![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Where are you finding this consensus? All I see in the close is "overwhelming consensus against speculation, there also seems to be tentative consensus that, under extraordinary circumstances of especial newsworthiness and especially strong secondary sources," the guy who runs BMW M is saying it, that is what I would call "especial newsworthiness and especially strong secondary sources". Toasted Meter ( talk) 21:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
this is the second extended discussion of that policy recently, and if you search the archives, there are many more over the years, most of them equally indeterminate. For us here in the trenches, I don't see how we can cite WP:CRYSTAL in a meaningful way. It only begs whatever question you're asking. I'd avoid mentioning it, and instead only cite polices like V, WEIGHT, and NOR to justify or oppose adding facts like what the BMW executive said.
I'm sure some will still say they oppose it and cite WP:CRYSTAL, but in response I can only shrug. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Back to the G80 M3 section specifically, given that the RFC closed without any resolution to apply restrictions to upcoming models, I believe these 39 words can be restored to the article. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 08:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
This obsession of yours is ridiculous, and we have any number of featured articles that violate your tortured reading of the policy against making predictions about the future. It's OK to refer to the future in Wikipedia articles; we only need to be clear that Wikipedia's voice is not promising what will or won't happen. That's all.
You have had no success building consensus behind a ban on product announcements. It's not speculation or rumor; it comes from good sources. There's no reason for you to go on with this. Drop the stick. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think extraordinary claims that haven't been verified by third parties should be given too much prominence, but I lost that battle on the subject of every word that drips from Elon Musk's lips. So we have to live with the fact that Wikipedia will not ignore product announcements. In this case, we are talking about a mininscule amount of content compared to the quantity of coverage we give to the 2020 Tesla Roadster, 20?? Tesla Semi and 20?? Cybertruck. We're treating the model year 20?????? truck's price of $39,900 as a fact, stated in Wikipedia's voice. This is nothing compared to that. BMW's S58 engine exists. Third parties have seen it and tested it. No reason to oppose this at all.
Also, look up what hearsay means. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's pick on Elon Musk again. Why Elon Musk's tweets matter to the SEC. See, investors care very much about this kind of corporate officer utterance. If the reports of what the M Group Obergruppenführer said were false, BMW would have a duty to their investors to publicly correct that. Corporate officers can't just shoot their mouths off and expect nobody to take it seriously. Not to mention the fact that I'd much more trust what a live human says in words to another live human more than what appears on a website. Half the time the webmaster uploaded the wrong page and it's all garbage.
official" is a nonsense term when you're talk about crap like websites or press releases. What makes it official is when a company officer says it. Officer is a legal term in the context of a public company. The words coming out of n officer's mouth, on the record, are what makes it official.
Nobody disputes this. You're treating this like some kind of controversy and it's not. It's accepted as a well understood fact by everyone except you, personally. If it were in doubt, you'd be citing reliable sources saying it's in doubt. And by in doubt I mean, "did the officer say it?", not "will it ship?". We don't know if it will ship. Only crystal ball can say that. What we know is thaat BMW has publically committed to it. If they don't ship, they have to walk it back and that's a big deal. Our job is only to attribute it to the source. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you realise what you're talking about? You're constantly bickering about Tesla yet you fail to realize that the vehicle you have been babbling about is on the OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF TESLA and that people can ORDER it unlike this BMW M3. Unlike BMW, Elon didn't confirm any of his vehicles via the automotive press. He held an event and introduced the damn car. The only thing I have seen him mull about recently is roasting Porsche with a prototype of the Tesla Model S and the Cybertruck banter which are scenarios very different than this. U1 quattro TALK 04:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
If you could cite something that justified why you elevate websites to this all-knowing status, then you'd have a point. Otherwise, all you're saying is you personal dislike about the medium of the spoken word, but nobody else need get so hung up. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, if the WP:RS/N says, no, it's gotta be up on the BMW website or it didn't happen, well, then problem solved. Either way, that's the crux of it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The disputed content should not be restored until a decision is made on this. Also 1292simon please read the tags on my user page, it'd come in handy when you attach a pronoun next to my username. The only problem I see here is patience. People cannot wait until a car is introduced and they cannot wait until a decision is made about disputed content. This behavior is ridiculous. U1 quattro TALK 09:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
My request to restore the section is perfectly reasonable. I waited through the RfC out of courtesy, despite the text complying with current policy. It would not be fair for the section to remain deleted while U1Quattro keeps trying new delaying tactics. It is U1Quattro's behaviour of knee-jerk reverting any other editor's change that he disagrees with that is ridiculous. 1292simon ( talk) 10:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that reliable sources say the car is going to be made, there is no policy reason not to add it and many editors want to. Saying that you don't like it or that this is somewhat out of the ordinary is not a reason to remove it. Toasted Meter ( talk) 13:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
One of the ways Wikipedia works is that if none of us was here and a completely different random sample of editors wrote it, they'd tend to eventually approach a similar article because they are using the same methodology with the same input from the same sources. If a non-fringe minority of sources cast doubt, then any random group of editors would take that into account. When our best sources think the CEO's announcement can be taken at face value, then any random sample of editors would follow suit. It doesn't mean Wikipedia writing "It will happen"; it means saying "BMW has said they will ship the car".
If the medium was BMW's website, nothing would change. We would still write "BMW has said they will ship the car". Is it certain? Of course not. But the medium of the CEO's words or the website aren't what makes it certain or not. My whole problem with cars like the 2020 Tesla Roadster is that large numbers of expert sources have cast doubt on the extraordinary performance claims, and they argued that it might be technically or financially impossible, and that Tesla's financial woes gave them a motive to hype a car to boost their stock price, calm nervous creditors, and attract millions of dollars in deposits on the future car, and finally that Musk had a history of promising much more than Tesla ultimately delivered. Even when it's on Tesla's website: doubt comes from the boasts of unprecedented performance, and from sources who urge a grain of salt.
No sources say the feat of building another M3 is beyond BMW's capabilities, or that they have a motive to lie, or that they have a history of promising cars they can't ship. Things like the 500+ horsepower claim are extraordinary, which is why we should draw the line there, and not mention it until we get better independent verification.
The bottom line is that "Believe Tesla or BMW only when it's on their website" is baseless, arbitrary. Websites are not magical, and they don't impart officiality to anything. Tesla has in the past promised one thing on their hallowed website, and later delivered somewhat less. You can overhype on a website just as easily as you can on any other medium. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
BMW have announced that an M3 version of the G20 3 Series is due to begin
productionsales inlate 20202021, powered by the BMW S58 turbocharged straight-six engine that debuted in the F97 X3 M. [5] [6] All-wheel drive (xDrive) has been announced as being optional on the new M3, [7] which would represent the first time that an M3 has used a drivetrain layout other than rear-wheel drive. [8]
Objections? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
BMW have announced that M3 version of the G20 3 Series will be made,
References
While the addition of an upcoming generation of the M3 was allowed, it DOES NOT mean that the M3 is currently in production. One cannot simply say it is in production when the latest generation ended production nearly 2 years ago. The infobox should reflect the latest production status rather than mislead the users about the production of the variant. When the new generation of the M3 is unveiled and begins production, the production status can be updated. U1 quattro TALK 01:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The appearance of the M3 in Need for Speed is notable and is covered by source unlike what 1292simon likes to think. It is not a common trivia and has merit to be mentioned in the article. U1 quattro TALK 12:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, could you please provide sources supporting the claim that it appeared in the other games for this reason, and why these appearances are significant in the history of the M3? 1292simon ( talk) 08:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Violating a policy does not give you a chance to use WP:AGF in your reference. About the site, I posted that because you asked about the relevance of the M3 GTR's subsequent appearance in other News For Speed titles. U1 quattro TALK 11:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Where are you finding this consensus? All I see in the close is "overwhelming consensus against speculation, there also seems to be tentative consensus that, under extraordinary circumstances of especial newsworthiness and especially strong secondary sources," the guy who runs BMW M is saying it, that is what I would call "especial newsworthiness and especially strong secondary sources". Toasted Meter ( talk) 21:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
this is the second extended discussion of that policy recently, and if you search the archives, there are many more over the years, most of them equally indeterminate. For us here in the trenches, I don't see how we can cite WP:CRYSTAL in a meaningful way. It only begs whatever question you're asking. I'd avoid mentioning it, and instead only cite polices like V, WEIGHT, and NOR to justify or oppose adding facts like what the BMW executive said.
