Talk:Ferrari Portofino

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

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

• Ferrari Portofino - Exterior.jpg

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

Image

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)

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

RfC Main infobox image

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)

I prefer the silver one, less reflections. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Silver photo- as described in the previous section. Speaking of which: U1Quattro, why didn't you continue the discussion in the previous section I created, rather than creating this duplicate section? 1292simon (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes but no wiki policy is against it and it is verified by OTRS. U¹ _quattro TALK 20:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It's okay Vauxford. We as humans are prone to errors. U¹ _quattro TALK 08:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Specifications intro

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Hi U1Quattro. The comment about neutrality relates to NPOV, not the status of Top Gear as a source. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It also branded Top Gear as non neutral which is not true. U¹ _quattro TALK 16:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• That is not how I interpret the comment. Regardless, my point is about the NPOV issue. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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

The changes were initially made by Juan and are supported by me. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Do you have any evidence that Juan no longer supports the change? 1292simon (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• @1292simon:, I agree with @U1Quattro: ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was it discontinued?

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