User talk:Akluch

December 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akluch Response

I tried to reach consensus with the authors of those edits, but it is not possible. "Car and Driver" has a tendency to show "better" number for the cars they test. I brought an example of Quattroporte VI where the "Car and Driver" article measured 0-60 in 4.2 sec, while the Wiki page states it is 4.7 sec and no correction was done. I pointed that to the authors as well. I tried to use common sense that sport trim car with more hp, more sporty features can't be slower than base trim. Yet the authors continue to insist to accept the "Car and Driver" article as a "correct" (I doubt) source. We can "agree" with them and confuse readers, or realize that "Car and Driver" magazine can be wrong in this case. Thank you. Akluch (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)akluch[reply]

The wiki page states manufacturer data in the table which has since been clarified. Self research is neither allowed nor promoted over at Wiki. Your version doesn't have any source. Stating that others should use "common sense" and that the data you added can be "confirmed by Maserati Mechanics" proves that it holds little weight to what was added before. U¹ _quattro TALK 02:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quattroporte acceleration times

Hi Akluch. Here are some references supporting that the official 0-100 km/h time for the Automatica is 5.6 seconds: link 1, link 2. It is best that I don't get involved in editing the article, but I agree with you that the 0-100 km/h time should be used instead of the 0-60 km/h time. Also, WikiProject Automobiles states that performance figures should usually be restricted to manufacturers claims, which supports the 5.6s you had posted. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Wikiproject Automobiles is neither a policy, nor a guideline. It is just a general essay. In this case, the principle of verification by third party source takes priority over it. Manufacturer times have a history of being incorrect and we cannot use or rely on such data. U¹ _quattro TALK 02:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second link refers to Carmagazine: [1] which states that Quattroporte Automatica is 5.6 sec. So why "Car and Driver" should be considered instead of Carmagazine? Carmagazine is a 3rd party source as well Akluch (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akluch, what U1Quattro says about WikiProject Auto is incorrect. The conventions have been determined by consensus, and are use to give consistency between car articles. It is true that they are not always reliable (the same applies to most sources of acceleration data), however this is the current policy. Also, given that the rest of the table is 0-100 km/h, I believe your replacement of the 0-60 mph time with a 0-100 km/h time is an improvement to the article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reading issues, here is an excerpt from the wiki project automobiles page: "This page is an essay on the encyclopedia. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on Wikipedia or its process as pertaining to topics within their area of interest.

This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". If you keep on arguing over what is written on the page itself then you are at fault. U¹ _quattro TALK 07:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure Akluch, then what was the problem adding the source before you resorted to edit warring? You could've easily put in a source but you had to argue about the information you added saying that editors should confirm from Maserati Mechanics themselves. This behaviour is unacceptable. U¹ _quattro TALK 07:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the correct line from the Car Magazine article is: "the 0-60 time slips down to 5.6 seconds". Also there is no evidence that CAR actually tested the Quattroporte. They have just taken information from Maserati Pres Release.U¹ _quattro TALK 07:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, can we agree to use 5.6 for Quattroporte Automatica citing Car Magazine article as a source? Akluch (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is correct as CAR has not actually tested the Quattroporte. Car and Driver has tested it which makes the manufacturer estimates doubtful. U¹ _quattro TALK 10:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we purposely deny manufacturer data and source such as Car Magazine without considering that "Car and Driver" can be wrong? And how do we know that Car Magazine didn't test the car? Because they didn't tell explicitly about that? I don't feel comfortable that we continue to insist that one specific source is "correct" which doesn't seem to be the case.Akluch (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because CAR magazine is stating the same information written on the manufacturer website and brochure. If you have read wiki policy, stating manufacturer source is not encouraged on automobile articles. Where Car and Driver has been wrong about testing a car? If they had been wrong about the Quattroporte, they would've mentioned it in their later editions. Manufacturers state a lot of marketing BS about their products if you have read the history. Only third party tests verify what the manufacturer claims. A classical example is the Ferrari F40, Ferrari claimed that it could cross the 200 mph barrier while actual testing revealed otherwise. It couldn't even beat the Porsche 959. The F40 was lighter and more powerful than the 959 but it could not beat it in terms of performance. Same goes for the Ferrari F50. Actual testing revealed that the F50 was slower than the F40 and not faster than it as Ferrari claimed. Another example is Devel stating that the Sixteen would have 5,000 hp and will be the fastest street car ever made while actual videos about it prove otherwise. Adding another example, the Jaguar XJ220 upon actual testing couldn't get to the speed of 220 mph which it's name signified. Instead it set a controversial record in which the catalytic converters were removed and even then, it topped out at 217 mph. So keeping that into consideration, I wouldn't believe the manufacturer in this case.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akluch. I believe your suggestion above of using "5.6 for Quattroporte Automatica citing Car Magazine article as a source" would improve the article. The other issues is that the C&D time is 0-60 mph, not 0-100 km/h. U1Quattro's claim about manufacturer data being forbidden is incorrect (in fact WikiProject Auto says the complete opposite).

Therefore your suggestion is the better option, unless it is proven that Maserati published false data. PS Best ignore U1Quattro's red herring tactics of irrelevant comparisons, such as Ferrari F40, Jaguar XJ220, upcoming iPhones and Teslas. It's a frequent tactic of his/hers (along with reckless reverting...) Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious doubts about your reading 1292simon. What kind of glasses would you need to read that CAR magazine is stating a 0-60 mph acceleration time. Not a 0-100km/hacceleration time. That would be 0-62 mph. U¹ _quattro TALK 02:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source which has reviewed the car by not testing its performance times but driving it on a road. Car and Driver tested the Quattroporte on a drag strip. Notice that "zero to sixty mile per hour" is written in this new source.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, there's no data from "Car and Driver" on the rest of models, there's no proof that Maserati-provided data is inaccurate ("Car and Driver" can set perfect test conditions to get nice numbers, by the way), yet still insisting to use number provided by one particular source? This inconsistency is wrong and confusing. Somebody may wonder: what would be the numbers on other models if "Car and Driver" tested them as well? And there's no answer on this question. So for consistency and accuracy why not to use Maserati-provided data on all models? Akluch (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akluch, I recommend visiting Talk:Maserati Quattroporte instead. Talking here is fruitless. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]