW has offered "M trim levels". However, this does not even matter. U1Quattro says "This car isn't available as a diesel and everyone knows that" — that exactly is the point: We cannot simply assume that everyone knows that. Wikipedia needs to be accessible to anyone, and especially for those who have no idea how motor vehicles work, since these people are presumably 99 % of Wikipedia's readers. I mean, yes, we can write an article for petrol heads who already know everything about this car. But that completely defeats the purpose of a Wikipedia article on the subject. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me add even more; Audi for example also offers their high-performance cars (S models such as the S7 or SQ7) with Diesel engines, and in fact, the Diesel engine is the only engine option on the SQ7. I therefore advise against omitting the engine operating principle. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The M Models are not offered with diesel. By that I'm talking about models like the M8, M5 etc. The M-Sport models are a different story. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Johannes, to improve accessibility, the summary should state the engine configuration. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean models that are just "M Sport badged" (which is basically a trim level), I'm talking about cars that both have the M as a part of their model name (e.g. M535i E28), and much higher engine power than their non-M counterparts. For example, the G02 X4 is both available as M40i and M40d, and there is only very little difference in terms of performance (0–100 km/h in 4.8 vs. 4.9 seconds). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the whole "M Performance" marketing practice has really muddied the waters about what the letter "M" actually signifies! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That is an SUV. That's ofcourse going to be available in diesel. I'm talking about this car and it's counterparts. U¹ _quattro TALK 14:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if expecting the reader to somehow presume that a non-SUV model with "M" in the title wouldn't have a Diesel engine... it isn't true because the M550d isn't an SUV. 1292simon (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Does the M5, M3, M6 etc were ever fitted with a diesel engine? That's the question you need to ask yourself. The M550d isn't a high performance model. It's a model with an added M package. You're confusing the models here. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we might have some sort of definition problem here. The M550d is a dedicated M model, there is no regular 550d available. Also, considering it not a high-perfomance model is possibly "wrong" (if there's even wrong or right here). the M550d easily outperforms the first, second, and third generation M5 in terms of power, acceleration, and fuel consumption. It also beats the fourth generation M5 in terms of acceleration, and matches the F10 M5's acceleration. Only the F90 M5 is quicker. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Its a newer car so it would ofcourse beat the older models. Every new car does that. The same can be said about an all new 3 Series beating the E30 or E36 M3. It's an irrelevant comparison from the start. U¹ _quattro TALK 15:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, the "d" in M550d refers to diesel so that is a clue for the buyer that the car is powered by a diesel engine. U¹ _quattro TALK 16:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The Tesla P100D is a Diesel too, isn't it? And the E28 525e has an electric motor, just like the G30 530e? I'm being tongue-in-cheek here; I know it's obvious to a "car guy", but not to the average reader. And believe it or not, but the BMW press person I've spoken to at IAA 2019 was surprised when I referred to the "e" suffix as Eta. Apparently, the "e" doesn't mean Eta in BMW terminology anymore. Also bear in mind the d's change in meaning. Originally, d was a naturally aspirated swirl-chamber engine. Now it's a turbocharged common-rail engine. I really recommend to stay away from assumptions. Clear, brief, and precise explanations are the way to go. Especially with things that may seem obvious. Who knows whether they are? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, you're talking about old models. The Tesla example is pure BS in this case because it's an electric car. The 525e is an older model. You don't seem to have any examples left, that's all. I'm not assuming anything. Any average reader and go see on the BMW website about the M550d and Joe what the "d" means if it's not that obvious to them. U¹ _quattro TALK 12:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Johannes. The average reader should not be expected to go hunting for this on the BMW website or play some kind of guessing game based on model name, whether a car is currently in production, whether it is an SUV or not, whether it is an M-performance or full "M" model, etc etc. 1292simon (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't seem to have any examples left, you say? I don't think so. There are zillions of examples that I could make. With virtually every car manufacturer in existence. But I prefer not to in order to prevent this talk page from getting messed up even further. Interestingly, you are giving really good reasons against your own point: You say that the average reader can go to the BMW website and see about cars there. Well, that is exactly what we should avoid. Why would we have an article on a car or any vehicle if it didn't contain basic information? That would render the article pretty much useless. And good luck finding what you're looking for on the BMW webpage. Their intention is to sell cars, not to spread knowledge. Explaining what certain "names", "badges", etc. stand for or mean has never been a car manufacturers' strengh. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Excessive summarising