I'm sure some will still say they oppose it and cite WP:CRYSTAL, but in response I can only shrug. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Back to the G80 M3 section specifically, given that the RFC closed without any resolution to apply restrictions to upcoming models, I believe these 39 words can be restored to the article. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 08:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
This obsession of yours is ridiculous, and we have any number of featured articles that violate your tortured reading of the policy against making predictions about the future. It's OK to refer to the future in Wikipedia articles; we only need to be clear that Wikipedia's voice is not promising what will or won't happen. That's all.
You have had no success building consensus behind a ban on product announcements. It's not speculation or rumor; it comes from good sources. There's no reason for you to go on with this. Drop the stick. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think extraordinary claims that haven't been verified by third parties should be given too much prominence, but I lost that battle on the subject of every word that drips from Elon Musk's lips. So we have to live with the fact that Wikipedia will not ignore product announcements. In this case, we are talking about a mininscule amount of content compared to the quantity of coverage we give to the 2020 Tesla Roadster, 20?? Tesla Semi and 20?? Cybertruck. We're treating the model year 20?????? truck's price of $39,900 as a fact, stated in Wikipedia's voice. This is nothing compared to that. BMW's S58 engine exists. Third parties have seen it and tested it. No reason to oppose this at all.
Also, look up what hearsay means. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's pick on Elon Musk again. Why Elon Musk's tweets matter to the SEC. See, investors care very much about this kind of corporate officer utterance. If the reports of what the M Group Obergruppenführer said were false, BMW would have a duty to their investors to publicly correct that. Corporate officers can't just shoot their mouths off and expect nobody to take it seriously. Not to mention the fact that I'd much more trust what a live human says in words to another live human more than what appears on a website. Half the time the webmaster uploaded the wrong page and it's all garbage.
official" is a nonsense term when you're talk about crap like websites or press releases. What makes it official is when a company officer says it. Officer is a legal term in the context of a public company. The words coming out of n officer's mouth, on the record, are what makes it official.
Nobody disputes this. You're treating this like some kind of controversy and it's not. It's accepted as a well understood fact by everyone except you, personally. If it were in doubt, you'd be citing reliable sources saying it's in doubt. And by in doubt I mean, "did the officer say it?", not "will it ship?". We don't know if it will ship. Only crystal ball can say that. What we know is thaat BMW has publically committed to it. If they don't ship, they have to walk it back and that's a big deal. Our job is only to attribute it to the source. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you realise what you're talking about? You're constantly bickering about Tesla yet you fail to realize that the vehicle you have been babbling about is on the OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF TESLA and that people can ORDER it unlike this BMW M3. Unlike BMW, Elon didn't confirm any of his vehicles via the automotive press. He held an event and introduced the damn car. The only thing I have seen him mull about recently is roasting Porsche with a prototype of the Tesla Model S and the Cybertruck banter which are scenarios very different than this. U1 quattro TALK 04:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
If you could cite something that justified why you elevate websites to this all-knowing status, then you'd have a point. Otherwise, all you're saying is you personal dislike about the medium of the spoken word, but nobody else need get so hung up. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, if the WP:RS/N says, no, it's gotta be up on the BMW website or it didn't happen, well, then problem solved. Either way, that's the crux of it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The disputed content should not be restored until a decision is made on this. Also 1292simon please read the tags on my user page, it'd come in handy when you attach a pronoun next to my username. The only problem I see here is patience. People cannot wait until a car is introduced and they cannot wait until a decision is made about disputed content. This behavior is ridiculous. U1 quattro TALK 09:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
