![]() | This page 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. |
I have removed the LFA as it was fitted with a roll cage when it set the lap time, and the production car will not be outfitted with a rollcage. Not a legal time. Any problems with this can be discussed on my talk page or here. Thank you.( Hostile Rain ( talk) 01:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC))
As all of the top manufacturers have video proof of the laps, until a video of the lap time is produced, the Porsche lap time should reflect the fact that NO VIDEO PROOF of the lap exists. Too much to ask?.( Hostile Rain ( talk) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC))
The 8:52 lap time of a Mini Cooper S links to the original Mini, I can't find anything on Google about this lap time but as a Classic Mini owner I strongly believe it would have been the new Mini Cooper S that set this time as the old Cooper S had a top speed of approx. 120mph. Avergae speed of around 90mph seems unlikely unless significant work was done on the Mini which surely means it is no longer a production vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.29.16 ( talk) 16:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed the part that the length of the circuit is unclear. Both the article in Thetruthaboutcars (which was written with input from the Deputy Chief Engineer of the LFA) and the press release of Toyota (added) mention the 20.6 km track length. BsBsBs ( talk) 11:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I intend to remove it because there is no credible sources for this rumour, not even information about the specifications of the cars that were used. Also as a side issue am wondering doesn't production vehicle imply that the vehicle is at factory default i,e the issue of tires used during the test, shouldn't they be the factory fitted specification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.194.174 ( talk) 23:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Folks, please try to observe Wikipedia policies and standards. Contributions must be verifiable and referenced to a reliable source. Forum postings, personal messages, tweets etc expressly do not qualify.
BsBsBs (
talk)
07:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any source mentioning what tires were used for the Viper ACR's time attack. If you find one, please add it along with your update to the note of what tires were used. Blhsing ( talk) 01:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I just moved the lap time of the Viper ACR to the non-road-legal section after noticing in the official video that the Viper ACR used for the record run was equipped with the track extension to the front splitter that is not legal for road use according to the Viper ACR's official owner's manual [4]. The detachable track extension is what allows the car to be aerodynamically balanced with such an unusually large rear wing but at the same time violates the federal bumper law as it extends beyond the front bumper. [5] Feel free to discuss if anyone sees an issue with the move. Blhsing ( talk) 00:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
See my comments below. It looks like we all agree that the car needs to be road legal according to applicable (i.e. German or EU) law. U.S. bumper law does not apply here, but many other EU laws do. Having a road legal certificate is one thing, conforming to the certificate is another. Technically, under German and EU law, a car is in violation if the band-aid in the first aid kit has expired. (Don't laugh, people do get cited for this). However, this cannot be determined from sitting in front of a computer. Please set the matter aside, it cannot be solved this way. BsBsBs ( talk) 11:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Should have an astericks on vehicles that are not WORLD, "street legal" or have a seperate list. If your going to be that vague, The Ultima GTR would probably crush even the Radical, A KIT CAR assembled at the plant is STILL IS A PRODUCTION CAR. I have amended the heading "Production vehicles" to "Production / road-legal vehicles" to put it in sync with the follow-on list that has "Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles".
Which brings us to the topic of what is "road legal." The Ring is considered a public road (except when closed for racing) and German/EU rules apply. Under German/EU law, a "production car" is one that has achieved European type approval and is legal to be driven on the open roads. A car that is "road legal" in another part of the world may not be legal in Europe. I assume that cars listed under this heading should be legal to drive to the Ring under their own power and should survive a routine traffic stop. Please discuss. BsBsBs ( talk) 08:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that articles in WP must be reliably sourced. This list is a prime example. On the production list, I count more than 40 entries without a single reference. Spot checking just a few casts doubts on the reliability of many cited sources. The very first reference for instance, which supposedly backs up the top record holder, does not even mention the Nürburgring, or any record on it.
While everything that goes on a list needs a reliable source, the scope of a list demands even more careful attention. The scope of the list is usually given in the first paragraph of a list. A list on Wikipedia lives and dies by that definition. By its very nature, that definition is created by the authors of the article. It would be desirable that the definition of a list is backed-up by a reliable source, but this is not the rule, neither in theory nor in practice. Reliable sources rarely write definitions for Wikipedia lists.
Let's look at the beginnings of some real live lists, picked in haste and at random (except for the last two):
The Wikipedia Manual of Style/Lists requires that "the contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." It also says that "the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section." Both the main list/article itself and the embedded lists currently lack the required precise inclusion criteria.