1292simon your recent behavior has been erratic and annoying. You cannot calmly discuss your edits in a talk page discussion but rather you resort to go on an edit war and forcing your edits on an article. Your excessive summary is not an improvement by any means and you should leave the article be. If you continue this behavior, I would have no choice but to take this matter to ANI. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Other than the turbo thing, what do you think is wrong with the changes to the lead? To me a line break has been added and some wording has been tweaked for the better. Also you might want to consider that edit wars always have more than one participant. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The wording has not been tweaked for the better. A line break is uncalled for a short paragraph like this. The previous version had nothing wrong. Yes I know that edit wars are about more than one people and he has started it. U¹ _quattro TALK 19:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You seem to think that, although Simon and I disagree. Where are you drawing the authority to mandate your prefered version? You don't have any other editors who agree. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Where are you drawing the authority to defend Simon? I want his explanation, not yours. Infact, no one has called you to defend him over here. Your "guess" about approval or disapproval is very quick, I don't think I'd value your opinion over this.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro, reverting my edit yet again and insulting me on the Talk page is not a helpful way to improve Wikipedia. The wording changes are to better reflect the MOS and the turbocharger terminology is based on the sources I provided above. 1292simon (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Which MOS are you talking about? I don't see any MOS supporting your summarised changes. Also, I have proved my point about turbocharging terminology above. You don't have anything left in your defense after I have presented sources regarding terminology and that one editor agrees with me about the fact that your edits are not an improvement. U¹ _quattro TALK 12:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI, here is an excerpt from MOS:Lead Paragraph:

"The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Your edits don't seem to do that. Further stated by the MOS main page:

"Style and formatting should be consistent within an article. Where more than one style is acceptable under MoS, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable."

Seeing the format of good and featured automobile articles, your format is optional and what you're doing is unacceptable.

Going on further:

"Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style, or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at the MoS talk page."

You haven't discussed anything on the talk page BEFORE introducing your so called "Better" style.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This is about a line break and a slight change to the flow of a sentence (about the lead), its a minor change that only you seem to disagree with. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Toaster Meter. That is correct. Also U1Quattro, I believe MOS:INTRO supports the change. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I have copy/pasted the excerpt from the MOS. It's an optional change which you're edit warring on. It's unacceptable and I will now take this to ANI should this warring continue.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, what you're doing at BMW M6 is against the MOS. I don't care what you believe about this. The MOS doesn't support your changes and you haven't obtained a consensus. Addition of stupid summaries like "FR layout" is not supported by the MOS and neither the weight removal from infoboxes the lead paragraph is not divided into sections but is a single paragraph. You haven't read that. Rather you prefer warring over discussion. That only makes the case against you stronger.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we please come to an end with this back-and-forth editing? I reckon it's an additional opinion or some sort of statement that could bring peace to this situation, so here I go: I favour brief, but not too oversummarised descriptions. Everything should be understandable to the casual reader. This means that we should not use ters such as "FR layout" (nobody knows what that means), but we should also include the engine's operating principle (Otto versus Diesel). Terms such as "twin-turbo" have too many meanings, I would therefore either not use any addition to the "turbo" at all, or use a very precise addition to the term, such as bi-turbo, twinscroll-turbo, or sequential turbo. However, the latter is overkill: With computer-aided turbocharger design, there is only very little difference in performance between these types of turbochargers. Therefore, I advise against adding too much wording to the "turbo". Regarding the intro paragraph: I don't think that there is substantial difference between U1Quattro's or Simon's versions, but the edit-warring about it isn't leading anywhere. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I have provided more than enough evidence that 1292simon's version is unacceptable. Even the MOS disagrees with him. He just seems to have the wrong understanding of the MOS. The MOS:Lead Paragraph is against the breakdown of the introduction paragraph yet he continues to summarise the contents. Proper guidelines are there for infobox, yet he continues to over summarise it when the infobox is in itself a summary of the article. I don't know what his problem is. He should do the simple thing and obtain proper consensus about his so called "better" style. Obtaining agreement of a single editor isn't enough to warrant that what he is doing will be beneficial. U¹ _quattro TALK 17:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Besides the "twin-turbocharged" and the line break there is literally no change in summarisation. Or do you really want to argue that there indeed is a major difference between „Introduced in the 2-door convertible (F91 model code) and coupe (F92 model code) body styles in June 2019,“ and „Released in June 2019, the M8 was initially produced in the 2-door convertible (F91 model code) and 2-door coupe (F92 model code) body styles.“? I am not saying that your version is better than Simon's, in fact, I am saying that it is just as good or just as bad as his. There is not enough difference in order to favour one version over the other. Of course changing the article's intro section just for the sake of changing it is unreasonable, since there is no need for a change in the first place, however, citing the MOS, making explanations, edit-warring, and arguing on this talk page is overkill. You are cracking a beechnut with a sledgehammer. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

He is also sabotaging the engine description. How the hell out someone know what S63 is? It won't be until they click on the link. He is using the same tactics the automotive press uses to lure the public into clicking links of their clickbait articles. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, the MOS arguments originated from here. No MOS supports this botched style of editing. U¹ _quattro TALK 05:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"sabotaging the engine description" this sounds very much like a personal attack, do you think Simon's edits are made with an intent to make the article worse? Have you forgot that more info about the motor is available in the specifications section? Toasted Meter (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I can only agree with Toasted Meter. U1Quattro, may I ask whether you have ever seen a tech-spec sheet? Engine type designations are common in these spec sheets. And the Wikiproject:Automobiles guidelines even suggest adding the engine type designation. Calling this "sabotaging" is not helpful, and frankly speaking, it seems like you just want to "win" against Simon. Could you do me a favour and stop? There are better ways of improving Wikipedia. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not denying that. But removing content from a technically fine engine description isn't an improvement. An infobox is not meant to be a confusing thing. It is meant to be a summary. Removing content from the infobox is not going to help improve the article. If Simon was making edits for an improvement, it would be evident in the article. Resorting to edit warring isn't a good way and has never been.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, what Simon is doing at the BMW M6 page, which is where the MOS argument has originated, is neither supported by MOS nor any wiki policy. He keeps using WP:BABY in his defense which only applies if any edits made are useful. He keeps restoring incorrect information and labelling it as correct.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro, you are not the sole arbiter of what subjective change is "sabotaging" and what is an "improvement" or "useful", these are merely your opinions. Opinions that are not supported by anyone here.

Also, accusing me of adding incorrect information to the M6 article is simply a lie. 1292simon (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Its not a lie but the truth. "First three generations" is incorrect information which is not supported by any source. What is actually a lie is you saying that your so called better changes are "as per MOS" when they aren't supported by them.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Your accusation of "restoring incorrect information" is definitely a lie. Do you not understand that the M6 was produced for the E24, E63 and F06 generations, but not the G32? (sorry folks for discussing a separate article here, but I would like to defend myself against these false allegations) 1292simon (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro, the MOS does not not support Simon's changes. If there was a thing such as Information per Byte, Simon's edits would improve this "score" (but not a lot), since, as I have stated, "twin-turbo" is a word that does not contain much more information than just "turbo". Due to the almost unnoticeable impact of this edit, this cannot be called an improvement. However, if you were making edits for an improvement, it would be evident in the article. But it is not either. Edit-warring usually requires more than one editor. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Which in this case is Simon and me with the warring started by Simon. Also, since when removing weights from infobox supported by MOS? I don't see it anywhere there? U¹ _quattro TALK 02:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, "first three generations" is not supported by the source added after it 1292simon. Which makes it incorrect.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Also first restoring incorrect information and then supporting incorrect information here by saying that we should prefer an "essay" over wiki policy and defending someone who has been adding incorrect and unverified data proves what I said to be true.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I would not call it "supporting incorrect information", putting a 0-60 mph time in a table labeled 0-100 kmh seems odd, finding a source that provides a 0-100 kmh time is the opposite of incorrect. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyways, it has nothing to do with this page. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

For the record regarding the latest round of U1Qauttro's incorrect accusations:

A) The 0-100 km/h data is not incorrect information.

B) The conventions of WikiProject Automobiles are not an essay, and U1Quattro's opinion that the manufacturer data contravenes Wiki policy is incorrect

C) Regarding the "first three generations", U1Quattro needs to learn that there is a difference between correct information which does not have a source, and statements that are actually incorrect. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes that convention page is an essay as written in the beginning of it. If you cannot read that, not my fault. Plus you haven't put a source of those "correct" 0-100 times. Wiki policy doesn't allow manufacturer website to be used as a source, press releases are an exception. If you haven't read the rules, not my fault. Anyways, get to the point. U¹ _quattro TALK 07:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY does not prohibit the use of manufacturer websites or press releases, I have no clue what policy you might have read that would lead you to this very odd conclusion. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Neither do I have any clue what policy U1Quattro might have read. Can we now stop please? --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't state anything about using manufacturer sources so I don't know what you're on about. However, I would state the following in response from Help: Your first article: "An article topic must be notable: covered in detail in good references from independent sources." manufacturer website is not an independent source. U¹ _quattro TALK 19:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

About this I'd only say that you are basically negating the very base of creating an article when manufacturers have a history of claiming a lot of incorrect things. Ferrari F40 and Jaguar XJ220 are classic examples of why manufacturers shouldn't be trusted in what they claim.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That is about notability, not sources for claims. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It is about claims as well.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)