My request to restore the section is perfectly reasonable. I waited through the RfC out of courtesy, despite the text complying with current policy. It would not be fair for the section to remain deleted while U1Quattro keeps trying new delaying tactics. It is U1Quattro's behaviour of knee-jerk reverting any other editor's change that he disagrees with that is ridiculous. 1292simon ( talk) 10:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that reliable sources say the car is going to be made, there is no policy reason not to add it and many editors want to. Saying that you don't like it or that this is somewhat out of the ordinary is not a reason to remove it. Toasted Meter ( talk) 13:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
One of the ways Wikipedia works is that if none of us was here and a completely different random sample of editors wrote it, they'd tend to eventually approach a similar article because they are using the same methodology with the same input from the same sources. If a non-fringe minority of sources cast doubt, then any random group of editors would take that into account. When our best sources think the CEO's announcement can be taken at face value, then any random sample of editors would follow suit. It doesn't mean Wikipedia writing "It will happen"; it means saying "BMW has said they will ship the car".
If the medium was BMW's website, nothing would change. We would still write "BMW has said they will ship the car". Is it certain? Of course not. But the medium of the CEO's words or the website aren't what makes it certain or not. My whole problem with cars like the 2020 Tesla Roadster is that large numbers of expert sources have cast doubt on the extraordinary performance claims, and they argued that it might be technically or financially impossible, and that Tesla's financial woes gave them a motive to hype a car to boost their stock price, calm nervous creditors, and attract millions of dollars in deposits on the future car, and finally that Musk had a history of promising much more than Tesla ultimately delivered. Even when it's on Tesla's website: doubt comes from the boasts of unprecedented performance, and from sources who urge a grain of salt.
No sources say the feat of building another M3 is beyond BMW's capabilities, or that they have a motive to lie, or that they have a history of promising cars they can't ship. Things like the 500+ horsepower claim are extraordinary, which is why we should draw the line there, and not mention it until we get better independent verification.
The bottom line is that "Believe Tesla or BMW only when it's on their website" is baseless, arbitrary. Websites are not magical, and they don't impart officiality to anything. Tesla has in the past promised one thing on their hallowed website, and later delivered somewhat less. You can overhype on a website just as easily as you can on any other medium. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
BMW have announced that an M3 version of the G20 3 Series is due to begin
productionsales inlate 20202021, powered by the BMW S58 turbocharged straight-six engine that debuted in the F97 X3 M. [5] [6] All-wheel drive (xDrive) has been announced as being optional on the new M3, [7] which would represent the first time that an M3 has used a drivetrain layout other than rear-wheel drive. [8]
Objections? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
BMW have announced that M3 version of the G20 3 Series will be made,
References
While the addition of an upcoming generation of the M3 was allowed, it DOES NOT mean that the M3 is currently in production. One cannot simply say it is in production when the latest generation ended production nearly 2 years ago. The infobox should reflect the latest production status rather than mislead the users about the production of the variant. When the new generation of the M3 is unveiled and begins production, the production status can be updated. U1 quattro TALK 01:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The appearance of the M3 in Need for Speed is notable and is covered by source unlike what 1292simon likes to think. It is not a common trivia and has merit to be mentioned in the article. U1 quattro TALK 12:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, could you please provide sources supporting the claim that it appeared in the other games for this reason, and why these appearances are significant in the history of the M3? 1292simon ( talk) 08:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Violating a policy does not give you a chance to use WP:AGF in your reference. About the site, I posted that because you asked about the relevance of the M3 GTR's subsequent appearance in other News For Speed titles. U1 quattro TALK 11:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)