I agree 100% on the necessity of reliable sources for every entry. Unsourced entries need to be removed. The validity of new entries must be checked with great vigilance. There also is a need to precisely define what goes where on these lists, which lightens the chore of policing the lists, and which hopefully will reduce the frequency of edit wars. This discussion is bringing us closer to that goal. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
With a little will for constructive, responsible cooperation, matters should be quite evident, especially to longterm and seasoned editors who should know better. Once someone quotes
WP:OR, then we can assume familiarity with the rest of the rules. I cite again the pertinent parts of
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists:
The guidance essay Lists in Wikipedia says:
In short, a list an Wikipedia must have clear, precise inclusion criteria. The criteria must observe WP:NPOV, must be widely agreed upon and notable.
Disregarding these rules and simply collating what has been said elsewhere can be a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
As long as these rules are disregarded, and as long as it is being argued that a definition is not necessary, spending the work on a (certainly nontrivial) definition is a waste of time. If list editors are not able to comply with the rules, then they implicitly admit that the list is not encyclopaedic. If editors declare that they are unable to bring the list in compliance, the honorable thing to do would be to nominate the list for deletion. BsBsBs ( talk) 12:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion civil and don't revert to edit warring, otherwise the users will be blocked, and the article will be protected to be edited by administrators only. These issues can simply be resolved by providing references to reliable sources. Unsourced material can be removed as it has no place in the article and will not be replaced until adequately sourced, so please avoid making false claims of vandalism. Thank you for your comprehension. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Gentlepersons, please STOP THE EDIT WARRING IMMEDIATELY. A lot of good content is getting killed by the fallout. The war seriously disrupts the utility of this list. It is getting increasingly impossible to come to a sensible conclusion. If the warring continues, then I have no other choice than to request semi-protection, and to report ALL parties involved in the war. I have reinstated the most recent version that appears to make some sense.
There is no doubt that the Viper was fast around the ring. It is a true production car. So is the LFA.
What we need is a definition for road-legal and production vehicle. Unless this definition is found and agreed upon, please refrain from further changes. Note: U.S. bumper rules do not apply in Germany. Europe has very strict and clear rules about what is a road legal vehicle. Once it is certified as such, it is quite simple to determine whether it still complies with these rules. However, this determination cannot be made from an armchair in front of a computer and by reading factory brochures. So please set discussions about a front splitter aside for the moment. Someone who works for Germany's TÜV could make this determination in a few minutes and for a nominal charge. We cannot do this remotely.
So please, drop your guns, and hold your horses. Thank you. BsBsBs ( talk) 11:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
A list lives and dies by its definition.
Also, I have removed the Viper ACR from the Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles. Reasons: No reference, no source. The Chrysler press release covering the Viper ACR in the production class does not mention it. It talks about a start of testing on Sept 12 and an end of testing on Sept 14. A record on Sept 13 was not mentioned. This was most likely a duplicate entry. If I'm wrong, please re-insert with proper references.
Thank you! BsBsBs ( talk) 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first 2 records on this list show no evidence of the times claimed. Please remove
199.75.180.199 ( talk) 17:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Some idiot has added 2 vehicles at the top as a joke. They just need to be deleted from the fastest 2 spots. 24.249.99.67 ( talk) 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Following the intensive discussions (see above), I have provided an attempt on the "unambiguous statements of membership criteria" for "Production, street-legal vehicles." These criteria are required as per Lists in Wikipedia, and were missing. The criteria are based on discussions with volume manufacturers, conducted over several months. The criteria condense the ideas set forth in "Front splitter etc." (see above), which remained unopposed for an extended time. ( talk) 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It makes me sad that an honest, good faith attempt to abide by the rules is being attacked twice. It had been established in the discussions above that a list MUST have inclusion and exclusion criteria. The rules are cited above. There was one editor that had opposed compliance with the rules before. It is the same editor who did two reverts. This editor had later conceded that criteria are needed, only to complain that none are forthcoming. Now that a good faith attempt for criteria has been made, that editor goes on a revert rampage. The way it works here is that matters are being discussed, and/or cooperatively solved. It is quite unproductive to come up with solutions only to see them deleted in an arrogant way. Reverts with snippy remarks do not agree with the spirit of WP. The matter is complicated and needs a solution. I am very open to a collaborative solution, but I am opposed to edit wars. I had been concerned that this would happen after this editor would not commit to abiding by the rules before. My concerns appear to be justified. Please note that another revert will collide with 3RR. I am asking editors to join this discussion and to solve this in a collaborative way. I do not buy into "no support" if there is only one editor who runs roughshod over this list and attempts to impose anarchy rule on it. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the October GT-R attempt. Reasons:
![]() | This page 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. |
I have removed the LFA as it was fitted with a roll cage when it set the lap time, and the production car will not be outfitted with a rollcage. Not a legal time. Any problems with this can be discussed on my talk page or here. Thank you.( Hostile Rain ( talk) 01:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC))
As all of the top manufacturers have video proof of the laps, until a video of the lap time is produced, the Porsche lap time should reflect the fact that NO VIDEO PROOF of the lap exists. Too much to ask?.( Hostile Rain ( talk) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC))
The 8:52 lap time of a Mini Cooper S links to the original Mini, I can't find anything on Google about this lap time but as a Classic Mini owner I strongly believe it would have been the new Mini Cooper S that set this time as the old Cooper S had a top speed of approx. 120mph. Avergae speed of around 90mph seems unlikely unless significant work was done on the Mini which surely means it is no longer a production vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.29.16 ( talk) 16:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed the part that the length of the circuit is unclear. Both the article in Thetruthaboutcars (which was written with input from the Deputy Chief Engineer of the LFA) and the press release of Toyota (added) mention the 20.6 km track length. BsBsBs ( talk) 11:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I intend to remove it because there is no credible sources for this rumour, not even information about the specifications of the cars that were used. Also as a side issue am wondering doesn't production vehicle imply that the vehicle is at factory default i,e the issue of tires used during the test, shouldn't they be the factory fitted specification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.194.174 ( talk) 23:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Folks, please try to observe Wikipedia policies and standards. Contributions must be verifiable and referenced to a reliable source. Forum postings, personal messages, tweets etc expressly do not qualify.
BsBsBs (
talk)
07:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any source mentioning what tires were used for the Viper ACR's time attack. If you find one, please add it along with your update to the note of what tires were used. Blhsing ( talk) 01:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I just moved the lap time of the Viper ACR to the non-road-legal section after noticing in the official video that the Viper ACR used for the record run was equipped with the track extension to the front splitter that is not legal for road use according to the Viper ACR's official owner's manual [4]. The detachable track extension is what allows the car to be aerodynamically balanced with such an unusually large rear wing but at the same time violates the federal bumper law as it extends beyond the front bumper. [5] Feel free to discuss if anyone sees an issue with the move. Blhsing ( talk) 00:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
See my comments below. It looks like we all agree that the car needs to be road legal according to applicable (i.e. German or EU) law. U.S. bumper law does not apply here, but many other EU laws do. Having a road legal certificate is one thing, conforming to the certificate is another. Technically, under German and EU law, a car is in violation if the band-aid in the first aid kit has expired. (Don't laugh, people do get cited for this). However, this cannot be determined from sitting in front of a computer. Please set the matter aside, it cannot be solved this way. BsBsBs ( talk) 11:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Should have an astericks on vehicles that are not WORLD, "street legal" or have a seperate list. If your going to be that vague, The Ultima GTR would probably crush even the Radical, A KIT CAR assembled at the plant is STILL IS A PRODUCTION CAR. I have amended the heading "Production vehicles" to "Production / road-legal vehicles" to put it in sync with the follow-on list that has "Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles".
Which brings us to the topic of what is "road legal." The Ring is considered a public road (except when closed for racing) and German/EU rules apply. Under German/EU law, a "production car" is one that has achieved European type approval and is legal to be driven on the open roads. A car that is "road legal" in another part of the world may not be legal in Europe. I assume that cars listed under this heading should be legal to drive to the Ring under their own power and should survive a routine traffic stop. Please discuss. BsBsBs ( talk) 08:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that articles in WP must be reliably sourced. This list is a prime example. On the production list, I count more than 40 entries without a single reference. Spot checking just a few casts doubts on the reliability of many cited sources. The very first reference for instance, which supposedly backs up the top record holder, does not even mention the Nürburgring, or any record on it.
While everything that goes on a list needs a reliable source, the scope of a list demands even more careful attention. The scope of the list is usually given in the first paragraph of a list. A list on Wikipedia lives and dies by that definition. By its very nature, that definition is created by the authors of the article. It would be desirable that the definition of a list is backed-up by a reliable source, but this is not the rule, neither in theory nor in practice. Reliable sources rarely write definitions for Wikipedia lists.
Let's look at the beginnings of some real live lists, picked in haste and at random (except for the last two):
The Wikipedia Manual of Style/Lists requires that "the contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." It also says that "the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section." Both the main list/article itself and the embedded lists currently lack the required precise inclusion criteria.
I agree 100% on the necessity of reliable sources for every entry. Unsourced entries need to be removed. The validity of new entries must be checked with great vigilance. There also is a need to precisely define what goes where on these lists, which lightens the chore of policing the lists, and which hopefully will reduce the frequency of edit wars. This discussion is bringing us closer to that goal. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
With a little will for constructive, responsible cooperation, matters should be quite evident, especially to longterm and seasoned editors who should know better. Once someone quotes
WP:OR, then we can assume familiarity with the rest of the rules. I cite again the pertinent parts of
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists:
The guidance essay Lists in Wikipedia says:
In short, a list an Wikipedia must have clear, precise inclusion criteria. The criteria must observe WP:NPOV, must be widely agreed upon and notable.
Disregarding these rules and simply collating what has been said elsewhere can be a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
As long as these rules are disregarded, and as long as it is being argued that a definition is not necessary, spending the work on a (certainly nontrivial) definition is a waste of time. If list editors are not able to comply with the rules, then they implicitly admit that the list is not encyclopaedic. If editors declare that they are unable to bring the list in compliance, the honorable thing to do would be to nominate the list for deletion. BsBsBs ( talk) 12:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion civil and don't revert to edit warring, otherwise the users will be blocked, and the article will be protected to be edited by administrators only. These issues can simply be resolved by providing references to reliable sources. Unsourced material can be removed as it has no place in the article and will not be replaced until adequately sourced, so please avoid making false claims of vandalism. Thank you for your comprehension. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Gentlepersons, please STOP THE EDIT WARRING IMMEDIATELY. A lot of good content is getting killed by the fallout. The war seriously disrupts the utility of this list. It is getting increasingly impossible to come to a sensible conclusion. If the warring continues, then I have no other choice than to request semi-protection, and to report ALL parties involved in the war. I have reinstated the most recent version that appears to make some sense.
There is no doubt that the Viper was fast around the ring. It is a true production car. So is the LFA.
What we need is a definition for road-legal and production vehicle. Unless this definition is found and agreed upon, please refrain from further changes. Note: U.S. bumper rules do not apply in Germany. Europe has very strict and clear rules about what is a road legal vehicle. Once it is certified as such, it is quite simple to determine whether it still complies with these rules. However, this determination cannot be made from an armchair in front of a computer and by reading factory brochures. So please set discussions about a front splitter aside for the moment. Someone who works for Germany's TÜV could make this determination in a few minutes and for a nominal charge. We cannot do this remotely.
So please, drop your guns, and hold your horses. Thank you. BsBsBs ( talk) 11:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
A list lives and dies by its definition.
Also, I have removed the Viper ACR from the Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles. Reasons: No reference, no source. The Chrysler press release covering the Viper ACR in the production class does not mention it. It talks about a start of testing on Sept 12 and an end of testing on Sept 14. A record on Sept 13 was not mentioned. This was most likely a duplicate entry. If I'm wrong, please re-insert with proper references.
Thank you! BsBsBs ( talk) 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first 2 records on this list show no evidence of the times claimed. Please remove
199.75.180.199 ( talk) 17:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Some idiot has added 2 vehicles at the top as a joke. They just need to be deleted from the fastest 2 spots. 24.249.99.67 ( talk) 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Following the intensive discussions (see above), I have provided an attempt on the "unambiguous statements of membership criteria" for "Production, street-legal vehicles." These criteria are required as per Lists in Wikipedia, and were missing. The criteria are based on discussions with volume manufacturers, conducted over several months. The criteria condense the ideas set forth in "Front splitter etc." (see above), which remained unopposed for an extended time. ( talk) 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It makes me sad that an honest, good faith attempt to abide by the rules is being attacked twice. It had been established in the discussions above that a list MUST have inclusion and exclusion criteria. The rules are cited above. There was one editor that had opposed compliance with the rules before. It is the same editor who did two reverts. This editor had later conceded that criteria are needed, only to complain that none are forthcoming. Now that a good faith attempt for criteria has been made, that editor goes on a revert rampage. The way it works here is that matters are being discussed, and/or cooperatively solved. It is quite unproductive to come up with solutions only to see them deleted in an arrogant way. Reverts with snippy remarks do not agree with the spirit of WP. The matter is complicated and needs a solution. I am very open to a collaborative solution, but I am opposed to edit wars. I had been concerned that this would happen after this editor would not commit to abiding by the rules before. My concerns appear to be justified. Please note that another revert will collide with 3RR. I am asking editors to join this discussion and to solve this in a collaborative way. I do not buy into "no support" if there is only one editor who runs roughshod over this list and attempts to impose anarchy rule on it. BsBsBs ( talk) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the October GT-R attempt. Reasons: