Talk:Nissan GT-R/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Car classification

There is really no dispute about whether this is a supercar, and I have yet to see any legitimate source quoted to dispute this.Sepiraph 15:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some debate here as to whether or not the GT-R should be referred to as a supercar. Willirennen has pointed to Talk:Supercar saying it would explain. I don't have time to read it all, but I didn't see anything particularly enlightening when skimming over. Personally, I think it's better to rely on the sources for accurate classification rather than leave it to the discretion of editors here. Nissan and Edmunds Inside Line both refer to it as a supercar, so unless there is a reliable source to dispute this, I see no reason to change it.~ Dusk Knight 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The one bit that won't support your claim that it is a supercar is the Japanese wikipage refer the car as sportscar/GT (スポーツカー･GT), plus wasn't a while ago, at its development period, that car was referred to as a Porsche 911 Turbo competitor as numerous magazines claimed.
Plus, the supercar article will tell you that the automotive press frequently apply the term to any new exotic cars as supercars. The "similar to" bit, as it lists the Porsche 911 Turbo, Chevrolet Corvette and the Audi R8 as its competitors, which none of these are at all supercars. That Japanese page also lists the same cars.
Also, from my personal experience, numerous shows and event use the word Supercar, even many of these cars are not classified as one and that is to draw crowds into these events, plus the Supercar Run batch of the Goodwood Festival of Speed event has cars that people question over such as the Bentley Continental GT and Ferrari F430 which they had in the past. Any questions, should be referred to WP:CARS.

Willirennen (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, I said read the article, not the talk page, in this case a bit in the talk page will tell you somewhere at the bottom, that a long time ago there was a supercar list but that has been AFDed because editors cannot stop squabbling over what is and what isn't, therefore it had to go in order to keep the peace and I support that and please don't turn this into another "Wiki Civil War".
I did read the article as well. The part that says "The proper application of the term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts" makes it clear to me that this should not be left to the discretion of editors (including you, me, and those on the Japanese Wikipedia). So, my point is there are countless sources verifying the classification even if the "truth" is questionable (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). In the end, I don't care how it's classified so long as it's verified by reliable sources, as all information here should be. If you have a reliable source giving us a more accurate classification, then, by all means, use it to correct the article.~ Dusk Knight 19:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
But what of other sources that refer to it as a sports car, like Sport Compact Car Magazine, where they say, "Like all the best sports cars (think Porsche 911, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, Ford GT40), the Skyline earned its accolades in motorsport..." —Mr. Grim Reaper at 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You do raise a good point. Sources can be inconsistent. However, the article you link to does refer to it as "Nissan's Supercar" near the top. This is the only classification I've seen Nissan give. If we don't trust Nissan and automotive sources to correctly classify the car, what criteria should be used? As for what has been suggested, the Japanese Wikipedia article is poorly sourced compared to this one, and other Wikipedia articles are never acceptable sources for facts. Also, the supercar article is correctly full of phrases like "usually", "many supercars", "most supercars", and "supercars, by the usual definition..." making any calculation from this article too subjective to be reliable.~ Dusk Knight 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, Nissan could be glorifying it a little too much, and Edmunds refers to the Corvette Z06 as a supercar. Now, sure, it's a reliable source, but who in their right mind calls it a supercar? I know Wikipedia is based on sources, but meh, I'd hate to have to call it a supercar. We could keep at is a supercar/sportscar, and note that it is referred to as both. Also, here are some reliable sources that refer to it as either one, so we can make a "tally" of sort.
  • Loh, Edward. "First Look: 2008 Nissan GT-R". Motor Trend. Retrieved 2007-11-26. Referred to as both a "super sports car" and as a supercar.
  • Chang-Ran Kim (2007-10-24). "AUTOSHOW-Nissan hopes GT-R sports car will boost sales". Reuters. Retrieved 2007-11-26. Referred to as a sports car.
  • Carney, Dan. "Nissan faces uphill drive with new sports car". msnbc.com. Retrieved 2007-11-26. Referred to as a sports car and a "supercar."
  • Mitani, Sam (2007). "2009 Nissan GT-R Exposed". Road and Track. Retrieved 2007-11-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Referred to as a sports car.
—Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems everyone has their own opinion about what makes a supercar. I guess that's reason enough to avoid the term. It's fine with me if you want to change it. It's probably more neutral to call it sports car, say Nissan and the press frequently refer to it as a supercar, and let the readers decide for themselves.~ Dusk Knight 02:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, sports car is more general, and safer to use, at least for some time. I don't think the term supercar should be used unless it's blindly obvious, e.g. Bugatti Veyron or McLaren F1. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That is what I wanted to point out, I agree with the sportscar bit being suitable as there will be less issues compated with other classifications such as Supercar, Grand Tourer, considering almost every sportcars generally are as they have all the luxuries a saloon cars have to suit the demands of the public or sports saloon, as this is what it is considering the Skyline precessor, as a homologation touring car racer, literally is like the original BMW M3 and Ford Sierra RS Cosworth. Willirennen (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

7:40 SLR McLaren,Class Supercar/grand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_SLR_McLaren 7:40 Bugatti Veyron,Class Supercar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron 7:42 Ford_GT,Class Supercar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GT 7:43 Lamborghini_Murcielago,Class Supercar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Murcielago The class change of GT-R consents if these slow cars also change to the sports car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 November 2007

Why is that? All of those are commonly agreed and found to be referred to as supercars by sources, whereas the GT-R is conflicting referred to as both, in which we have decided to classify it in the article as a sports car, as it is more general, and we note that it's status as a supercar is disputed. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In general, a car that is faster than a supercar is a definition of supercar.It is more mysterious that a supercar that is slower than the sports car exists in the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 December 2007

Dusk Knight,You forcibly published a suspected slick tire though grounds were thin. I presented as many as four evidences and objected. You are supporting a Anti Insistence. It is the same also of the problem of the class change. My insistence will be able to be overturned? My insistence must be thorough fairness and objectivity. If so, shut up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 December 2007

I have no idea what you are trying to say, so I can't respond to whatever concerns you may have. I can tell you that your problem won't be resolved by constantly reverting the article.~ Dusk Knight 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It has now been agreed that the GT-R is classed as sports car, as this is more universal, until NCAP or somebody like who is not a magazine will class it as a supercar, the sportscar classification is there to stay. Plus, as I said, if Nissan is going to sell as much or more GT-Rs, than Porsche could sell their 911 Turbo, then the sportscar tag is right for them. Also as this applies to Wikiarrangementeditor, can you next time sign your username after you contribute to this talk section in future, just to give you a quick instruction, below that save button, there is a sign your username thing, this is where you have to press after signing your discussion. Willirennen 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
An unfair edit is not admitted!Please edit the car that calls a super-car though it is slower than GT-R at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikiarrangementeditor, you seem to misunderstand. The article was not changed to say the GT-R is not a supercar. It was changed to say use of the term is disputed. Just because it says sports car that doesn't mean that it isn't (or is) a supercar. The reader can decide. The term is not disputed for those other cars you mentioned so there is no need to change those articles. Besides, those cars are faster, more expensive, more exclusive, etc. If the GT-R was faster around the Nurburgring, it doesn't necessarily mean anything except that Nissan used better drivers.~ Dusk Knight 03:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Everyone please remember that you're arguing over a "classification" which has NO real world impact and no real meaning. Whether we call the car a "sports car" or a "supercar" doesn't cause the car to go any faster.. the classification has no impact on the actual car itself.

On wikipedia, it shouldn't be necessary to use words such as "supercar" to indicate how good a car is. Rather, the facts surrounding the car should paint the picture for the readers. Thus, rather than saying "The GT-R is a supercar by Nissan..." we should be able to say "The GT-R is a car by Nissan which does 0-100 in x seconds, the 1/4 in x seconds, and various lap times in x seconds". This information alone should allow the reader to say either "wow this is GT-R is a supercar!" or "nice sports car".

In the interest of conservatism, I think It'd be best to say, if anything, "the gt-r has often been referred to as a supercar in the media" or something like that. At the end of the day, however, this is barely worth the edit war. Hugzz 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please if you want to restrict me.The edit to lack fairness and objectivity cannot be never missed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Class of SLR McLaren is two marks named Supercar/Grand tourer. Two marks are sure not to have the problem by GT-R either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you using a translator? Because it is hard to understand what you are trying to say. However, the majority of us have agreed that the GT-R should be classified as a sports car, rather than a supercar (of which we are noting anyway.) Just drop it. And please for the love of God, sign you comments by typing "~~~~" after whatever you write here on the talk page. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes.translator is used.Such statistics for which it is unfair and the number of people is insufficient are invalid though it was said that it had decided it to Suportscar by the vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to say. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This user has now been reported to WP:AN3, since I'm writing this on Explorer rather than Firefox which i am used to, I don't know if I have handled the complaint procedure correctly. Willirennen 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Cannot the nuance be understood?"Class of SLR McLaren is two marks named Supercar/Grand tourer."The description of SLR doesn't have the problem. Why is it a problem in GT-R? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That Japanese page said sportscar/GT (スポーツカー･GT), not supercar/GT. Willirennen 12:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because it's found on another article doesn't make it right for this one. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
In wiki of Japan, it was corrected to a supercar by the sports car. "日産自動車が製造・販売する予定のスーパーカー･GTカーである"(supercar/GT). And, the Wiki edit was notified to maximum GT-R BBS in Japan."http://hobby10.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/auto/1196259783/715-" The dissenting opinion is none at all. Therefore, it is necessary to revive the description of a super car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, it was never removed, per se. It was removed only from the infobox. It's not big deal. Just leave it. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 22:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I questions Dusk Knight.Your favorite car has Audi R8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R8 Audi R8 is "Class Supercar"??? A supercar is sure not to include such a Audi R8 alone. Why do not you correct it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a question, what language do you natively speak? —Mr. Grim Reaper at 02:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume Japanese, that is looking at the kanji lettering. Willirennen 02:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Dusk Knight is an unfair person who neglects objecting, and edits it without permission.At least, you must explain the reason why favorite Audi R8 is a supercar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Anti GT-R Grim Reaper! Please do not change the thing decided by the decision by majority without permission.If it is dissatisfied, it is necessary to collect more dissenting opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron NurTime7:40

It is slower than GT-R, and the cost performance is the lowest excrement car.If the definition of a super-car is put in question, it is necessary to edit it on the page of your favorite car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You must understand, speed is not the only thing that makes a car a supercar. Other factors such as prices, rarity, etc. also make it a supercar. Please stop editing it. You seem to want to annoying everyone and you're not helping the GT-R article. Instead of editing the page, talk it out here. It's plain annoying. And would you please, please, please sign you comments! —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I acquired the decision by majority from many manias, and decided that a supercar.It is only three people Dusk Knight and Mr Grim Reaper and Willirennen that oppose. A car of Europe alone is not a super-car. It is a price swindle.Please do the pricing that corresponds to the performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry. Porsche is excluded. Only Porsche is a super-car that corresponded to the price.The sports car of other Europe practiced deceit by pricing, and made the concept of a super car dirty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is not just three people who disagree with Wikiarrangementeditor (who seems incapable of signing posts). I feel strongly that it should be labeled as a sports car, with the clarification that Nissan and some in the press see it as a super car. The super car class should only be used in clear cut cases like the Enzo, Veyron and what not. Wikiarrangementeditor seems to feel that the GT-R provides better prefromance for the money, but this is hardly the only factor in what makes are car a supercar. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The insistence on Daniel J. Leivick has been understood well. Then, it questions. Favorite cars Ford GT and AudiR8 and Porsche 959. These cars have been described as a supercar. What do you think? Design like ENZO that stands out. Or, is there a thing that equals the horsepower of Veyron? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What do my favorite cars have to do with this? The above comment does not make much sense. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes.your favorite cars.Do you think that a "Class supercar"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a language barrier issue here. The above comment does not really mean anything in English. If by "Do you think that a "Class supercar"' you mean, "do I think my favorite cars are supercars"? The answer would be, yes... to some of them, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether the GT-R is. According to sources its status is debatable and should be indicated as such in the article. It doesn't really matter what are opinions on cars are, we have to go by sources. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Your favorite car is a wiki page of "supercar".Why is it a supercar? Please teach the reason.
Actually the GT40 is listed as a sportscar. Supercar is a POV term and should only be used in clear cut cases. If you think there are other cars that are listed as supercars that should not be feel free to discuss changing their classification on their talk pages. I will not answer any more questions regarding my favorite cars, please stay on topic. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be easier for you to edit the Wikipedia article on the GT-R in your own language? The point is, anyhow, that there are other factors that decide weather or not a car is a supercar or not. These other cars you mention are obvious cases. There is almost no contradiction of what their "class" is. The GT-R, however, is less obvious and more argued, and thus it's easier to label it as a sports car here on Wikipedia. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what all the fuss is about. The car certainly has the performance of a supercar, so why not have it classed just that? Please stay away from philosophical talks about "what constitute a supercar". That have no importance on Wikipedia as it's primary a personal preference issue. SidewalkMCS (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of the conflict of sources. It's better to name it a sports car, as a supercar is a next level and is implied as a sports car, and a sports car would be less ambiguous and more general. We could still label it as a super, noting it is disputed, as I have done before. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I voted in BBS in which the GT-R mania gathered. The result is a class named a supercar. Anti must vanish. It is obstructive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're saying. The GT-R is one of my favorite cars, and I'd like to make it as best an article as possible. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I think the language barrier is a significant problem in gaining consensus. I don't believe Wikiarrangementeditor is able to understand the arguements that have been laid out in favor of classifying the GT-R as a sportscar. Everytime someone explains the reasons why sportscar is a better class to use as long as a mention is made of how Nissan is marketing the vehicle, Wikiarrangement editor comes back with a semi coherent response that does not address the issues. I think consensus has been reached, we have at least four experienced editors on the side of classing it as a sportscar and two single purpose acounts in favor of supercar class, but without laying out any cogent arguements aside from the fact that the GT-R has very good performance. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Daniel, I strongly oppose your suggestion in regard to favouring experienced editors' opinions. Indeed these are my first edits on wikipedia.org, but that alone should not alter the weight or the quality of what being written. It's the topic that counts, not how long a particular person spends on this site.SidewalkMCS (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, every time anyone edits the article per this discussion, Wikiarrangementeditor manages to revert it and make no coherent effort to talk it out. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Gents, I highly doubt we'll ever reach a "consensus" considering both proposals have passionate promoters. Mr./Mrs. Wikiarrangementeditor indeed seems incapable of making sensible edits, but one wrong GT-R fanatic does not justify anything in favour of the opposer. And the matter, I repeat, is purely a personal preference issue. There will NEVER be a source for this. (I detest comments from automotive publications being treated as "Source", since they are nothing more than someone's personal view printed on paper. They are not definitive in any way, except as a reference to that particular person.) Then I would assume if cars like Porsche Carrera and Audi R8 are classified as "Supercar", then I don't see any reason why this car isn't.

The performance of this car is on per or in most cases, superior. We had ENOUGH talks on "My Supercar Definitions", none of which enlighten anything. So just let the times and numbers speak for themselves. It seems a standard Wikipedia practice why should this article be an exception?SidewalkMCS (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is difficult to source. That is why we should use a more general less loaded term to classify the GT-R. There may be other cars that are listed as supercars when there status as such is dubious (the R8 for example), but that is not a reason to continue the practice. I think this should set a precedent to use the supercar class only in obvious cases. Otherwise we run the risk of becoming a source for people to point to and say "look Wikipedia says it is a supercar." --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There should not be a problem with people using Wikipedia as a source of information. Isn't it the whole purpose of open encyclopedia? Saying that, one of the most important aspects of such project is consistency. I see more harm than good in rushing a ad-hoc precedence, definition or consensus, as to how a specific term should be applied, when there already is certain practice in place. Discussion in regard to that matter should be moved to the article in question ("supercar"), and not on an article that happened to be classified with it. Though I am struggling to find any purposeful meaning to such action, as I feel the current practice to be perfectly adequate. SidewalkMCS (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with people using Wikipedia as a source for car classification especially in borderline cases. Wikipedia should not be deciding which borderline supercars make the cut. It is a slippery slope to say "well the GT-R seems pretty close", next thing you know people will be pointing to this page when they try to have the supercar tag placed on the Mitsubishi Evolution or Ariel Atom or any other high performance vehicle that is clearly not a supercar. This is not a rushed precedent we are actually working on this in the way that most precedence on Wikipedia is produced, through discussion. In short I disagree, the current practice of using the supercar class for any high performance new car is not adequate and should be changed. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Opinions of many and unspecified GT-R fans are priority than the opinion of Anti of four people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a wannabe fan site. Fact and verifiability is priority of opinions, no matter who it's from. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 02:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright I think a good faith edit has been made to discuss this. The opinions of many fans of the GT-R have little to do with this article. As I have said before the reason we want to use sportscar, is because supercar is a weighted term and should only be used in clear cut cases. Wikiarrangementeditor has not made any arguements to refute this. Unless they do so I say we change it to sportscar and if Wikiarrangementeditor continues to revert then he will have to be blocked. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You are favorite Audi R8 and Ford GT alone is not suitable for a supercar. Please edit it from your favorite car if related to the sports car. In a general line of vision, Audi R8 and Ford GT look the sports car. Moreover, though it is slower than GT-R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure if you understand what is being said. Forget about my favorite cars, if you think the R8 and Ford GT are not supercars, go to their talk pages and discuss it their. This page is for discussion of the GT-R only. You have not been able to make an arguement to refute what myself and others have layed out in regards to classifying the GT-R as a sportscar. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It has understood. Because you are not negative, I change the item of Audi R8 and Ford GT to the sports car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
how silly....of course the GT-R is a supercar, the price does not come into it...and neither does the rarity. I find it hard to understand how anal people are being about this, and how they are trying to cite 'language barrier' as a reason not to listen to someone's opinion. It is a very fast, high powered car, not based on a lower model, not a race car and is pure ie. not a fast SUV/Sedan etc. Porsche turbo/gt3/gt2 Ford GT are all supercars. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that we came to a good consensus here. The "supercar" label is only going to be applied without saying who calls it a supercar, if the vehicle is a very clear cut example. The GT-R is not a clear cut example some people call it a supercar, some people don't. Wikipedia is not going to take sides, we will just present the info as it really is: "the GT-R is often referred to as a supercar." This works well for me. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nissan gtr is a supercar.CompScientist (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The gtr is a supercar and a sportscar no less, a supercar is not a supercar unless it is a sports car. I aggree with those who see the FACTS that back it up as a supercar. Now is the gtr considered an exotic? That surely is up for debate as Nissan has gone global with the car. I have no doubt that the gtr is a supercar. The arguments given above are hilarious.CompScientist (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I will try to lay my view out as clearly as I can so we can discuss this as easily as possible and see who disagrees and who agrees. I will also post this on WP:CAR and try to get more opinions. I feel that when classifying cars we should avoid using subjective terms like "supercar" unless it is totally obvious and by that I mean fits all the usual criteria (in supercar's case: very high performance, attention grabbing styling, expensive, etc). The problem I see is that it is not hard to find sources calling any high performance modern vehicle a "supercar." For example I don't think we would use the supercar label on the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, but here are some sources that indicate that it is a supercar [1], [2]. I have concern that if we label the GT-R a supercar we enter a slippery slope which will eventually lead to just about every new high performance vehicle being labeled a supercar. I think "supercar" is a POV term just like "amazing" or "great." I could find plenty of sources that call the GT-R "amazing", but that doesn't mean we should start the article out say "The Nissan GT-R is an amazing supercar." We need to be conservative when we classify vehicles here, if there is any doubt, I say go with the less sensational catagory. I would like to get a sense of who agree with this and who disagrees. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
There should be some form of classification for supercar. For a new car to be classified as a supercar, I feel it should have the following - at least 6 cylinders, either 2 seats or a strict 2+2 (which is hard because I would not consider a big merc coupe to be a supercar, even when it is the AMG version) not a race car (CLK GTR? to me that is a clear case of a race car, that has been made road legal), rarity, does not come into it - a rare car is an exotic car. The emphasis should be on a car that is suitable for the road, and has a very high level of performance. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
We really should not be trying to come up with "the wiki definition of a supercar" as it is a subjective term. I am trying to say that we should only use there term in cases were there isn't any sort of argument, i.e Ferrari Enzo, Bugatti Veyron. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Automakers help feed the automotive press a lot of BS (Boastful Superlatives) who then work hard to write articles adding even more BS to describe new products and thus earn credits from the hands that feed them. Moreover, some customers and fans have an insatiable apetite for this BS. The Nissan GT-R is a perfect example of this problem. All this talk of classifying this car as a "supercar" is designed to easily make the GT-R look superior to other vehicles in its class. Simply put, using self-serving BS in marketing claims is a very, very old invention that helps sell products and fuel the fan base with "bragging" rights. On the other hand, it is more difficult for most marketers to be humble and genuine. It is best to stay away from traditional marketing superlatives and hyperbole. Describing the GT-R as a supercar further depreciates the value of the description itself. This is because most discerning consumers have become jaded, they are not easily swayed by such BS, and most often respond with a "yeah, right" ("Marketing: Too Much Hype Backfires" ScienceDaily, March 28, 2007 retrieved on December 25 2007). Press reports of "amazing" and "awesome" are so common today, that they they not only apply to almost any new car introduced (no matter what its classification), but also to everything on the vehicle such as the radio gear they have. In summary, this new high performance vehicle is a "sports car" ... no matter what the expected BS that manufacturers and automobile journalists now slap on almost everything. I think we should help reduce the amount of BS (Boastful Superlatives) in Wikipedia. — CZmarlin (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the term supercar is overused, and in wikipedia it should only be used in clear cut cases, I also feel that the GT-R is a clear cut case. 0-60 in 3.3, 190+ MPH, 473BHP, the ring in 7.38 ( all for the base model, with more to come) and on another far more personal note - Merry Christmas !!! Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Not beat a dead horse, but performance isn't everything, look at cars like the Radical SR8 or the Ariel Atom both sports cars (not supercars) and both would run circles around the GT-R or just about any other supercar for that matter. If it was a clear cut case, we wouldn't be arguing about it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem seems to me that people are confusing the term classification with definition. In automotive terms, classifications are subjective, there are very few precise car definitions (Kei car is one and even that has changed with time) and no legal car definitions that I'm aware of that cross international boundaries. Thus if any reliable source calls it a Supercar it is one. If you can find a reliable source that says it is not a Supercar then add that as well. Remember WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC) The other point I forgot is that because they are subjective, most car classifications are not mutually exclusive, thus a car can be a sportscar, supercar and roadster all at the same time. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I must strongly disagree, we should not use other peoples subjective labels. The lead sentence should be a simple description of fact, which it is now. As I have said before, "Supercar" is like "awesome." If a reliable source called the GT-R an "awesome supercar" we wouldn't begin the article "The Nissan GT-R is an awesome supercar" that would be not be NPOV. We should use a neutral discriptive class in all cases. In some situations were the vehicle is univeraly refered to as a supercar thats when we should use it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
But in the automotive context there are no defined neutral descriptive classes. Mighty Antar (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, there are many neutral descriptive classes: coupe, sedan, compact, fullsize and plenty more. High performance coupe is a much more neutral non controversial descriptive class for the GT-R. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
These may sound more neutral to you, but they are equally as vague and imprecise as supercar. Full-size and compact are terms you'd be very hard-pushed to find used for any car in the UK, most people would say large or small. Mighty Antar (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
No they are more neutral, supercar carries with it subjective implications as to the vehicles supperiority. Coupe and sedan are descriptive terms. No one would argue that the GT-R is a high performance coupe, but its supercar status is agruable, some people think it is others do not. We should use the less contentious description. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Nissan and reliable sources state the car as a supercar, Yet if someone buys the car they will be dissapointed because its just a sportscar, according to wiki, Nissan is a liar, they have lawyers who lied, they will put their billion dollar company at risk, reputation at risk, lol, this is funny, I do not want to get into an edit war. If an evo is faster than most supercars, it should be considered one, the gtr has redefined the term supercar, an ariel atom does not have all the neccessities of a car to be considered a supercar, it's obvious to see... The consensus here show that we agree on the supercar name and status, yet only two or three who diligently oppose the title supercar. Still, it is a win/win situtation for Nissan, for a car of this "questionable" and inferior status to outperform other "supercars" is an amazing feat.75.4.7.27 (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. using a japanese "wiki" page to verify that this car is not a supercar is just again hilarious.75.4.7.27 (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to a more precise intro including the word supercar. I think the consensus here would agree. Only a few here have POV's and have not provided a reliable source stating that it is "not" a supercar. I agree with Mighty Antar. Unless someone provides strong sources that say without a doubt, and literally, that it is "not" a supercar, we should stick with supercar until then, as provided by Nissan ceo, and respected automobile sources and circles.75.4.7.27 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Stupidest edit war ever. remember that "supercar" vs "sports car" is only a made up classification. it has no impact on the car whatsoever whether people call it a supercar or a sports car. Similarly, there is no definition of supercar.. it is simply a made up term used by some people. in a sense, we could even liken it to saying someone is "cool". It makes just as much sense to argue "Mister John Smith has had more girlfriends than brad pitt, and everyone KNOWS brad pitt is cool; thus, john smith must be cool", as it is to argue "nissan gt-r is faster around the 'ring than a enzo ferrari, and we all know that enzos are supercars; thus the nissan is a supercar". we all know that being cool is more than simply how many girlfriends someone has had. we also all know that it'd be wrong to start the wiki article of Mister John Smith with "Mister John smith is a cool guy". the term "supercar" has as many different meanings to people as the word "cool" does. it's as pointless on a wiki article as saying that someone is cool.
It is fruitless to argue over a classification with no meaning and no real world impact. The most we, as wiki editors, can say is "Blah blah has termed the Nissan GT-R a 'supercar'". As the word has no real world meaning, we cannot personally apply it to the article without introducing a POV. You cannot call it a supercar simply because it is faster than another car. That would be original research. That is you saying "i believe it's a supercar because it is faster than an enzo and i believe that an enzo is a supercar and i believe that the definition of a supercar is how fast a car can go around the 'ring". this is clearly original research. You're not a reputable source of what a supercar is. It'd be hard to say that anyone is a reputable source of what a supercar is, and thus it is safer to simply say that "blah blah has called it a supercar", rather than saying "the gtr IS a supercar because blah blah aid so".
I will again revert the article to the NPOV stance. I'm starting to get tempted to simply change the article to "The Nissan GT-R is an automobile..." rather than "is as sports car" or "supercar". I dont think anyone will disagree with the GT-R being an automobile. you can fight the supercar/sports car article in your own head. (and before anyone tries to say that i'm showing my POV because i'm biased against the GT-R, check the article's edit history. I'm not some corvette fanboy trying to put the GT-R down. I love this car; i CREATED this article. but the supercar/sportscar debate is pure stupidity) Hugzz (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Hugzz and this pointless editing was to uphold "bragging" rights for this new model. As noted before, the terminology to describe all too many things today consists mostly of BS (Boastful Superlatives) -- even the Wikipedia article for supercar states "The proper application of the term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts." This, and all similar high-performance vehicles are just automobiles that are made to go fast. They will not make the driver any "cooler", younger, or more virile, no matter how "super" their ride is! — CZmarlin (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


"Nissan GT-R: Redefining the word Supercar", Crappy catch I know, but it just popped into my mind, after looking at all the silly edit war her. Anyways the creator of the car states clearly that "the GT-R is a completely new kind of a Supercar"(my rough translation from a Japanese mag), it really is a small issue how some desperate some people can be on Wikipedia. Some are so eager to discredit the car while some have gone as far as editing all the Supercar articles on wikipedia to something else! quite hilarious really. 210.159.162.112 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus

I have reverted the change made to the intro by 75.4.7.27 as I don't believe we have reached a consensus. Mighty Antar (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's helpful to say that this is a stupid edit war as the subject of Car classification has implications for almost every automotive article. What we are aiming for is to arrive at a consensus that might be applied to this and all other automobile articles. Mighty Antar (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it's probably not helpful to call the edit war stupid; and it probably is no more stupid than any other edit war. If any form of consensus could be found it would likely apply to all car automobiles, because the edit war is not really over a lack of agreement on what it means to be a supercar, but rather whether a term such as "supercar" can be used in an encyclopedic way.
--Hugzz (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

--Hugzz (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 

 No one has provided a strong source stating that the gtr is NOT a supercar.  It is as simple as that.  I have changed 
 the intro to supercar, until anyone can provide credible sources, not POV's as to why it is not a supercar.  Again,
 it is as simple as that.

