This template 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.
Erm, that just deals with the "Category" for supercars. The main article is still valid, as are established dictionary definitions. Fianlly, a "supercar" doesn't have to be judged by performance alone - other criteria are technological advances, price, exlusivity . . . -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 08:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh it isnt supercar by any standards anyway and Audi Sport Quattro S1 is rally car not Super car --— Typ932T | C 14:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read enough magazines and I know what is supercar and whats not, If this keeps reverting this should go wider talk --— Typ932T | C 14:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What part of the English language do you NOT understand? The WP article on supercars would strongly support both the R8 and the S1 (and probably the RS2 Avant) as supercars. EVO magazine also emphatically lists the current R8 as a supercar! Why are you not able to submit your own contributions, instead of constantly interferring with my edits? -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 14:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Because your edits are mostly like some schoolboy fan edits, this is enclyclopedia not fan page, I asked more comments Wp auto already, this is again going silly.... --— Typ932T | C 14:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Erm, how many grey-haired schoolboys do you know? And for the record, my edits ARE of a factual encyclopedic nature (to the best of my ability), and I'm certainly not any kind of fan - just a highly qualified motor vehicle engineer - so please keep your childish personal attacks to yourself. -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 14:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
We need to remember that our own interpretation (including sensible interpretations based on a lifetime of reading magazines) isn't particularly relevant here. Wikipedia doesn't care about truth, it cares about verifiability. That's policy, not guideline, so there's no getting around it. So the only way to be able to call the R8 a supercar is to reference it. Anything else (unless "common sense", which this is too obscure to be) is original research and not allowed. For what it's worth, Top Gear called it a supercar, but I don't have a transcript of that, and besides I don't really think this point deserves so much attention: the status has proved to be controversial and so should be removed until referenced. It certainly meets the criterion for sports car, so that will do fine, IMHO. – Kieran T(talk) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
So, we now have two independent sources of verifiability to support the supercar stance. Just because someone has a personal "opinion" which does not agree with Top Gear or EVO, that doesn't mean they have the right to impose that opinion here. My primary interpretation comes from the engineering, and magazines are a secondary, but still valid interpretation. Perhaps those who don't agree with the EVO or Top Gear opinion that it is a supercar can cite relevent "objections" in their relevent "letters pages" or associated online forums? -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't intend this to be argumentative (so, sorry!) but you're asking us to prove a negative. That's not how referencing works. All we need here is a reliable, secondary source which can be cited in the R8's article, and ideally which can be readily checked by other editors. It's only when other contradictory references come along that we have a problem. You say there are two sources. I've missed that, obviously. What two sources, and where? If there are, they can be added to the R8 article, job done. – Kieran T(talk) 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The decision at WP:CAR as outlined by Swaq was that supercar was not the kind of descriptive term that should be used in an encyclopedia. It does not have a fixed definition, it is subjectively applied and it doesn't actually provide the reader with much information about the car beyond what is provided from saying "mid-engined sports car." Another problem is that if you dig deep enough you can find a source calling just about any quick car a supercar as journalist including Top Gear and Evo are always looking for the sensational. You will find all kinds of language in car mags that you wont find here. As the template currently stands I don't really think the quattro and the R8 really belong in the same category. The quattro was a homologation special and the R8 is a sort of halo car. I am going to change the category to from "supercar" to "homologation/halo vehicle" as my template editing skill leave something to be desired. If someone else want to split them up or has other ideas, that would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teutonic Tamer (talk • contribs)
Doh, I did reply to this earlier, but I must have forgotten to save it!! <embarrased>
Anyway, whilst I strongly disagree with the "supercar" issue here, I will defer to the agreed concensus. However, regarding the magazine quotes and the R8 with the supercar tag, it is virtually unanimously agreed by them all that the R8 is a supercar. Of the only mag I found to be "sitting on the supercar fence", it pondered the question of how the R8 fits in with considerably more expensive rivals, such as the Veyron, Zonda, Koenigsegg, etc. I agree that car mags (just like any other printed media) sometimes need to "sensationalise" (because they have to sell copies), but in the UK and Australasia, EVO mag is generally very highly regarded, being generally well-balanced and unbiased. At the other extreme, you have trash like Max Power which is generally seen as a complete joke. It is no different to the very high reputation enjoyed by broadsheet newspapers such as the Times and the Telegraph, and comparing them to the low reputation for the "Red-Top" tabloids like the Sun and the Mirror. Regarding the TopGear mag - I didn't raise that, but I would estimate that it enjoys a "medium-type" of reputation (yes, Clarkson and Co. are self-opinionated, but they are also generally factual, with a good dose of "enthusiastic" entertainment thrown in to the mixing pot).
I do agree that Quattro rally cars and the R8 are better separated on the template, and have added a separate line for the rally cars (being as rally cars must still be road legal). I hope you all find my latest change more acceptable. As a further thought, the R8 has its own line of halo vehicle. Being as the original Ur-Quattro, and all the RS models are also considered halo vehicles (by way of their technological advancements), would it be better to combine the current "Executive sports car" and "halo vehicle" into one 3-row span line?
Finally, the personal attacks (WP:ATTACK), I have left a message on the relevent user talk page. At the end of the day, we should all assume respect and good faith towards one another, and help each other out, in a happy atmosphere. Kind regards to you all -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 14:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This timeline seems to have become a bit inconsistent lately: the A4/S4 and A6/S6 models have been divided into their different generations, but the 80/90, 100/200, A3/S3 and A8/S8 haven't. Also, both "platform codes" and typ numbers are used to disambiguate different generations. Letdorf (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC).
Give me time - I am trying to sort this. Re the platform vs typ codes - some don't have platform codes (only typ codes, but these are less well-known). If I do happen to "forget", kindly message me on my talk page, thanks. -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 14:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)