This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Whoever wrote this piece at the end of the article clearly has an agenda and is an opinion piece that does not belong in a factual wiki for the Type R
I deleted the opinion piece which can be seen here as I copied and pasted it:
This latest announcement of 7:43.8 for the facelifted FK2 looks like more of the same type of marketing deception.
By their own admission, this is a lap time recorded by a car in "final phase of testing regime", which basically means "free-for-all" in undisclosed mods, such as weight reduction, power boost or "extra special" rubber.
Is the subtle footnote of "pre-production version in final stages of testing" going to be a trend for other manufacturer's records in future?
In that case we will have a really difficult time trusting any information that comes from manufacturers.
This belongs more to an article or forum and not on a wiki page. Unless there are specific citable sources that question the validity of the 'Ring times.
168.166.80.254 ( talk) 16:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The European FN2 Type-R is obviously a love-it-or-hate-it car. It has won awards for comparing well to it's contemporaries but seems to be a disappointment to Honda ( particularly Type-R) enthusiasts as a 'let-down' compared to previous incarnations (the EP3) and the model offered in Japan (the FD2). I'm trying to keep the balance of both viewpoints apparent in the wording of the FN2 section whilst maintaining a tone suitable of an encyclopedic article. I welcome any editing to improve the prose in presentation of the facts, and hopefully any discussion of the issues could take place on this page rather than in the main article. Jrm76 ( talk) 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason for the Civic Type R to receive a standalone article. This content should (in my eyes) be split and merged into the appropriate Civic generation sections. I started a conversation here, please feel free to join in. I am nominating the Honda Civic Si together with this, and welcome all input from interested editors. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ( talk) 06:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
But then by your logic, the BMW M models also don't need spearate articles because they are based on the xx Series models. I don't think this is the right logic for merge. U1Quattro ( talk) 04:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Honda Civic Type R. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Whoever wrote this piece at the end of the article clearly has an agenda and is an opinion piece that does not belong in a factual wiki for the Type R
I deleted the opinion piece which can be seen here as I copied and pasted it:
This latest announcement of 7:43.8 for the facelifted FK2 looks like more of the same type of marketing deception.
By their own admission, this is a lap time recorded by a car in "final phase of testing regime", which basically means "free-for-all" in undisclosed mods, such as weight reduction, power boost or "extra special" rubber.
Is the subtle footnote of "pre-production version in final stages of testing" going to be a trend for other manufacturer's records in future?
In that case we will have a really difficult time trusting any information that comes from manufacturers.
This belongs more to an article or forum and not on a wiki page. Unless there are specific citable sources that question the validity of the 'Ring times.
168.166.80.254 ( talk) 16:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The European FN2 Type-R is obviously a love-it-or-hate-it car. It has won awards for comparing well to it's contemporaries but seems to be a disappointment to Honda ( particularly Type-R) enthusiasts as a 'let-down' compared to previous incarnations (the EP3) and the model offered in Japan (the FD2). I'm trying to keep the balance of both viewpoints apparent in the wording of the FN2 section whilst maintaining a tone suitable of an encyclopedic article. I welcome any editing to improve the prose in presentation of the facts, and hopefully any discussion of the issues could take place on this page rather than in the main article. Jrm76 ( talk) 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason for the Civic Type R to receive a standalone article. This content should (in my eyes) be split and merged into the appropriate Civic generation sections. I started a conversation here, please feel free to join in. I am nominating the Honda Civic Si together with this, and welcome all input from interested editors. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ( talk) 06:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
But then by your logic, the BMW M models also don't need spearate articles because they are based on the xx Series models. I don't think this is the right logic for merge. U1Quattro ( talk) 04:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Honda Civic Type R. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)