Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:51, 28 May 2019

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bavaria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Automobiles Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Brands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The Q3 is will not be built on the MLP platform. It will be built on the same platform as the Volkswagen Tiguan which is based on the Volkswagen Golf.

Q3 name change

Here in Sweden, the Q3 is currently marketed and sold as the Q3, despite this article's reference to a supposed name change. Asked for citation. --oKtosiTe 17:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image 2nd generation

I'd prefer the image of the grey Q3. It has a nicer background and the angle is better, since the distance between camera and vehicle is higher. The argument with the colour isn't relevant in my opinion and if it is, I do not understand his revert here. Also I disagree with Vauxford's behaviour. If I see it right, he was criticized for edit waring and putting the images of him all the time. And again he behaves in that kind of way. Cheers--Alexander-93 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Alexander-93 Don't use the article talk page to air your frustration about another user or include past incidents unrelated to the talk page discussion. I already stated my reason, the colour is quite dullish and the angle you photographed make it seem that you took it somewhere elevated rather on the ground. Overall the image that I replaced it makes it a nicer choice. Despite less pixels, the blue one is alot more sharper and shows more details. --Vauxford (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford Sorry for that, but so there is still 1 against 1. That doesn't mean, that your image will stay. I will ask in the WikiProject for a third opionion.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

They're both less than stellar, unfortunately. The image of the gray one is taken from too high of a perspective - it appears as if the photographer was standing on something when taking it. Otherwise, the angle is good, and it has a better background, so I'd stick with that one. There's doesn't appear to be anything better on Commons at this time. --Sable232 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 The white reflection effect on the windshield and bonnet isn't a good factor as well, while the blue one has less then that and the headlights aren't fogged up due to where it was taken and are clear and sharp. These photos were both taken in dealerships so it almost possible to not have this sorta background, I'm not referencing the CARPIX guideline but IMO a car picture should be taken at a standing, level position, taking it from some elevated place just looks weird. There also red splodge sources around the grille and bumper which the blue car also doesn't has and the car itself doesn't look tilted, I think Alexander-93 has to make it like that just so it can be promoted to QI, one of the guidelines for promoting a image to QI is the tilt/perspective should be corrected, even if it means the car isn't at a angle you want it to be. (Happens to me before). --Vauxford (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The picture of the blue car has already been added to wikipedia entries in fifteen different languages (with apologies if I counted wrong) so I'm not sure picture quality is the only issue here! Nevertheless, if we were to judge in terms of picture quality, the blue car is a more interesting colour but it is let down by excessive distracting reflections on the paint work. And of course the background is indeed messy. A grey car on a grey background is not necessarily a winning combination, but it is a combination that Vauxford would no doubt defend to the death where such a picture had been produced by him. Neither of the angles is perfect. As one of you pointed out, it's hard (though not necessarily impossible) to get it quite right when looking down on a car, as with the grey car, while - at least to my taste - the photographer stood a bit too close with a blue car. I guess opinions can reasonably differ on that. But yes, the picture of the grey car is the tidier composition if we are invited to vote on the matter. Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved, I'm not sure how far voting really comes into it. Happy days! Charles01 (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 For starters I would never photograph above a height like that. But the sharper picture, nicer colour and doesn't have weird red splodges around the car is the reason why I'm defending the blue car, yes it was taken by me but I feel it justified enough to replace a image like the one Alexander-93 has put in the article. --Vauxford (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are allow to do this during a discussion so forgive me if I shouldn't of, but I added another photo which is at a different angle, same colour but slightly reduced messy background and I haven't photographed so up close like the previous one. --Vauxford (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Besides the point, but am I the only one who hates it when the rear view mirrors move out of the way automatically, messing up my photos?  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class Bavaria articles
• Low-importance Bavaria articles
• WikiProject Bavaria articles
• C-Class Automobile articles
• Mid-importance Automobile articles
• C-Class Brands articles
• Low-importance Brands articles
• WikiProject Brands articles