71.156.55.133 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please find me a strong source stating that brad pitt is NOT a cool guy. It's as simple as that. Currently, the intro to the brad pitt article says:
William Bradley "Brad" Pitt (born December 18, 1963) is an American actor, film producer, and social activist.
Want to guess how long it would take to get reverted if i changed it to:
William Bradley "Brad" Pitt (born December 18, 1963) is an American actor, film producer, social activist and cool guy.
It would get reverted very quickly because the word "supercar" is as meaningless and encyclopedic as "cool". Deep down we all know more or less what it means, but it's impossible to define it quantitatively. Thus, any attempt to apply it to an article requires subjective judgement. Wikipedia is not a place for subjective judgement. Rather, we should quantify the facts relating to the issue (eg put down all the specs regarding how fast the nissan GT-R is) and allow their reader to make up their own mind whether the GT-R is a supercar or not.
- Hugzz (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

^^^^No sources, yet only POV's.^^^^ See my point! Let's stick to the subject of this article... The burden is on those who oppose that Nissan is a supercar must provide SOURCES NOT POV's. It is as simple as that, provide your sources, thank you.71.156.55.133 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no debate whether people have called the GT-R a supercar. We all agree that sources have said that. In fact, if you look at the article you will see that it says "Nissan and the automotive press frequently refer to the GT-R as a supercar."
The debate isn't whether there are sources or not to say this; the debate is whether the term "supercar" is encyclopedic; ie whether WE can state that the GT-R is a supercar. I do not feel that we here at wikipedia are in a position to define the term "supercar".
Until the rest of the word agrees upon a set definition for the word "supercar" we should not use it. The word is too vague, and implies too many different things to too many people. Again, outline the facts surrounding the car and allow the reader to decide for themselves whether the GT-R is a supercar or not.
--Hugzz (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User 71.156.55.133, please stop reverting the article to say that it is a supercar. There is currently no consensus on the issue, and it is clearly a topic of debate. Wikipedia makes decisions based on consensus. Where consensus does not apply, the article should not reflect one point of view nor the other (ie the article should not say that it IS a supercar, and the article should not say that it ISN'T a supercar). Where there is not consensus we should take the conservative approach to the issue and outline the relevant facts. Thus, in this situation rather that either saying "the gtr is a supercar" or "the gtr is not a supercar", we should simply say "the gtr is a car that many in the automotive press have called a 'supercar'". Both you and I can agree to this statement; whereas both you and i do NOT agree with the statement that "the gtr is a supercar". [actually, in honesty i do think that it's probably a supercar; i just do not feel that its suitable for wikipedia to define it as such] --Hugzz (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Many do not agree with the sentence "Nissan and the press frequently refer it to a supercar". It is deceiving. This sentence leads the reader to believe that there are some that do not think it is a supercar. BUT more importantly, no one has provided a credible source that it is not a supercar, this leads me to believe that the opposition is only wiki readers and their POV's. not a credible source that states it does not belong in this category. If so, then we must delete the term supercar from EVERY article in wiki, until this is resolved. AGAIN PROVIDE YOUR SOURCE THAT IT IS NOT A SUPERCAR, AND NOT YOUR POV'S. Yet, there is still not a source to back it up in this page so far and only POV's. thank you.75.4.7.201 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to supercar again. I feel that the sources back it up. Yet the opposition has not provided a credible source and only POV's, again. I believe that this is the consensus, except for only two or three who diligently oppose, with POV's and no sources....75.4.7.201 (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy no need to SHOUT. Here are four sources that discuss the GT-R but do not call it a supercar: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Your suggestion of removing all of the supercar labels is not a terrible idea and I would support it on all but the most clear cut cases as the term is very vague and subjective. By the way reverting to a contentious version during the discussion is not acceptable, you have been asked not to do this before. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We need a source that says clearly and specifically without a doubt that "it is NOT a supercar", not a source that uses the term sportscar, as it does not literally and specifically imply the gtr is Not a supercar and it is a general term used for supercars all the time. 75.4.7.201 (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 

There is not one source out there that says the GT-R is "Not" a supercar.  Period.  Others whom agree it is a supercar have 
credible sources, albeit primary, credible sources.  Those who oppose have not provided one, not one source, not even one,  
zero sources, stating that the GT-R "not" a supercar.  It is as simple as that.

75.4.7.201 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I will say for the 5th time now that this is not an issue of sources. We all agree that there are sources claiming the Nissan GT-R to be a supercar. The issue at hand is that the term "supercar" may be deemed to be unencyclopedic. In that case it wouldn't matter how many sources say that it is a supercar, we still would not say so in the article.
Please do not make further edits to the article in regards to the "supercar" status until you understand that this is not a question of sources, but rather is a question of whether a term such as "supercar" is suitable to be used on wikipedia. From the amount of controversy that it has caused on this one article alone, i would say that the definition of "supercar" is too widely disagreed upon to be used definitively on wikipedia.
This is not a question of sources.
--Hugzz (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree, the internet is full of people arguing this vehicles supercar status, that is a fact. We should not be using this subjective term in such a controversial case. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet no sources provided again, and trying to put attention elsewhere, this is a question of sources as those are the ones closer to academia and not merely POV's from wiki editors. thank you. This is all about sources from the beginning as it helps reach a consensus that is not biased from the same wiki editors.75.4.7.201 (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Try to understand, the term "supercar" carries with it inherent point of view. It should not be used in controversial cases, I don't need a source to prove this is controversial, it obviously is. Wikipedia is not entirely about sources, editrial descretion is important on controversial topics, that is why we should use a less loaded description and let readers decide for themselves. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Again no POV's please, just provide a credible source. Thank you.75.4.7.201 ([[User  
talk:75.4.7.201|talk]]) 01:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a car that has not even been released yet. There are not many reliable sources that are not just regurgiating Nissan marketing hype. However, read any forum where this car is being discussed and you will see major contoversy regarding the GT-R status as a supercar. I would not use a forum as a source, but it clearly shows that conroversy exists and we should use caution when describing this vehicle. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Again no POV's please, just provide a credible source.  Thank you.75.4.7.201 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
For the 6th time, I tell you that this is NOT an issue of sources. Sources have nothing to do with the question at hand. You are making it very clear that you have no understanding of the issue that we are debating, so i ask you to please stop editing the article whilst there is an ongoing discussion of an issue which you are not understanding.
I have made a serious effort to attempt to address each and every concern that you state, and in turn provide my arguments. Time after time, you ignore each and every one of my arguments and simply restate your argument (which I have already responded to 5 previous times). I can only assume at this stage that you have no interest in this debate whatsoever and are simply trolling. If this is not the case, I invite you to please read all of the above discussion and respond to the various points proposed by a number of editors.
Furthmore, I draw your attention to WP:3RR, which you are currently in breach of. Your frequent reverts in regards to an issue which is currently being debated is very disruptful. Please stop this.
--Hugzz (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that six times you responded without a source, just POV's, whilst ones who concurr it is a supercar have done so. After all this, still no source has been provided, just POV's. I agree with 75.4.7.201CompScientist (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read all of the above; and I will repeat myself for the 7th time. This is not an issue of sources. The issue at hand is simply that the term "supercar" is unencyclopedic. It has no set meaning, and causes dfficulty every time that it is used. It is nothing more than a made up word that is, in itself, a POV. Saying "The Nissan GT-R is a supercar" is ike saying "Brad Pitt is cool". Both may have many sources which agree (i'm sure there is no shortage of magazine articls saying that brad pitt is cool), but neither statement belongs in an encyclopedia because neither the term "cool" nor "supercar" have a set meaning. Both words mean different things to different people. I'd be perfectly happy to see the statement "time magazine declared bratt pitt the 'coolest man alive'". Similarly, I'd be happy to see "many in the automotive press have declared the Nissan GT-R a 'supercar'"; but at the end of the day this is just stating their point of view.
A 0-60 time is a fact. We can state "edmunds recorded the nissan gt-r doing 0-60 in 3.3 seconds" and no one can deny that. It's a fact. We cannot say "the nissan GT-R is a supercar" because it is not a fact. It's a point of view. You think it's a supercar, but someone else doesn't. Determining whether something is a supercar or not requires judgement. It requires a person to give their point of view on a car. Your point of view is that the nissan gtr is a supercar; many other people have the point of view that the nissan gtr is not a supercar. It is not the place of wikipedia to state a point of view in one direction or the other. The most that wikipedia can say is "some magazines have the point of view that the nissan gtr is a supercar".
0-60 times = measurable, fact. 1/4 times = measurable, fact. Top speed = measurable, fact. Weight = measurable, fact. Supercar status = not measurable, opinion.
--Hugzz (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I really believe that a source needs to be provided also. It really says a lot when one hasn't been provided at all!!! Amazing, no sources yet, just repeated POV's.CompScientist (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A source saying what? The issue isn't whether people think the GTR is a supercar; the issue is whether "supercar" is an encyclopedic word, or if calling something a "supercar" is simply a matter of opinion.
I'd maybe be interested if there was a credible source defining a what a supercar is in a quantitative way. If there was a standards body which defined what a supercar is then i'd be so happy to state "the nissan gtr is a supercar, as defined by the Automobile Stanards body of the World"
So you're right. There is a lack of sources; there's a lack of sources proving that "supercar" is an actual word with an actual meaning, and not just an expresion of opinion. It's certainly not in my dictionary. --Hugzz (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Some sources for a "definition" of the description:
"A term supercar was coined to describe extremely expensive, extremely beautiful and extremely fast cars. But the proper use of this term is often subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts. There is no clear definition of what characteristics a car must have to be a supercar. What constitutes a supercar is often a matter of opinion.Robert Hills in an essay "What Is The Definition Of a Supercar?"
"By definition, supercars are temperamental beasts that buck at anything but the open road."Aaron Gold, About.com
"Who ever heard of a true supercar being useable?" EVO magazine
... as well as countless similar POV statements.
  • Therefore, it is very difficult to use POV as a source to describe POV to begin with! Moreover, the "source" about this car is the manufacturer and their marketing strategy is to enhance the "appeal" and "buzz" about this model. Contributing to this "debate" is an example of their effective promotional campaign ahead of the public sale of their high-performance vehicle. And its description as a high-performance sports-oriented automobile is the only one that is not debatable as this time. CZmarlin (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that there in no real debate here, just POV's from diligent biased editors. It is sufficient to keep the term supercar until sources, not POV's show otherwise.CompScientist (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There definitly is debate here and I don't know why you assume anyone is biased one way or the other, I like the GT-R and want the best possible article for it without a bunch of sycophantic hype. You need to read WP:NPOV because I think you throw around the word "POV" without understanding what it means in the wiki sense. We are trying to be neutral and avoid loaded words without clearly saying who says them in the text. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, no POV's, just provide a source to support your POV.  Amazingly you haven't done so.  I can really care less whether 
you like the gtr or not, lol, just give a credible source to support your POV. thank you!CompScientist (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You can say "POV" and "no source" all you want, but you are missusing the terms. This issue does not have to do with sources (this has been said at least 10 times). High "performance coupe" is neutral wording, "supercar" is not neutral. This is not a "POV" (something can be sourced and still violate WP:NPOV) as you put it, this is a what consensus has established. Currently 5 established and experienced editors have agreed that the description should read "high performance coupe." As far as I can tell CompScientist and the dynamic IP are the only ones left arguing for a change (if infact they are seperate people). I think we are looking at pretty near a consensus to keep the article as it is. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, and again, no POV's please, there should be sources to back up your claim, you have provided none whatsoever, 
CompScientist (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

a source that defines the GT-R as a supercar

Cover Story: Nissan GT-R This is it, then. No more hype, no more tantalising tales from the Ring. Finally we can judge Nissan’s new supercar from the driver’s seat.

http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/213486/this_months_evo.html

I don't see why people are getting so worked up about the use of this term, I don't see this attitude regarding someone being called a supermodel, and at least with supercars, there are figures to back up the use of the word.Sennen goroshi (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, we already have sources that state the GT-R is a supercar, the issue isn't whether people think the GTR is a supercar; the issue is whether
1. "supercar" is an encyclopedic word, or
2. calling something a "supercar" is simply a matter of opinion.
If the former then we can continue to use it in the class section of Template:Infobox Automobile as in Lamborghini Reventón, Bugatti Veyron etc. and whenever we like in any article about a car we think qualifies as a supercar, if the latter then it should only be used with a specific citation. Everyone would probably agree that the Veyron is a supercar, the problem is that there is no specific threshold between a supercar and a sports car. The De Tomaso Pantera is perhaps another contentious example. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel that it is not an encyclopedic word, it often gets thrown around with a bunch of marketing hype which is picked up by the "reliable sources" (car mags). Actually if we look at Sennen Goroshi's example it seems that the fashion industry is better at using the term supermodel then with the car industry's use of the word supercar. Apparently there have only been 7 or 8 recognized supermodels is the past 30 years. That is not to say that the use of "such and such is a supercar made by..." should be wiped off of Wikipedia, there are a number of clear cut cases (just as with supermodels) where no one in good faith would argue about it, as I have said a dozen times before this is not a clear cut case. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue of the term supercar, whether encyclopedic or not, is also POV.  To make everything fair, there are sources that 
say gtr is a supercar, and none whatsoever that say it is not.  I hope people see the point and do not get sucked into this 
argument of whether it's an encyclopedic term because that quite frankly is someone's POV.  There are sources that state gtr 
is a supercar under this supposed subjective term, while on the same playingfield, none that states it is not a supercar 
under this subjective term.  So provide a source, it is as simple as that, no POV's, Thank you.

P.S. to say supercar is simply a matter of opinion is your opinion and POV, do not enforce it on others....no redefining 
vocabulary terms, no brad pitt analogies lol, no marketing scheme analogies lol, no POV's period, just provide a source, we 
in favor have, why can't you???? 75.7.235.53 (talk) 00:23, 29 
December 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of source that discuss what a vague term supercar is. To say it is "POV" to say that supercar is not an encyclopedic term, shows a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Finally if you continue to edit the page while the discussion is going on, I will have to get it protected. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a warning to Daniel J. Leivick, 
   1.  do not erase my posts on the discussion page.
   2.  provide a source, not POV's.
   3.  provide a source, not POV's.
   4.  provide a source, not POV's.
   5.  again, do not erase any of my posts or try to block me for an unreasonable POV.
thank you75.7.235.53 (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nissan GT-R outperforms expectations

http://www.caradvice.com.au/9022/nissan-gt-r-outperforms-expectations/

"When Nissan first released the performance figures for their new GT-R, many scoffed at the unbelievably quick times Nissan were toting - 3.5 seconds to 100km/h and an 11.6 second run down the quarter mile off the showroom floor, right.

However as journalists the world over get their hands on the new GT-R, it seems Nissan have actually been conservative with their performance figures, with auto-magazine Edmunds recording a 3.3 second sprint to 100km/h and matching the blisteringly quick 11.6 second quarter mile at 196km/h - and from only two attempts.

This puts the GT-R well into supercar territory, at less than a quarter of the price." Zerosignal84 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Nissan GT-R Wins The TopGear Supercar of the Year Award

http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/galleries/other/awards07/12/

The GT-R is monstrously good. It locks on like a missile. Seriously, this thing hooks up and accelerates like a Bugatti Veyron. Its body control is breathtaking, too - you just know that this car has been meticulously engineered down to the last tiny grommet. I seriously doubt that there is a car on the planet that can corner faster or more aggressively than this. - Jason Barlow

--Zerosignal84 (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

sources stating the Nissan GT-R is not a supercar(goes under here,no POV's please)

I agree with Daniel's earlier point, I think supercar is a borderline peacock term and too vague to be used as indiscriminately in Wikipedia as it is in the motoring press. I would suggest that with very few exceptions it should only be used in a sourced statement. To muddy the waters a bit further, there is a dictionary definition for supercar in Collins English Dictionary (2003 edition) - "A very expensive fast or powerful car with a centrally located engine". which clearly shows that the Nissan is not a supercar. I don't agree with that myself, but that's just my POV. I think Daniels [current] edit is the correct one for this particular car and that the issue of car classification in the Template:Infobox Automobile needs to be addressed. Mighty Antar (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 Again no POV's, just provide a source, thank you.75.7.235.53 (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just did. Mighty Antar (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have merely provided an ambiguous definition of supercar and using POV's as to the status of the car. Again no POV's, you have not provided a source which states that the GTR is NOT a supercar literally. It is only fair as we in favor have provided many, so that we may compare sources, not POV's or vocabulary definitions. Until then, I am done with this discussion and until there is a credible source(not from a dictionary lol, or brad pitt analogies lol) to say it is not a supercar, I think it is perfectly fine to use the term supercar in the intro. P.S. Even if your definition/source is valid, is isn't a strong one, and I do not see a statement saying "the Nissan GT-R is not a supercar", just your POV again. I hope you see that it is a weak argument on your part. Again show me a credible source. Thank you.75.7.235.53 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What article were you reading that actually said the GT-R is not a super car? This article was deliberately worded to avoid saying one way or the other. No one is obligated to provide sources for something the article never said.~ Dusk Knight 05:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Logically it comes down to that, everyone here is on a level playingfield, one side of the argument has provided a published article from credible sources, which ""supports their argument"" without a doubt. To debunk this notion the other side doesn't provide any source to ""SUPPORT"" their argument at all, just preaching, euphemisms and their personal POV's and lectures on the english language, That is hilarious. I see no debate here at all, just a deceptive circumstantial counter argument with only POV's to back it up, and even in wiki's case doesn't cut it.75.7.235.53 (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Might Antar" provided a source that show to some people the GT-R is not a supercar. You don't need to show that someone specifically defines the GT-R as a non supercar, we just need to show that it does not meet the usual definition of supercar This source is highly reliable and provides a precise three part definition definition that the GT-R only meats a third of. This is the source that you have been crying out for for so long. As the GT-R is clearly a disputed source, we have to choose the conservative approach and define it as a high performance vehicle, but still mention that it is often referred to by reliable source is a Supercar. From here the reader can make up their own minds. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Again no POV's please, seriously, this dictionary(2003), gtr 2008. get it? show a credible source, not defintions,thank you, 75.3.245.182 (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very pointless to discuss this because, you are saying that only sources stating but no POV from us. In another words you want POV from outside wiki since all those sources will be written by reporters writing in their own will! Therefore definition would be better which then it was criticised later on. Still if it has to be something defined like above, it means that we cannot call BMW M5, Ferrari 599GTB, Aston Matin DBS, Maclaren SLR and Corvette ZR1/ZO6 a supercar just because their engine is not mid mounted and yet you can call the Honda NSX a supercar because it is expensive enough with a mid-mounted engine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TangoR34 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

I think a non binding straw poll would be helpful in acheiving consensus. We have been debating this for a long time and I think it would be helpful to see where we all stand at this time. As far as I can tell there are two camps (correct me if I am wrong). Those in favor of the current wording(high peformance sports coupe/with mention of supercar label being applied by Nissan and some in the press)and those who would like to use the supercar label. Obviously the results of this poll are not binding and we will still have to work towards a consensus, but I think it would be good to get an idea about which editors come down on which side. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Those for using "high performance sports coupe"

  1. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Willirennen (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Dusk Knight (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. CZmarlin (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: A straw poll does not necessary reflect consensus, but given that there have been no healthy arguments against the use of "high performance sports coupe" versus "supercar" with extra baggage added on, I believe that the weight should be given on the reflected edit that I reverted to (from a persistent 3RR vio). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Mr. Grim Reaper (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Hugzz (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is more of a vote "against supercar" rather than "for any specific alternative". I currently neither like nor dislike the phrase ""high performance sports coupe", but I do support using an alternative term to "supercar". See my comment below in "Discussion". Hugzz (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. EconomistBR (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Supercar? No because any car priced below $100,000 is "cheap", and supercars are not cheap. You do get supercar performance with the Nissan GT-R , Top Gear would agree with me.EconomistBR (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) OH...Top Gear did call it a supercar, I am very surprised. It's too cheap to be a supercar IMO.EconomistBR (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This comment by EconomistBR is one reason why supercar is a neologism: there is no set operational term for supercar outside of general use by several magazines. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Those for using "Supercar"

  1. Zerosignal84 (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Perhaps this would make a nice amend that would satisfy both camps. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
And me. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this description would also avoid the problems with editors who violate the 3RR rule. — CZmarlin (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps now that TopGear have declared the GT-R Supercar of the year (See above) you will all finally accept it.--Zerosignal84 (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please understand that this is not an issue of sources. Top Gear calling it a supercar has no impact at all on the discussion at hand (at least not until Top Gear provides a objective definition of the term "supercar" that becomes adopted as the standard definition in the English language). Hugzz (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I generally support that suggestion; however, at the risk of beating a metaphorical dead horse, I wonder if "high performance" is a little too subjective in itself? Who's to say what is "high performance" and what is not? Does a high performance car have to be fast, or must it just have high horse power? Is an incredibly fuel efficient car "high performance" due to its ability to extract a comparatively large amount of power out of a small engine? I like where we're going with this "issue", but I wonder if there may be even more objective ways to describe the car? (but i'm starting to be pedantic) Hugzz (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best just to describe the specifics of the car, in terms of engine size, and let the reader determine the category that the car falls in. Or to state, "the car has a 3.7-L output blah blah and it is considered XX by XXY and YY by YYX." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I might actually agree. There isn't really a reason to call any car "high performance" here, readers can look at the specs and decide for themselves. What was high performance 20 years ago is average or bellow today. I think the most percise label is probably "sports coupe" or something along those lines. I doubt we can have the unprotect the article though, I have a feeling the SPA edit warring will continue. The question at this point is, should we remove the supercar label from other perhaps more obvious vehicles like the Enzo? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree. It's far more useful to have an article which starts with something like "The Nissan GT-R is a 473hp AWD coupe capable of 0-60mph in x seconds". That would make it so much easier to compare cars in different articles.
In the current setup you could open the Nissan GTR article and the Ferrari enzo article and the lotus elise article and receive the following information:
"The ferrari enzo is a supercar"
"The nissan gt-r is a supercar"
"The lotus elise is a supercar"
Not very useful for comparison, huh?
It'd be far more useful if they all said:
"The ferrari enzo is a 660hp RWD mid engined coupe capable of 0-60 in 3 seconds"
"The nissan gt-r is a 480hp AWD coupe capable of 0-60 in 3.2 seconds"
"The lotus elise is a 200HP mid engined RWD coupe capable of 0-60 in 4.5 seconds".
See, much more useful? With that information you can do an immediate comparison of the three cars (note: all the above stats are made up on the spot. also note that "hp" and "0-60" may not be the best info for the intro.. its just an example). So yes, I do even support removing the term "supercar" from "clear cut" situations such as the enzo. Hugzz (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is the case I would fully expect that all references to 'Supercar' be removed from Wikipedia, the whole issue simply comes down to that some people do not think this car deserves the title. Be it the badge it wears I don't know, I wonder what would happen if it wore a Porsche badged and was priced at $300k.

The facts are this car: - Is called a supercar be numerous people the automotive press; - It has a never before seen rear mounted transaxle; - Perhaps the most advanced and inteligent AWD system; - Wikipedia will look stupid and wrong with all the press calling this a Supercar and it not. --202.44.184.153 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comment! You are indeed correct that this WOULD apply to the whole of wikipedia. See, although this discussion is taking place on the Nissan GT-R article talk page, the discussion has nothing to do with the Nissan GT-R itself; rather, this discussion is PURELY limited to the ability to apply a potentially subjective word like "supercar" to wikipedia. If we are able to achieve a consensus here, then we would all work to apply that consensus to the rest of wikipedia.
Purely because the debate began on this article, it must be finished on this article's talk page before we can attempt to apply the policy to the rest of wikipedia. But please understand that those of us arguing against the term "supercar" dont have anything against the Nissan GT-R; we just dont think the word "supercar" is encyclopedic . The Nissan GT-R is great! If I was writing a magazine article on it i'd call it a "supercar", but if i was writing an encyclopedia article on it I wouldn't. Hugzz (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It all boils down to the use of "Boastful Superlatives" and this problem will continue as other automakers will soon introduce successive innovations that will make this car and its "intelligent design" systems obsolete. The "high-performance supercar" of a just decade ago now has a hard time keep up with the newest models. We have an age old problem of a moving target as technology improves. Wikipedia is not the forum for original research, but perhaps the automotive press will come up with new and improved superlatives such as "ultracar" that will describe the ever faster, more economical, and better performing vehicles -- similarly as the marketers of laundry detergents or computers promote their new and improved products. As I observe this discussion, it does seem that some enthusiasts get inordinately possessive regarding the labeling of their favorite cars! What is the "hottest" model they boast about today will very likely be ignored in the future and an encyclopedia article simply needs to state the facts about the subject, not hyperbole. — CZmarlin (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be considered a neologism? It may have been coined years ago to describe a powerful car, but operational definitions change and as you stated, in twenty years, will the GT-R be considered a 'supercar'? It also seems that the word supercar is used primarily within the automotive forum and with certain magazines (not all magazines and reviews use the term supercar). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. In 50 years time a great many people would not agree with the statement "The Nissan GT-R (or ferrari f430, or lamborghini diablo, etc) is a supercar". They'd laugh at that idea, since their idea of a supercar would be very different. However, even in 50 years time no one could deny the statement "The nissan GTR is an AWD coupe with 473HP, capable of doing 0-60mph in x seconds, and capable of lapping the 'ring in xmins", because that is true and will always be true. Hugzz (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If we did implement the solution that disallows the use of both terms as potential neologisms or terms that would be frequently outdated, this article could serve as a model for other pages. I see nothing mentioning a "supercar" or other potential neologisms or the like at these featured and good articles: Holden VE Commodore De Lorean DMC-12 Maserati MC12 Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9 Autobianchi Primula Lancia Flaminia. This article mentions the term, but I see nothing of the mention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out where it says 'if the Ferrari Enzo is a supercar, then the Nissan GT-R is a supercar, then although I never consider it to be, will this mean because a Ford RS200 has been considered to be a supercar by a TV show I have been watching recently, this will mean that it is officially a supercar. That is why I would never be that supportive about the GT-R having the claim being one, plus Nissan would want to call their car that just to sell them, otherwise if they don't they might not be able to find their customers who won't be suckered into believing that they are buying a budget "supercar". Willirennen (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the direction this is going, however I have a couple of concerns that need to be worked out. First supercar is used in a lot of manufacturers templates. These templates seem to use gut feeling to class the vehicles more than anything else. Secondly category: supercar exists right now, although currently it seems to include only obvious examples. There is also category sportscar which I have never cared for. It seems to include just about any halfway sporty car. Finally this discussion should be taken to WP:CAR to make sure consensus exists for the changes we are discussing. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I join with Daniel and invite everyone interested to continue to discuss these issues at a centralised discussion on the WikiProject Automobiles page here. I think the terms we are looking at are well enough established to be considered as jargon rather than neologisms. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I might be on later to add comments, but feel free to copy/paste this entire discussion or link to it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

General consensus through discussion has been achieved to give credence to both the term supercar and high performance coupe, with citations, and to elaborate on general specifications of the automobile in the lead. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a topic of intense discussion. As an admin checking editprotected requests, I prefer not to change the article until things on the talk page have settled somewhat. Please keep discussing, and keep in mind the compromise may be the best way forward. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Who do you trust? Sources provided by respected Journalists/Scholars or Wiki editors without credentials

It is clear that there is no debate here and evidently discussed already by the professionals. The scholars/journalist/graduates in the field have already asked the questions raised in this discussion about using supercar and its definition(I know there has to be at least one english graduate writer/editor in the topgear article lol!!!)yet still concluded with the term supercar as the appropriate classification. It is not up to biased editors to determine what supercar is. Again, it's obvious that this has been disscussed before and determined already by the journalists/historians/scholars and that's why it is used, period. It is funny that the wiki editors opposing using supercar cannot agree on using the term "high performance" also!!!, and still have not provided sources to support their view!!! We leave this up to the professionals, not wiki editors and their humorous POV's. I prefer, as provided by countless sources to support this:

1. The Nissan GT-R is a supercar.

2. The GT-R is a Japanese supercar.

3. The GT-R is a supercar created by Nissan.

I prefer number 1, but any of the three will be a perfect and accurate description.71.156.48.66 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The introduction of the article should read:

"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar, released in Japan on December 6th, 2007, and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008.[2][3][4][5]"

Reason being is that the suggested revert is supported by credible sources as noted by wikipedia's policy and not a POV by wiki editors, lastly and most importantly follows wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. Discussion has gotten out of hand with POV's, and they provide no credible source to support their opposing view, not one, after being asked to. This standard is not in accordance with wikipedia and therefore the edit must be acknowledged immediately.

Discussion has continued elsewhere, as relevance to the term supercar or high performance coupe and such may pose to be neologisms or vague terms that can be better defined with general specifications. This is more of a project issue not in relation to this article, and was noted as such above. Furthermore, you can apply a little more good faith in your replies; no one is applying their "humorous" point-of-views, given that the article is protected and we are attempting to reach a consensus that the majority can agree with. And given the discussions above, most are inclined to use a variant of the general specification method for describing the vehicle. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Neologisms?(this is original research and a violation of wikipedia's policy). The professional journalists have used the term supercar over and over. You cannot deny the sources as in accordance with wiki policy.75.7.233.121 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
A neologism is a guideline, not original research and certainly not in violation of "policy." Please assume good faith. Whether or not the term supercar is cited in a magazine is irrelevant if the terminology can become dated, is not clear in its purpose, or is a relatively self-defined term. Also of note, please indent your replies to the corresponding post. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
We're not denying it. But we are saying not to call it a supercar, only mention others do. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to you to say whether or not to call it a supercar. Credible sources decide that.75.8.98.85 (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot undermine these sources and say they are irrelevant. This has been discussed already by scholars in the automotive press many times over else they risk their credibility, so we must stick with the sources according to wiki's policy and not POV's or original research. Again, provide a source to support your view, so far you haven't been able to provide one.75.7.233.121 (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, they are irrelevant to the discussion because they are potentially neologisms or dated terms. Through consensus and discussion above and elsewhere, which you did not input upon, we came across some very good points that would suffice for the article in the way of satisfying both camps who prefer to use the term high performance coupe and supercar. Given that both are potential terms that could cause additional conflict in the future, per what was reported at Wikiequette alerts, the consensus that was achieved was quite amicable. Furthermore, just because a term may be cited does not mean that the article must provide supercar as the sole determinant to the classification; other terms, and even general specifications, may be more relevant or equal, and all possible terms should be included as to not deceive the reader.
It's quite funny that you accuse me of not providing citations, given that you inserted original research here and here at supercar, which was promptly reverted by other editors. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, provide a source(my point exactly). The biased editors here have also page blanked and altered the supercar page, the result was my revert to their vandalism, do not make false accusations. thank you. Again provide a source, until then there is no credibility to your posts, just POV's basically. I am done with this discussion until a source is provided. It's as simple as that. :-)75.7.233.121 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This really has gone on long enough. Compscientist who is now editing through an IP continues to ignore what is being said and just repeats the request for sources. I will say this for the last time we are not discussing sources. We all no that some magazines have called the GT-R a supercar. We are discussing whether the term supercar should be used in a direct fashion in any Wikipedia article (I say no). --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not up to you to make the distinction, it has already been discussed in the automotive press/circles, and they have agreed to use the term supercar. The rest is distortion and original research on behalf of wiki editors. Again, provide a source, until then, I am done with this argument, there isn't a debate at all according to wiki's policy. It is as simple as that :-)75.8.98.85 (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding wikipedia's policy. There is in fact a debate going on exactly in line with several of wikipedia's policies. You're only focusing on the "npov" policy without any regard to the other policies. Further, you seem to either misunderstand the NPOV policy, or you misunderstand the issue at hand, because all discussion underway is indirect consideration of that policy (in addition to several other policies). Hugzz (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done my best to assume good faith, but at this stage i think it may be safe to say that the above user (ie compscientist and various IP accounts) is probably trolling. This user repeatedly ignores all logical discussion going on with regards to this topic and simply posts the same thing again and again, even though it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This user is probably doing this to cause an argument, which has happened time and time again. I'm unsure what the official wikipedia policy is in such a situation, but since this user is adding nothing of value to the discussion it's probably best to ignore their calls. they're just trolling by posting flamebait.

Either that, or the user is approaching this discussion with a complete misunderstanding of wikipedia's policies, and a lack of will to learn the actual meaning and purposes of wikipedia policies. As this user's arguments are in opposition to mine, i'm doing my best to give their argument full consideration on its merits, but I can only come to the conclusion that the arguments have no merit due to a complete lack of regard or understanding of the policies and issues in question.

It is fruitless to address the arguments provided by this user, as their arguments are indeed completely unrelated to this discussion. Hugzz (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, all I'm asking for is a source, these editors have teamed up on me doesn't mean they're right, yet they provide no sources at all.75.8.98.85 (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I will try to wrap up by restating the question in the heading of this section ... Are sources provided by "respected Journalists" free of bias?
  • These journalists make their living by writing articles that help sell their magazines to auto enthusiasts, as well as satisfying the advertising agencies that buy space in those magazines. There is an inherent axis between the automobile manufacturers and these "respected journalists" that results in an obvious conflict of interest. The automotive press survives only at the mercy of the manufactures providing (free) vehicles to them in advance of sales to the public. A casual observer only needs to consider how long an automotive journalist will last in this business if they do not write about test drives of new cars in a positive light.
  • Therefore, we should note a major difference in the descriptions of vehicles between the enthusiast and automaker driven automotive press and those found on Wikipedia. This is because an encyclopedia is not part of the marketing channel for increasing sales. An article in Wikipedia, should simply describe the facts about the subject and should not try to appease the automaker's marketing department or help promote the vehicle in question. — CZmarlin (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, just provide a source backing your claim, not POV's or original research(there are negative reports too, duh! and POV's again are not necessary). The journalism circles/sources are free from bias in this case because there is a consensus as many have accumulated the same results. According to wikipedia's policy this is the correct path, do not subject to original research. thank you75.8.98.85 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Anybody make a checkuser request yet? Looking back at Compscientists' posts and edit styles, the IP address above makes some very stark similarities. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I filed a SSP request instead of a checkuser. Please comment further if you can. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion going, Where are the facts? Where are the sources? I'm just contributing like everyone else. Thank You.75.3.251.3 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you the same person that holds the account "CompScientist"? --Hugzz (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Assuming that we have someone who has a genuine interest in "sources" of the information that is written by the automotive journalists, then it would be useful to read that "Test drivers often evaluate cars in press previews that are carefully staged by automakers. Such events are paid for by manufacturers and are typically held in scenic locations, often with luxury accommodations. These press previews usually last several days and are conducted two or three months before the vehicle is made available to the general public." (Source: "Automotive Careers: Test Driver or Automotive Writer", Autiv, retrieved on January 9 2008) This makes it clear that automakers try to influence the descriptions that the journalist will use to describe the new vehicles. Those authors who write glowing reports about cars before their release to the public will obviously be invited to more luxurious "preview" events in the future, increase sales and reprint opportunities for their magazines, score "points" with the enthusiasts of a particular brand, etc. In summary, the Boastful Superlatives used by "respected" automotive journalists may not be 100% objective. Moreover, there are numerous articles that describe the built-in bias of automotive writers and editors. (Just one example: Doelen, Vander. "Media Bias Usually Works Against Detroit's Big Three" The Windsor Star, September 16, 2007, retrieved on January 9 2008) — CZmarlin (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What happens next, RE supercar consensus?

There seems to be pretty much a consensus regarding the "supercar" issue, both here and on wiki project automobiles, so what's the next step? It would be nice to get the article unlocked because it has been steadily growing into a really nice article over the last few weeks, and this recent locking has obviously halted the growth of the article.

Even though I suspect that a consensus has generally been met on this issue, I feel that the issue is such that those who disagree will continue to revert the article to include the term "supercar", regardless of whether it goes against the general consensus. Thus, I think that it would be best, if possible, to have some kind of formal guideline written up regarding this? Or to have someone with sufficient authority to say finally "yes, this term is a peacock term" or "yes, this term is a neologism" or even "yes the consensus seems to be that 'supercar' isn't a suitable term for wikipedia". I suspect that without an authoritarian statement or guideline to fall back on, this will return to edit wars involving people who want to call their favourite car a "supercar".

The advantage of having a formal statement on this issue is that it would allow us to apply it across the whole of wikipedia, which would be nice Hugzz (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer to your question, the sources provided already are a formal guideline and that is the authority, not wiki POV's as suggested by wikipedia's policies. There is no debate here at all, look at the very first post of the talk page. thank you75.3.251.3 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

SO, seriously guys.. what has to be done to have a recognized consensus? It sucks to have the page be locked for so long, but we really cannot get it unlocked until there is a consensus. I tend to think that a consensus has been met (with one or two few opposing viewpoints, at least one of them probably a troll), but I may be biased. So what needs to be done to get things moving? Hugzz (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love to get this page unprotected and I do feel that consensus has been reached. Unfortunately I think Compscientist is likely to keep edit warring as he has said several times that consensus is not needed. We could try unprotecting it for a bit, but I don't want to have another edit war. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats why I think it'd be nice to get an official word on the issue. There would be no risk of edit warring if we could just refer people to the official policy. Alternatively, can we simply refer people to the talk page? Unfortunately those participating in edit wars would likely deny consensus. Again, official consensus would also help spread the policy wiki-wide. --Hugzz (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a request above, and another user made a request below. At any rate, CompScientist will hopefully not edit war, given that the user is the subject of a very damning SSP case, where the user has abused numerous sockpuppets. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I certainly do not wish to accuse anyone, do you think you should add Zerosignal84 as a possible sock puppet? I'm not saying that s/he IS one, but it may be worth a quick IP check simply because they are a reasonably new user who has the exact same argument as the others (and ignores the actual debate like the others), who has a tendency to use bold like the others, who didn't start posting again until until the sockpuppets were banned. I don't want to blindly accuse all those who oppose consensus as being sock puppets; but this one user has had me somewhat suspicious for a while, and a quick check probably wouldn't hurt. Zerosignal84, if you are not a sockpuppet i sincerely appologise for accusing you of being one, and i hope you dont take it as being in bad faith. --Hugzz (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I find this above post offensive, I am no sockpuppet of anyone! --Zerosignal84 (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus, There is no debate at all

Again, provide a source, then there will be a debate, until then the term supercar, as provided by sources, should be used. thank you.75.3.251.3 (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagged as a suspected sock of CompScientist. It's clearly obvious that the user does not want to try to communicate outside of providing vague statements, making comments regarding "no consensus" when that was achieved earlier. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have changed your topic header to a subheading of the above topic, as I suspect that your topic is intended as a reply to the above topic. I've made this edit purely to minimise confusion, and i hope no offense is caused by it. --Hugzz (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Just as a notice, some of the IPs have been blocked for filing false AIV reports in relation to this debate, and CompScientist's block has been extended. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All you people here cannot and have not participated in debate for a long time, in effect you are gagging debate until it goes away in order to satisify your original points of view. Please provide sources that back your claims.

The motoring industry seems to be in agreement that the GT-R is a supercar yet the bias in this page refuses to accept a widely held view by motor journalists.--Zerosignal84 (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet there is a disparaging view, whereas multiple magazines will state supercar, high performance coupe and other variants. Stating that it is a "widely held view" is only original research on your part, a comment that was made many times by the socks of CompScientist. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No debate, no sources only attempts to gag the debate again using technicalities. The word supercar still appears all over Wiki. --202.44.184.153 (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is not an issue of sources. In fact, the "source" question has already been proven to be fruitless as automative sources are in themselves highly biased. But anyway, sources are not relevant to the discussion. There has clearly been pages and pages of debate, however there is generally consensus and the only people on the oposing side of the debate are, unfortunately, not debating the same topic (as, again, this is not about sources). And, again, the word "supercar" will only be removed from the rest of wikipedia AFTER the debate is complete here. Presently the consensus is that the word "supercar" is not an encyclopedic term, and this will remain the case until someone debates as to why the term is ENCYCLOPEDIC, rather than simply providing sources showing that other (non-encyclopedic) publications have used the term. We have no doubt that there are sources which call the Nissan GT-R a supercar; however no one has provided a source yet which indicates that "supercar" is an encyclopedic term. --Hugzz (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a question of whether the Nissan GT-R is or is not called a supercar by reliably-sourced journalists. That is a fact which can (presumably) easily be proven and nobody in their right mind is going to debate that. The question is whether Wikipedia should treat those statements as encyclopeadic or not. If a journalist says that a car is "fast" - then should we say "The Nissan GT-R is a fast car"? Should we create Category:Fast cars and start tagging articles with it according to whether a journalist has ever called a car "fast" or not? I don't think so. "Fast" is a subjective, relative and time-varying term. For my 80 year old mother, 70mph is "fast". For the designer of the original Mini, 80 mph was "too fast" and the engine was downsized as a result! When the Lamborghini Miura was first called a supercar - it's top speed was around 145mph (beyond which it would be so aerodynamically unstable that it was undrivable). But that's not "fast" anymore - my tweaked MINI Cooper'S will go that fast! So, no, we OBVIOUSLY aren't going to go around saying that cars are "fast" or not - even though there is no problem whatever with finding reliable sources. Saying that a car is a "supercar" is akin to saying it's "fast". It means that someone at some time and in some context used the term...it tells you nothing whatever about the car - except, perhaps, in the most general way possible. That means it's not ENCYCLOPEADIC - even if you can find sources.
This debate is proceeding in a more general fashion over on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles and (to a lesser degree) on Talk:Supercar. As 202.44.184.153 points out, the term is used all over the place (heck, we even have Category:Supercars) - but IMHO, it shouldn't be. It's a vague term. As I pointed out over on Talk:Supercars, the term "supercar" has been used by a reputable journalist in 4x4 magazine (definitely a "reliable source") to refer to the Range Rover. If the standard for use of the word "supercar" on Wikipedia is to be "if a reputable journalist calls a vehicle 'a supercar' then it is a supercar" - then we MUST say that the Range Rover is a supercar...and that is, frankly, just ridiculous. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would have to say that sources are needed, at least from the generally accepted and respected ones, things can be taken out of context all the time. So that the sources can be compared, they obviously will have to be reputable. For example Playboy magazine can have a review on a car, is it a reputable source to compare to Motortrend? There has to be sources and substance to start off with to support your view, at least a respected journal, after reading all this, I concurr that the Nissan gtr is a supercar. It is amazingly fast. On another note, I've noticed the same old editors teaming up and consistently altering the debate else where when there is a good legit point being made by others, and these editors aren't listing or using sources but just displaying their opinions.63.164.145.198 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you need sources for, exactly? Is it not obvious from the posts above that this debate is about the appropriateness of the term in an encyclopedia? The debate is not about whether or not the GT-R is a supercar. No one has provided a decent argument as to why "supercar" is an appropriate word for an encyclopedia to use. "Because journalists use the word" is hardly persuasive. It seems to me that the editors (assuming there is actually more than one of you) who keep demanding sources are the ones who aren't listening.~ Dusk Knight 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically they are saying is that you should show a source to support your claim.63.164.145.198 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What claim have I made that requires a source?~ Dusk Knight 04:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no need for sources - I'm perfectly prepared to concede that if it were appropriate to say "The Nissan GT-R is a supercar" that you could find reviews of the car that would say that. But that's NOT what needs to be asked here. The question is whether the term "supercar" carries enough meaning to even bother to mention that a particular car is or is not a supercar - and the consensus at the WikiProject that oversees car articles is that this term is so vague and ill-defined as to be quite utterly useless in terms of encyclopedia content. Knowing that "The Nissan GT-R is a Supercar" tells you absolutely NOTHING about the car - nothing at all. Knowing that "The Nissan Micra is not a Supercar" also tells you nothing. So we should simply not say either thing...it's a useless piece of junk terminology that reviewers use. As a descriptive term, it carries about the same amount of information as the word "fast". Anyway - it's moot. We've had the debate - the term is not deemed encyclopeadic and needs to go. If you can find new facts about the MEANING OF THE TERM SUPERCAR - then by all means let us see them. If you could find a book or a reputable magazine that defined the term - or some government regulation that set a standard - or anything that really nails the meaning of the term to the degree that we can do an objective test - then by all means re-open the debate - but if you have only reviewers saying that this or that car is or is not a supercar - then forget it...it's just not useful information, sourced or not. SteveBaker (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you say there is no need for sources? You've got to be kidding me. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.76.208.157.142 (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with how the introduction is now. It goes according to the sources and Wiki's policy. You say we need a source that says its not a supercar, but that's incorrect. We need sources that simply don't refer to it as a supercar, which I have already shown, correct? Hence the "frequently" part of the sentance. (Sorry If I missed points, I haven't been on in a while, too much to catch up on.) —Mr. Grim Reaper at 05:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First GT-R Accident

There has been rumour of an accident in Hong Kong with the first GT-R, has there? Ryou-kun16 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there has been a GT-R crash in Hong Kong, however this is not notable to be in an encyclopedia. Hugzz (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} No edit requested, so nothing done. DMacks (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Anyone who sees this please do not edit the article about the accident, unless we have one notability. Ryou-kun16 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Motorsport

The Nissan GT-R will make it's world motorsport début in Australia's Targa Tasmania tarmac rally. [7][8] Oosh (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Supercar precise definition??

Could someone precisely and briefly define what supercar means? EconomistBR (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Supercar give some definitions from dictionaries and what not, but it is a vague term who's use has changed over time so a precise definition is impossible. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

CompScientist is 100 percent correct. The current intro is entirely original research and very deceptive. It is phrased in two sentences in order to condescend the status of the car. I will report it as an original research violation of wikipedia policies if there is nothing done.

Currently it states:

"The Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile created by Nissan, released in Japan on December 6th, 2007, and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008. Nissan and the automotive press frequently refer to the GT-R as a supercar.[2][3][4][5]"

There is no need for the second sentence in the statement. This second sentence is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion stating that "the press frequently refer to the GT-R as a supercar" and directs the question that some other people do not think it is a supercar. This is fine only if sources are provided(as suggested by CompScientist), but the problem is that no source is provided stating it is not a supercar, resulting in the editors opinion(no sources) and violation of wikipedia's policy.

It should state in a shorter and better way as:

"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar scheduled to be released in Japan on December 6th 2007 and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008."

When the car is released internationally it should change but not differentiate from the statement below:

"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar.[2][3][4][5]"

Wikipedia says:

"Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material.

Finally, the term supercar is encyclopeadic, it is a noun. The term "high performance" is not encyclopeadic, it's an adjective/verb, and currently there is no "high performance" article on wikipedia(I don't think it is qualified to ever be one). Thus the term "high performance" can be deleted from the original/false introduction without penalty.

I will report this as an OR violation if it doesn't get resolved using what sources have stated. The introduction below omits original research and it should be reinstated as(or an inherited version that doesn't violate original research):

"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar scheduled to be released in Japan on December 6th 2007 and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008.[2][3][4][5]" 63.164.145.198 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh... it's you. Hi CompScientist.
"This second sentence is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion stating that "the press frequently refer to the GT-R as a supercar" and directs the question that some other people do not think it is a supercar."
I think that part of the intro was written by me. I view the GT-R as a supercar, so you are mistaken in the assumption that it was written to imply otherwise. This makes your original research accusation misguided, at best.
"the problem is that no source is provided stating it is not a supercar"
The problem is that the article does not state or imply the GT-R is not a supercar. Demanding a source for what you perceive the article to imply is ridiculous... almost as bad as demanding a source saying Hitler was not evil because the article does not use the word evil to describe him (even though sources do).~ Dusk Knight 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.71.156.61.230 (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're simply misunderstanding the issue at hand; therefore, you are misapplying wikipedia's policies. The words you say are not in themselves untrue, but applied to this issue they have no relevence. Further, this issue has been set to rest on the WP:CAR page, so please stop the disruptive edits here. If you have problem with the decision on WP:CAR then address it there. Hugzz (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry. It's another sock of blocked (again) CompScientist (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah i figured it was a sock but decided to give an answer anyway... then i checked the edit history and noticed he's made teh exact same edit in like 5 or 6 places on this talk page. *sigh*. i hope this puppet can be banned too. Hugzz (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The point is it is not up to you to make the decision lol. Also, there is no consensus on the page you mentioned, just 5 posts only to date by the same biased editors, apparently the dodge viper is a supercar, yet you do not change what is said in that article.75.8.214.142 (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Nor is it up to you. You and your various sockpuppet accounts are the only opposition, and you are providing your opposition with complete disregard to the argument at hand. You either are unable to understand the issue, or you do not care and are deliberately being destructive. Nonetheless, I have removed the final traces of "supercar" from the dodge viper article now that you have brought it to my attention. Please understand that I am not picking on the Nissan GT-R article; it's simply that I have more of a personal interest in the Nissan GT-R than any of the other cars, and I simply do not have time to visit each and every "supercar" page and edit them. I do not even have the internet in my own home, so I am not able to spend much time on this. I do however have the "Nissan GT-R" article on my watch list, so every time I log in I can see how it's been changed. That's why I ensure that the Nissan GT-R article stays free of the "supercar" declaration. Fans of lamborghinis and ferraris and dodge vipers can ensure that those articles stay free of "supercar". As a fan of the Nissan GT-R, I only have the time to watch this article. Hugzz (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


We conclude and leave it up to the sources. There really is no debate at all since we are not to decide.71.156.57.183 (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Final word on supercar label (god I hope)

Consensus on WP:CAR was to remove supercar labels from all articles. I went ahead and started the process. At this point it would be great if we could all get back to actual editing instead of this bickering. Now that the Bugatti Veyron article does not use the supercar label, the arguements that the GT-R page should, are pretty thin. As I was going through the articles, I noticed that on many classic supercars like the Lamborghini Miura the supercar label wasn't even used in the first place, it was however mentioned that it is often refered to as the first modern supercar, this is exactly how an encyclopedia article should be phrased, avoiding nebulous labels. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed! The Miura is notable for being the first car to which the term 'supercar' was ever applied - and we can say that without saying that it is a supercar (which it really isn't by modern usage of the term...a car that can't make 150mph isn't going to cut it). I too am hopeful that we can now end the debates about "supercar status".
SteveBaker (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree and hope we can remove page protection so this article can grow as new info is probably going to be available soon. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is time to unprotect the article consensus has been reached and I don't see any further arguments. I don't know where the unprotect template is so if anyone does, go ahead and post it, thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree - I couldn't find the original template - so I put in a request for unprotection here. There doesn't seem to be any kind of backlog there - so hopefully it'll happen quickly. SteveBaker (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK - we're unprotected. Take it gently folks. SteveBaker (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If the socks return, let me know; or alternatively, you can add it here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.71.156.61.230 (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, This is not an issue of sources. Remember, wikipedia does not allow neologisms. Remember, wikipedia does not allow peacock terms. Remember, decisions on wikipedia are made by concensus. Please remember that consensus has been reached on this issue. Do not make edits regarding something for which you KNOW that consensus has been reached. --Hugzz (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And by consensus, we mean, consensus by established editors that are not confirmed socks of CompScientist. Socking it up only damaged the credibility of using the terminology. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Geez, the last two responses by Huggz and Seicer were so childish and inappropriate. Have good faith in new editors, they may have lost their passwords and you made it look like a sockpuppet case, regardless the last two comments goes to show how biased this page against the Nissan gtr really is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicer (talk • contribs) Jun 1, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.12.84 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, good faith doesn't apply to confirmed socks of CompScientist. There were no "lost passwords" as it was clearly a case of a sock, as confirmed by CheckUser, and CompScientist's block was extended to one month. Should further disruptions arise out of abusive socks, then the block will be extended further. There's no doubt or question to the abusive sock edits. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And if you read the post, you can even see that the IP user tried to fake sign his post as being by Seicer (before SineBot re-signed it for him under his true name). How are we to assume good faith when users are doing disruptive acts such as signing their posts using the names of other editors? It's curious how the only people stirring up the water here happen to be IP users who are way too capable at using wikipedia considering it's always amongst their first edits. Most IP users' first edits are far more simple --Hugzz (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

History: Nissan Skyline GT-R

Why is this even included in its own subheading? It's irrelevant, and shoudl be briefly mentioned in the introduction, no? —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to cut it down, but when I read it I found it to be actually pretty concise and it sums up how the GT-R fits into the Skyline GT-R's heritage well. I think it should stay for now. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

idforums a really good source (#33) ?

I just noticed the source to #33 is a link to idforums. Isn't that site not a really good source? Ryou-kun16 (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a forum, so no. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image selection

I wanted to avoid any further edit warring by clearly explaining why the current image should not be replaced by the image the Wikiarrangment editor has uploaded. Here are the two images in question.

The best possible image should be used in the lead info box. While image choice is often subjective, I don't think there really can be an arguement that the USDM image uploaded by Wikiarrangement editor is superior. It is a smaller file, It is not as well lit, the angle shows less of the vehicle's profile, their is a lot of distracting background activity and there are unrelated people in the image who have not given there consent to be pictured. The current image is about as good as we can get, some editors perfer outdoor images, but this is a secondary concern especially in light of the other issues. The fact that Wikiarrangment editor's image is of a USDM model is not a concern. This page covers all GT-Rs and no preference should be given to the USDM version. In anycase the corner lights are the only cosmetic difference between the JDM and USDM models. An image highlighting this difference could be used once the page gets a little longer, but at this point I think it would be undue weight to discuss such a minor detail change. Usually I would support keeping both images, but we have quite a few as it is and the new one does not add enough to warrent its inclusion amongst the other higher quality images. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur wholly. --Hugzz (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. No rationale was given for replacing the image with one that is of lower quality and does not adequately show the profile of the vehicle. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I welcome it if it is USDM and there is a more suitable photo.--Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to favor a USDM vehicle. It is a Japanese vehicle sold all over the world. I can't understand why you would want to use an inferior image. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is noticeable difference in the images, if comparing a vehicle within the United States and that of Japan. I couldn't even understand Wikiarrangementeditor's edit summary in reference. As a side note, the user was given a final 3RR notice. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just reported Wikiarrangmenteditor at 3RR. He is well aware of the rule and has been blocked at least once before. This is truelly rediculous, there is absolutely no reason to use a USDM image if a superior image is available. There is no policy of guidline recommending USDM images. I am getting sick of this edit warring. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The difference between JDM and USDM is the acute problems for the person who

considers the purchase of GT-R. --Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, but that doesn't mean that the USDM image should go in the lead, this page should not be focused on USDM vehicles, that would violate WP:NPOV. If you can find sources discussing differences between USDM and JDM models, by all means add a short section to the article, but the image in the lead should be the best available image regardless of market. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

V Spec or Spec V

It looks like sources conflict on this. Edmunds confirmed plans for a Spec V, but more recently it looks like AutoExpress confirmed plans for an identical V Spec. I don't have any sources for this but I wouldn't be suprised if Nissan used to Spec V label for the US version to bring it in line with the Sentra SE-R Spec V and the V Spec label for the rest of world. I think we might want to relable the section "High performance version" or something along those lines and mention the conflicting information until it become more clear what the naming convention will be. Any thoughts? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly published articles state the gtr is a supercar

Do not give me the argument on what constitutes a supercar. Obviously it is encyclopeadic. The proof is here supercar. 130.166.68.25 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no proof of anything in the Supercar article. The supercar article discusses how the word is vague and used in different ways by different sources. It does not state that any vehicles is or is not a supercar. Consensus at WP:CAR was not to use supercar as a classification on this or any page as it was too vague and subjective. Currently no article (to my knowlege) uses the supercar class per the discussion at WP:CAR. If you wish you can take this issue back to WP:CAR, but discussing it on this talk page will not get any where as this is a over arching policy issue that is not directly related to the GT-R. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? Do not try to move this discussion elsewhere, there is no consensus, because of the gtr's supercar status, you have went to other wiki pages and changed/removed the supercar status from the site, slick move. You're right, the wiki supercar page does not state what is qualified as a supercar, but it is ENCYCLOPEADIC. Hence you and I are not to make that decision. It has already been made for us, the sources back it up, per wikipedia's rules. Here is a recent and random news publication(just google it, there are thousands) http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080225/BUSINESS01/802250328/1003/NEWS01
I have reverted back to supercar status. CompScientist (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, consensus doesn't work that way. Per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist, your "consensus" consisted of yourself and your varying sock puppets that were confirmed and you were subsequently blocked for a month for. After your block was released, you were back with your same tirades. Sorry, if you continue down this path, you will be facing another block. Use discussion, not edit warring, to make your claim. seicer | talk | contribs 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Your response is avoiding my argument. I am here to have a real discussion, forget about the personal attacks and biased rhetoric, this has to be solved soon, it is ok for you to say one thing, but what I read in newspaper articles everyday say another. CompScientist (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read the article? What is your response to that? From India to Canada, to Australia and China and between,the consensus is already a given. It's global. Let me post another recent and random news article to refresh your memory. [9] CompScientist (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please give a concrete and constructive response to the two articles that I have presented which you seem to ignore. Thank you. CompScientist (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee. Not a few days out and you have started using IP addresses? At least you refactored it. AS for the article, I'm going to defer to those with knowledge in the article itself. seicer | talk | contribs 03:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no need for that Seicer, this is a serious matter, and I do not appreciate the rhetoric, I will be waiting for a legitimate response. If none is given, I will revert back to the term supercar. Thank You. CompScientist (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And this is precisely what led you to multiple blocks. Don't go down this road again. Just because we can't be logged in 24/7 publically giving replies on why the term "supercar" is a term that was decided by consensus to be inadequate for this article and others, doesn't justify its inclusion and edit warring. I would highly suggest waiting this one out -- let other editors come in to give their replies, but since you are well aware already, there is consensus that was much discussed previously that led us to decide not to use the term "supercar" to describe the Nissan GT-R. seicer | talk | contribs 03:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This topic is not up for debate on this talk page. Compscientist you must take this to WP:CAR and attempt to change consensus there. An standard was set regarding terminology and must be changed on all articles in order for it to be changed on this one. This should and will not be the only page on Wikipedia to refer to a vehicle directly as a supercar. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus or discussion on WP:CAR. There is no need for a consensus and we do not need to go beyond that. First answer and reason why you disagree with the author in the two articles. If there is no legitimate answer the argument ends there and the term supercar is applied. Thank you. CompScientist (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn´t care less if the GT-R (or any other car) is classified as a so-called supercar or not; where I live, this class of car is not acknowledged as such. I would very much like to know, however, just why you and several other folks so stubbornly insist on that classification and seem to make something of a religion out of it. --328cia (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Compscientist there is consensus at WP:CAR in the most recent archive it was discussed to some length. To answer your question, it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with a particular author. We have determined through consensus that supercar is a peacock term and adds no information by using it the sense that you would like to use it in to this or any other article. It has been said many times but I will say once more "supercar" is like "awesome" we have Wikipedia articles on both terms, many reliable sources call the GT-R an awesome car, but should we say "The Nissan GT-R is an awesome supercar?" --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
CompScientist, all your sources have been articles of journalism... proving without question that the word "supercar" is indisputably... journalistic. I've yet to see any source, evidence, or argument that the word is encyclopedic. This is why no one is responding to your "argument": you haven't even made one.~ Dusk Knight 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus has been met at WP:CAR; the term "supercar" is non encylopedic and thus is not to be used as a descriptive term on wikipedia. The issue does not come down to whether or not the media agrees to call the GT-R a supercar, the issue is purely that the term "supercar" is, at this time, subjective. No subjective terms should be use to define something in an encyclopia. Further to this, clearly consensus is being met on THIS talk page, as you are the only one who is wanting to use the term "supercar". Thus, wikipedia's rules of consensus suggest that the term "supercar" should not be used on the Nissan GT-R article (as consensus has been met here against it) nor on any car article (as consensus has been met on WP:CAR against it). Any further attempts by you to use the term "supercar" in the article is knowingly going against the policies of wikipedia. You're welcome to argue the point in an attempt to gain consensus in favour of the term "supercar", but you are NOT to edit the article to include the term UNTIL you gain consensus in favour of it. Further, I see you are using sockpuppets again. Keep this up and you'll just score another block. Hugzz (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This debate is LONG over - we discussed it at great length - we came to a solid consensus - the term is vague and generally useless and is not to be used to describe specific vehicles in Wikipedia. We have an article about the term - because there is such a term and it's widely used - and in that article we quite correctly explain that it's a vague term and we go on to present references to prove that. All that your references can ever prove is that some journalist SAID that some car was a supercar - that's not proof that the term means anything more than adjectives like "fast" - and it speaks more to the lack of originality and verbal precision on the part of the journalist than it says about the nature of the thing he's discussing.

In truth, every definition we could come up with for "supercar" can be invalidated by finding journalists that used the term for something way outside of that definition.

  • We've seen claims that a car has to be mid-engined - but no, we have plenty or respected automotive journalists calling various front and rear engined cars by that name.
  • We've heard that they have to cost over $250,000 but then we have cars costing a lot less than that being given the name.
  • The car has to be sleek and stylish - or so we're told - and then the Arial Atom gets given the label in Autocar (and that has to be the least 'sleek' car I've ever seen).
  • We hear that it has to be a sportscar - but then we found at least one journalist describing a high-end version of the Range Rover as a supercar.

So - the term has little or no meaning. Just as we don't report that a car is "very fast" or "agile" just because a journalist says so - we also don't say that a car is a "supercar" just because a journalist says so.

The way forward is to describe the performance of the car in numbers (top speed, 0-60 time, etc) and the price in dollars - add a nice photo to show how sleek and stylish it is - and let the reader decide for him/herself whether they want to call it a supercar or not. That is the encyclopedic way to proceed.

If you could come up with a definition of the term that (let's say) 90% of the 30 or so online dictionaries and a wide selection of paper dictionaries could agree on - or perhaps if you had a clear-cut definition that was formally agreed upon by a large number of journalists and for which there were no known exceptions - then MAYBE you'd be on to something - but trust me, we've been down those routes and they are all dead-ends. To define a word like this to properly encompass vehicles as diverse as Range Rovers, Arial Atoms and Ferrari Enzo's - yet exclude MINI Coopers...is going to be challenging!

So, the term "supercar" is more or less meaningless. Meaningless words add NOTHING to the description of a vehicle in this encyclopedia - and worse still, they cause enormous bust-ups between the fanboys of one car versus another. You need to learn when to give up the argument...that time is now.

SteveBaker (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You still question the thousands of journalists that use the term. It is overwhelming and it is by no means a coincidence. They have done their research also and came to a conclusion that overwhelmingly sides with an unbiased view. Here is another random article, from the UK: http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/218289/nissan_gtr.htmlCompScientist (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You are not listening to what has been said. We all know what the journalist say, and we cover that in the article. This is an encyclopedia article and for all the reasons that have been presented by myself and others, we do not refer to vehicles as supercars, no matter how many journalists do. There is a difference between what journalists can say and what an encyclopedia can say. This has been explained to you countless times but somehow you do not understand. Even if you can't get your head around this terminology issue you should probably be able to understand this: Consensus is against you and Wikipedia runs on consensus, sometimes we disagree with that consensus, but you have to let it go. Please stop changing the part of the article in question, eventually it will lead to another block. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not up to you or I to make a descision, it has already been done for us. It is not only just journalist, it is also from respected news organizations as well as journalists etc. Consensus is open again, and your answer to my question is not valid in accordance to wikipedia's rules.

CompScientist (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been an active Wikipedian for three years and 10,000 edits. I've seen behavior like yours many, many times in the past and it always seems to end the same way. You are following a pattern of edit warring, 3RR violations, abusive editing of other users pages and sock-puppetry that is all too familiar - and unless you change your ways - it will eventually lead to a lifetime block for you - and then we won't have to argue with you anymore.
Wikipedia is driven by consensus. That means a consensus of editors - a near majority of opinion. The decision taken by WikiProject:Automobiles was clear - the word "Supercar" is unencyclopedic and shouldn't be used to describe particular vehicles. Just because you found another magazine article where the term is used doesn't alter the fact that the term is vague. Consensus isn't "broken" by that. Consensus is only changed by a new consensus. Your choices are as follows:
  1. You could simply drop the matter and find some other article to work on...or...
  2. You could go back to the WikiProject:Automobiles and make a case for taking another survey of editors with the view to finding a new consensus in favor of re-instating the word "supercar". Personally (and I was involved in the original discussions about this) - I don't see that anything has changed to make the word less vague since then - so it's pretty much certain that such a motion would be soundly defeated with you and your sock-puppets on one side of the debate and everyone else on the other...or...
  3. You could carry on the way you are now until some admin or other finally loses patience and hands you down a lifetime ban. From the look of your user talk page - and your long history of abusive editing - I'd say you're about another week away from a really long block - and when that expires you'll probably come back in a fighting mood and last another week or two until you get a lifetime ban. At this point (if you follow the usual pattern), you'll probably start creating sock-puppets. Then your IP address range will be shut out. And then it's all over. You never get to edit Wikipedia again - ever. If you are lucky - your ISP or your school or workplace won't get upset with you because you caused a bunch of IP addresses to be locked out of Wikipedia. But it can happen and I've seen people lose their entire internet connection too. It's not a pretty sight. PLEASE look at what happened to User:Wiarthurhu or User:Iamandrewrice - don't let this happen to you.
Either way - you aren't likely to win this argument. Your only remaining decision is HOW you want to lose it - by bowing out gracefully, by going through the proper channels and failing or by getting kicked off of Wikipedia altogether. You choose. SteveBaker (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
He's already scored himself an indefinate block, so with any luck we wont be seeing him return. I still cant work out whether he was a really dedicated troll (he did afterall manage to get us to write hundreds of words, generally repeating ourselves again and again), or if he was just really stupid. I tried to maintain good faith as long as possible, but he just systematically either ignored what everyone was saying, or just plain couldn't understand it.... Hugzz (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"high performance automobile"

So, would anyone take exception if I edited the intro "The Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile created by Nissan" to remove the phrase "high performance automobile". It seems to me that this phrase is easily as subjective as the term "supercar". after all, what defines "high performance"? And why cant we let the numbers speak for themselves? (ie the HP ratings, the 0-60 times, so on and so forth)? I dont particuarly feel it's my place as a wikipedia editor to be telling the world that the Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile, without there being a definition of "high performance" with regards to cars..

Any suggestions for a replacement intro, if people agree with me that "high performance automobile" is a touch on the subjective side? Hugzz (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we should settle the supercar issue first. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that the one desenting editor has been blocked for disruption I figure we can discuss this. Personally I think that "high performance" is probably less subjective then "supercar." Obviously the GT-R is one of the highest performing road cars on sale today by whatever objective performance measure you want to use. I am more or less neutral on this, I don't think that "high perfomance" is grossly subjective (although it may become out of date), but I also don't think it is really needed. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I suppose that most people would agree that it is a "high performance automobile", so you're right that at the least it's less controversial than "supercar"; but i still do tend to feel that's it a touch subjective to be used in the introduction paragraph. I'll think about it for a while and see if I can come up with a better intro paragraph, and then will either edit it or propose it here. if anyone can think of a better intro, feel free to step in. I occasionally lean towards ".. is a sports car", but "sports car" is probably no less subjective than "high performance automobile". I may even try think of an elegant way to JUST use facts and figures, ie "the nissan gt-r is an automobile launched by nissan in 2008, producing 480hp and capable of 0-100 in 3.5 seconds". at least 50 years from now people will look back on that and say "yup, thats true"; as opposed to "high performance" or "sports car" which may attract a snicker from our 10,000hp future-selves. Hugzz (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be best to avoid stats in the lead. They are only useful for people who have enough knowledge to make comparisons. The lead should be understandable to most people including those who don't know if 480hp is a lot or a little for a road car. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point. I will stew over this some more. Hugzz (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think either "peformance orient automobile" or "sports car" the accepted definition of sports car is pretty loose and basically comes down to car designed for performance which the GT-R clearly fits. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Because GT-R is faster than super-cars such as Lamborghini and Ferrari, the name of high performance car is not subjective.


-Twin Ring Motegi(road full) lap records-
R35 GT-R/2:07.6
Murcielago LP640/2:09.9
Gallardo SL/2:10.0
Porsche 997T/2:11.6

-Suzuka lap records-
R35 GT-R/2:22.8
Ferrari F40/2:25.2
Ferrari F50/2:26.5
Porsche Carrera GT/2:28.4

-Tsukuba lap records-
Gallardo SL/1:01.5
R35 GT-R/1:01.9
Ferrari 360 CS/1:02.4
Gallardo/1:03.6

It is more subjective that a super-car introduces oneself though it is slower than GT-R. --Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on any of these vague terms - but they are all better than "supercar" because each one is vague only in one direction. "High performance" is still a vague term but only because we are wondering just how high is "high"? "Supercar" is vague in many directions at once because some people use it to mean "high performance", others use it to mean "very expensive", yet others to mean a car with a particular body style and a mid-engine, yet others have it mean all three of those things at once. SteveBaker (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

High is defined by year compared to other cars that were made the year the car is mentioned. Supercar isn't too vague. Wiki lists the year the car went to production for a reason. So supercar isn't as vague as you make it out to be. List the best performing cars of 2007 and the Nissan gtr ranks very high. That is how it is defined.207.151.233.6 (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
^^^ I reckon that no one has given opposition in about 2 weeks it should be reinstated as a supercar. Just as the term muscle car is controversial but we know that the true classic muscle cars are of a certain time of the motorworld and so are supercars given the date they went into production. Why does a muscle car page exist??? Maybe the nissan gtr is a muscle car? lol!!!! I've read the conversations above and if you really think a land rover is a supercar something is wrong with you, that is bad judgement by you, do not impose it on the rest of us. Fucking idiots. Stop hating on the nissan gtr. 207.151.245.11 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well here is the opposition. I am not sure if you are aware of this or not, but Wikipedia does not classify any vehicles as supercars anymore. If you would like to discuss this, please bring it up on the discussion page at WP:CAR, this is not the proper venue for this debate. You will also have a lot more luck with you discussions if you don't call other editors "fucking idiots." If fact if you continue to use personal attacks you will probably be blocked. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that you say that it is "bad judgement" to call a Land Rover a supercar. The fact that determining whether something is a supercar or not requires judgement is precisely the reason that it is not a term that is used on wikipedia. You yourself have shown that one person can easily judge a car to be a supercar when another person can judge the exact same car to NOT be one. No one raised objection to the above comment on the talk page purely because the issue is dead and burried. No one has felt the need to object to a comment when we all know that the issue is settled. The term "supercar" will not be reinstated based on this discussion. Hugzz (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

time to seriously cut down the "aftermarket tuning" section?

The section on aftermarket tuning seems to me to largely consist of rumours and overhyped fears that were first brought up when the GTR was released, and that have largely been made irrelivent. EG:

"The GT-R has been reported by both the automotive press and sources within Nissan as being harder to modify than the previous Skyline GT-Rs, due to the supposedly "untuneable" ECU, drivetrain accessories, and the design of the turbochargers (which have been integrated into exhaust manifolds). "

I'm sure most ECUs seem "untunable" at first; however, the GTR ECU has since been tuned, to my understanding. While there were lots of fears about this when the car came out, it's no longer really valid. the whole sentence is speculation anyway.

"The GT-R has been reported by both the automotive press and sources within Nissan as being harder to modify than the previous Skyline GT-Rs, due to the supposedly "untuneable" ECU, drivetrain accessories, and the design of the turbochargers (which have been integrated into exhaust manifolds). "

This next sentence lacks a reference, and i again suspect that most car ECUs set off flags when operating in usual ways (eg when the car has been modded).

"In a review by Motor Trend editor Scott Kanemura, it was revealed that GPS system fitted to the GT-R would remove the 180-kilometer per hour (112 mph) speed limiter when the car arrives at a race track, but only on tracks approved by Nissan. In addition, the GPS sensor doesn't automatically remove the limiter by itself, it has to be manually changed by navigating through a series of menus on the GT-R's touch screen. After leaving the track, owners are required to head on over to a Nissan High Performance Center where a $1000 safety check is performed to avoid losing the warranty."

I read the referenced review and firstly it's referenced to a blog (which is a no-no), and secondly it's pretty much just speculation. The 180kph limiter has since been bypassed with mods, so it's not really relevent anymore anyway. the fact that a car has a speed limiter is barely newsworthy. The fact that a car has a speed limiter which has been bypassed makes it even less newsworthy.

"A sensor mounted on the valve stem, causes an error code to appear if the GT-R is driven with aftermarket wheels. "

To my understanding it's a normal safety feature of cars to include some kind of pressure monitor or something on the wheels, nowadays. However, this has also been bypassed and there are now aftermarket rims available for the GTR.

"Modification to the intake system also causes problems with the ECU. "

Modifying the air intake in a significant way always causes difficulty with ECUs. If this hasn't been worked around yet (which it probably has), i'm sure it will be soon. Not really news worthy.

So yeah, I tend to think that this whole section is just a relic from when people were freeking out because nissan included standard features (speed limiters, picky ECUs, tyre pressure monitor sensors) that have since been bypassed. Would anyone mind if i seriously cut down that stuff and either delete the section or replace it with facts about how, for example, replacement ECUs are available Hugzz (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I see some apparent inaccuracies, for in stance; referring to it as a SUV? or 6.8L V10? Shouldn't those changes be reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.130.41 (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Nissan GT-R article gets more than its fair share of vandalism. People are very passionate about cars, and get particuarly passionate about top-of-the-line or "halo" models. This passion gets further aggrivated with brand rivalry and, worse (for the GT-R), "domestic" vs "import" rivalry. As such, the GT-R article gets vandalised plenty. Please revert at will! --Hugzz (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

When to split V-Spec

When will the V-Spec section be split into its own article? When Nissan officially announces it? When reviews start to come out? When it's available for purchase? I don't think there will be much debate since there are separate articles for the Porsche 911, the Porsche 911 GT3, and the Porsche 911 GT2. Additionally, there's an article for the Porsche GT1, which is even more speculative than the Nissan GT-R V-Spec at this point. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be split when and if it becomes to long to fit in this article. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no benefit splitting the GTR and V-Spec articles for the sake of it, as this will make it more difficult for readers to compare the two cars. Thus, as Daniel said, it'd be best to leave the articles combined until it becomes too long. It should be split when it gets to the stage that people are not wanting to add to it for fear of making it unreasonably large. --Hugzz (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
And just to follow up myself, the Porsche GT1 article that you link to is a prime example of what we'd want to avoid. It's such a small article that it's nearly pointless (it'd probably be better tacked at the end of the Porsche Careera GT article). The GT2 and GT3 articles, on the other hand, are certainly large enough to be self sustaining and would be too big to be combined in another. --Hugzz (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Comparison Testing

someone removed the comparision section claiming it is NPOV, this is false since the section only provides laptimes, which is objective data not opinion. I reinserted that section as it is relevant to the GT-R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.225.5 (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with RogueGeek who deleted the section. The GT-R's success in comparison tests is mentioned in the performance section. A long list of every comparison test conducted is not needed or desirable. --Leivick (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I generally agree with the decision to delete it. Whilst it's true that it's made up of facts only, it seems to me that the list itself, and the mere inclusion of such a list, is not a NPOV. The people who contributed to the list very likely did so with the intention of showing the audience that the GTR is better than the competition. I'm sure that the list is skewed towards showing positive results and leaving out negative ones.
So I'm a little torn. On the one hand there should be nothing wrong with including laptimes and such, but if its done to display a particular point of view then it's wrong. If people really want to include the list, maybe it should purely be a list of laptimes and not specifically mention the competition. Thus, if someone actually WANTS to know how the GTR matches up against the competition (say, a porsche 911) then they can look at the lap time shown on the GTR article and then look at the lap time shown on the 911 article and draw their own conclusions. --Hugzz (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing about laptimes is that in my mind lap times are actually not that informative. Obviosly something like the GT-R's lap time at Nurburg is very important and notable, but I really don't see any reason to have a list of laptimes at random tracks. There are just to many variables in setting a laptime for them to be all that informative. --Leivick (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What's the official policy for comparisons with other cars in car articles? I've seen plenty of comparisons in articles for other cars, so either comparisons are allowed, or the policy is not evenly enforced. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There isn't an official policy on everything. In this case as with many others, we must make a decision for ourselves. I can't say I have seen a block of comparisons like this in many other places though. The question is, should we list every comparison ever made with the GT-R (the former state) or should we sumarize some of the results (the current state). I lean towards the later. --Leivick (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And just to follow this up, I also feel that regardless of what is done in other car articles, the GTR article has a lot of potential to be an benchmark article. A lot of car articles have just been poorly slapped together over time, whereas the GTR article has to a certain extent been nurtured from day one, by many people who despite being massive GTR fans also have a lot of respect for Wikipedia and NPOV. Thus, I wouldn't be concerned with what other car articles do; only be concerned about what's the right thing to do. Once we get it right, the other articles can follow the GTR article's lead --Hugzz (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the Reviews section of the Audi R8 article. Until I added mention of the GT-R, it only mentioned comparisons that the R8 "won" and it still uses a lot of subjective language. So is this an example of what we should not do? JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
What about taking some objective benchmarks from reviews (track times, 0-60, skid pad, etc) and putting them in tables? JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should follow our own example and not worry about what the R8 article says. That isn't to say that we shouldn't mention reviews at all, I just feel that there isn't a need for an exhaustive list of every comparison test. As for the table of benchmarks I wouldn't have anything against it but I don't feel that the article is lacking without it. The performance statistics are already mentioned. --Leivick (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be all for a table of statistics and performance if it was done well. As a frequent user of wikipedia car pages, I'm always frustrated at how difficult it is to find the specs that I'm interested in --Hugzz (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
summarizing "some results" makes little sense, either include all data or don't bother to include any at all. the only proper thing to do is remove all outside data and performance measures. "The thing about laptimes is that in my mind lap times are actually not that informative. Obviosly something like the GT-R's lap time at Nurburg is very important and notable, but I really don't see any reason to have a list of laptimes at random tracks. There are just to many variables in setting a laptime for them to be all that informative." Rational to include the Nurburing time is not "obvious", there are plenty of variables which affect the time including tires, traffic, the driver, weather, or if it a ringer. And what is not informative to you is informative to others, why else would car magazines even provide such comparisons for sale? More importantly performance figures vary widely, the GTR has achieved 0-60 times as low as 3.2sec to as high as 4.1 sec, thus 0-60 measure is also not informative and should be removed.
As with all science, you're never going to get identical results from every experiment. To completely throw out 0-60 times would be ludicrous. Either have something like "reviewers measured 0-60 times from 3.2/3.3 to 4.0/4.1 seconds" or put the different 0-60 times in a table, along with which source got them. JCDenton2052 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I put some quantitative data from the references in the article in tables here: User:JCDenton2052/Sandbox1. What, if any, should be included in the article? JCDenton2052 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

" it seems to me that the list itself, and the mere inclusion of such a list, is not a NPOV. The people who contributed to the list very likely did so with the intention of showing the audience that the GTR is better than the competition." if the data is NPOV but used in a POV then other people who are actually familiar with automobiles can include other comparisons. let the bureaucracy who know little about the GT-R or automobiles in general decide what is important and notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.225.5 (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you find some comparisons with cars that would beat the GT-R? The Bugatti Veyron, Ferrari Enzo, and Porsche Carrera GT should beat it by most quantitative metrics. JCDenton2052 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison data should just be avoided at all costs. It is almost always manipulated by editors to show whatever subject the article is about in a good light, which means it's going to be a POV problem 99% of the time. I'm not quite certain why comparison data was added back in. I mean it could stay if it was qualified and balanced, but the rv to the removal is definitely not that. Here's the reintroduced statements removed:

In various comparisons under different criteria, the GT-R has outperformed the Audi R8, Chevrolet Corvette Z06, BMW M3 E92, Lotus Elise, Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X, the three current Porsche 911s (Carrera, Turbo, and GT3), and the Subaru Impreza WRX STI.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

"Outperformed" can be defined in so many ways. This statement could be completely re-written to say the exact opposite and still remain true. This, in my opinion, directly displays the POV problems with comparison data. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Objective performance data

I put together some objective performance data at User:JCDenton2052/Sandbox1. Which data should be included in the article and how should it be formatted? Have I missed any comparisons? JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm interesting list; tricky question. There's far too much data there to be included or to really be encyclopedic. There are two immediately obvious options to me:
  • Start a new article for this information (probably not a good idea though. The wiki experts will probably have to comment on this and I suspect they'd say that while the list is interesting it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia)
  • Include the best and worst times in each category and put it in a sentence like "The press have recorded 0-60 times between 3.3(ref) and 4.0(ref) seconds" (and then maybe put more refs on the list to justify the "between" bit, with each ref being to a new article showing a 0-60 time between 3.3 and 4.0 seconds).
  • In the "real world", 0-60, 0-100, HP, laptimes etc that are reported are solely the fastest one measured. People traditionally only ever bother talking about the FASTEST that a car has done something. Afterall, if we're going to list slower measurements than it would be equally worthy to say "the Nissan GT-R has been recorded doing 0-60 in 15 seconds" (it just so happens that at the time your grandma was driving and wasn't even trying to go fast). All the 0-60 times that are slower than 3.3 seconds may just indicate driver error or a lack of traction on the road surface, or a headwind or something. Thus, there'd be no point in reporting them as these times do not indicate what the GTR is capaple of, but rather what happens when any car is put in less-than-ideal circumstances (it goes slower, uses more petrol, handles worse, is less comfy etc etc) --Hugzz (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Good ideas. I wasn't suggesting that all of that data be included, but wanted feedback on what should be included and in what format. Should objective, quantitative comparisons with other cars be included?
Oh, my grandmother drives a Corvette C4, so I think she'd be a bit faster than that. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GT-R still a concept?

i have noticed that on the section that lists all of Nissans products, the GT-R is still listed as a concept car when it is out in Japan and a release date for the rest of the world has been set?

i might be wrong but could someone check it out

Flashkick101 (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Nissan product template lists the GT-R under both the product and the concept section, which is correct as there was a GT-R concept car in addition to the current production vehicle. This article discusses both. --Leivick (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Video/Search-Results/Video/Features/Nissan-GT-R-vs-Porsche-911-Turbo---part-one/
  2. ^ http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Video/Search-Results/Video/Features/Nissan-GT-R-blasts-around-Rockingham/
  3. ^ http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/217977/nissan_gtr_v_porsche_gt3.html
  4. ^ http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122409
  5. ^ http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=126453
  6. ^ http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6594
  7. ^ http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2008/02/stories/07/1.html
  8. ^ http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2008/03/stories/12/1.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nissan_GT-R/Archive_2&oldid=1142519615"