Talk:Ferrari Portofino

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 50.93.90.64 in topic Why was it discontinued?

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Image

edit

Hello U1Quattro. Regarding the edit that you just reverted, I believe that the Paris Motor Show photo shows the shape of the car better than this photo that you inserted. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You believe that, others don't. I'm starting an RFC to settle this. U1 quattro TALK 08:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

RfC Main infobox image

edit

This RfC has been started to allow users to choose between two proposed images for the main infobox of this article. These images here are as follows.

 
 

Alternatively, the following image is also proposed:

 

Your input regarding this will be highly appreciated. U1 quattro TALK 08:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the silver one, less reflections. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Comment: 1292simon I started an RfC which I had mentioned because that way others can choose and the discussion won't be limited. I can also the say the same about your lack of response on a message left by me on your talkpage.U1 quattro TALK 05:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Photo of the red Portofino with scenic background A professionally taken non show image which is a much better representative of the Portofino than any of the other photos. Vauxford's photo would be second in my ranking. Using a motorshow photo with a busy background is not favourable.U1 quattro TALK 05:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
U1Quattro You do know those Ferrari pictures aren't actually real? It semi-CGI and it came from the Ferrari configurator that was uploaded by a new user. The image itself can be used but it not exactly the real car. --Vauxford (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes but no wiki policy is against it and it is verified by OTRS. U1 quattro TALK 20:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
U1Quattro The photo isn't real though. Would it be better to have something that exist? Rather then have something done on a computer? It just doesn't sit with me right that we are using a image of a car that doesn't actually exist as the infobox image. --Vauxford (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Vauxford the consensus voted against it so I don't know what is the point of stretching the argument now. It does not matter if the image is CGI or is of a real car. If it is representing the Ferrari Portofino then it is okay to use. U1 quattro TALK 06:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

U1Quattro I noticed that shortly after posting and didn't look at the current revision of the article, sorry about that. --Vauxford (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
It's okay Vauxford. We as humans are prone to errors. U1 quattro TALK 08:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Specifications intro

edit

Hi U1Quattro. I agree with Juanpumpchump's edit removing the first paragraph of the Specifications section. The first two sentences have WP:NPOV issues and the claim in the third sentence is unsourced. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It can be reworded but removing the whole section as unsourced is a false claim. If you or Juan have issues about Top Gear, either one of you can list it at WP:RSN for discussion. U1 quattro TALK 08:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Hi U1Quattro. Could you please indent your replies properly, so that it is easier for people to follow the thread?

    You are incorrect about the reason for removing the section, please carefully re-read the description above. 1292simon (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Juan questioned Top Gear's neutrality when he removed the content as seen in his edit. Top Gear is considered a reliable source and I later on fixed the sentences which seemed to have issues with them being promotional. I have also listed the forum for both of you to use if you both think Top Gear has issues. U1 quattro TALK 11:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
It also branded Top Gear as non neutral which is not true. U1 quattro TALK 16:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Then you will continue to have differences regardless how much I stress that Too Gear was questioned in the content removal. Either leave this discussion or get a third opinion. U1 quattro TALK 03:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • We have moved past that difference now, aside from 2 people supporting the change and just yourself opposing it. My reason for the change has nothing to do with whether Top Gear is neutral or not. Please see WP:PROMO for further detail. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I haven't seen any support of your changes. U1 quattro TALK 06:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The changes were initially made by Juan and are supported by me. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Juan has not given his justification or his input in the discussion so you cannot count him as your support. You are the one contesting the changes so that makes it only you who is against its removal. The main point of contention was the questionability of Top Gear as a reliable source which it is. When you have understood that point, you are welcome to give further input. U1 quattro TALK 10:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why was it discontinued?

edit

It doesn't tell us in this page.50.93.90.64 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply