Talk:BMW 3 Series (E36)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BMW 3 Series (E36) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Automobiles C‑class Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bavaria

	Bavaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria on Wikipedia. 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lead image

The image of the red E36 saloon shows a car in a bad condition. That cannot be a representative of how the E36 generally looks like. The photo of the white coupe shows a much cleaner car without any reflections and stuff. If anyone disagrees, there has to be a concrete reason for that. I don't want an edit war to happen. U¹ _quattro TALK 15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've only changed the image because Vauxford was the photographer and you obviously have issues with him, Please present UK-based images of the vehicle and we can all decide together and collectively. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 Vauxford isn't the reason why I changed the image. The condition of the car is. Also you're being biased that only a UK-based image should be added on the infobox. I strongly disagree with that. An image of a clean E36 taken anywhere in the world works fine. An example is the image I chose. The car in that image is clean and the background is better.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I thought it should be replaced with a UK car but agreed not all replacements are done per the last image location, Given we all came to an agreement over the image above IMHO this shouldn't be changed and imho it doesn't need changing .–Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it should be changed when a way better image is out there.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4

The only other best images are these, The AUS one isn't a four door one and imho we shouldn't replace 2/3- door with 4 door and vice versa, –Davey2010^Talk 18:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey. I agree with U1Quattro that the red photo should be replaced due to its poor condition; the summary you made of the previous discussion "Given we all came to an agreement over the image above" is very... ahem... fanciful.
Why are you proposing we discriminate images based on their country and number of doors? Regarding the latter, both the sedans and coupes are common body styles, therefore both are representative of the series as a whole IMHO. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again Davey2010 no where does any guidelines say that one should have a photo of a 3 Series saloon as a lead infobox image. That's why there are lead images of a coupe on both the BMW E46 and BMW E90 articles. Both images are Australian and are perfect. Your criterion is self made and biased.U¹ _quattro [[User talk: |TALK]] 04:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree the vehicle could be in better condition, I've included a few images as a way to resolve this, It may seem OTT but I really don't see a need to replace a 2 door with a 4 door I genuinely don't –Davey2010^Talk 08:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should care, as long as the variant was somewhat common (not the compact or M3) we should pick the best photo. Also, I would not call OSX's photos perfect, they have some unwanted reflections and brake dust, they are very good but perfect is probably not possible to achieve, outside of a studio with a new car and $20,000-$200,000 worth of equipment. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the lineup and I must say that Vauxford's black 316i is definitely the one I would choose of them, as annoying as the crunchy rocker panel is. There are no undamaged E36s in Metro New York, or I would have photos to add... Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro, Toasted Meter and Mr.choppers - Could you all look through Commons and pick 2 or 3 images (2 or 4 door) images that you think are the best and I'll start an RFC tomorrow or Sunday as we all have different views as to which we consider the best one so it only seems fair to get consensus on the best one,

My 3 would be those above (1,2 and 4) - Red one's okay but condition-wise yeah not the greatest.

Anyway thanks all, –Davey2010^Talk 13:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(If anyone tomorrow or Sunday changes their mind on an image, either edit User:Davey2010/BMW or change it here and then ping me so I can change it over there, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Mine would be these:

Option 5
Option 6
Option 7
Option 8

U¹ _quattro TALK 14:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I hope it is ok that I've numbered the images added so far, it's just to make them easier to refer to. My vote is option 4, 6 or 7. PS Davey, why do you keep ignoring me? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the red one as #8. Faves: 1, 8, 2, 5. But really it's just that I like the focal length favored by Vauxford; it helps show the whole car with less distortions than all the "wide and high" shots. Personally, I don't think it worth all this time discussing until there is a clearly better photo added, which really shouldn't be hard. My problem is that I simply don't notice E36s as my brain registers them as "already available on Wikipedia." Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted photos of clean E36s which Vauxford wasn't able to find when he was taking photos of them as that is unfortunate on his part. I think we shouldn't really have rusty cars with faded paint as the lead image which is the problem this red E36 saloon has.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1292simon, Sorry I missed your post, Inregards to country "At the time I thought it should be replaced with a UK car but agreed not all replacements are done per the last image location", Inregards to doors I thought this mattered (and I still think it does) however I'd rather give everyone inside of this discussion and outside that choice,

Also User:Mr.choppers and 1292simon - You're both more than welcome to pick any other images they don't need to be those listed above :),

I'll start the RFC tomorrow as wanted to let TM have their say too, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: - I spent a lot of time trawling the Commons (you can see that I organized a few pics that were in the wrong place), but couldn't find anything better.

@U1Quattro: - To me it is important that the car is unmodified, at a good angle, well lit, with an uncluttered and preferably contrasting background. Obviously it is nicer if the car is undented and clean, but it is pretty far down on my list. If the car is too shiny, the reflections can make it hard to tell the shape of the car. So slightly faded paint isn't the end of the world; this is not a BMW showroom nor a fansite. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ah sorry, I just didn't want you thinking you had to choose from the above only that was all, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.choppers the images I chose show all feature, clean and unmodified E36s with a good angle and less reflections. The images Davey2010 chose have all distracting backgrounds/reflections and bad condition cars except image number 4. So it is not that hard to find such E36s which contradicts your statement. You just go to be at the right place at the right time.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number 6 is a weird angle in my opinion (all bonnet), number 7 is the convertible and not the best illustration for the main box, and number 5 is on my list. It's just a bit gloomy and the old PowerShot used by IFCAR doesn't make for the most amazing quality when compared to newer cameras. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's a convertible. As long as its a clean and unmodified E36, it will be a contender for the lead image as the E36 convertible was produced by BMW and was not an aftermarket conversion. Bauer convertible is an exception.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Purely on counting votes, there are four for C and F. After reading the arguments, I'm closing in favour of C, due to having the least background clutter. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which image should be used as the main infobox image –Davey2010^Talk 19:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again just to emphasise please only pick one image. –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A
B
C
D
E
F (currently used)
G

!Votes

F - The condition isn't great however out of the 7 IMHO this is the best one. (D would be my next choice). –Davey2010^Talk 19:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~C and~~ G - The cleanest E36s out of the bunch with a good 3/4 angle and less distracting background IMHO. Way better than the current image used.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~A and~~ F. Cheers, Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You both only need to select one image - We're not choosing 2 and then deciding again .... –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
B or C or E or G (see below regarding my multiple selections). The majority of readers will see the image as a thumbnail, so I think that needs to be the priority. These images have a good angle and allow the car's shape to be easily seen without a distracting background. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F - (Summoned by bot) Best angle with the least background distraction. C would be option two but I don't liek the chain link fence in the back. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C - I would have chosen E. But the part of another car was included in the photo. The brickwork in the current image competes with the car's color. Darwin Naz (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A - (Summoned by bot) Funny things how tastes differ. IMO B,C,E,G are out simply because they look like promo photos with an exaggerated hood, which produces a nice but distorted appearance. D is out because of other distracting cars, of remaining between A and F, if you look at the enlarged image the overall quality of A is far superior, (better surface, the front grill is clearly seen, etc., despite a piece of rust. Also, no licence plate. i.e., privacy :-). Finally image description says that black bumpers and red color are not typical, whereas IMO we have to have a "typical" image here, for recognizability. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B, C, E or G (invited by a bot) I find all of these acceptable based on the condition of vehicle and lack of distracting background. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jojalozzo Which part of "Again just to emphasise please only pick one image" do you not understand ?. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davey, you might ask yourself what parts of RFC you don't understand. Your comments about my !vote belong in the discussion section. Jojalozzo (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C has less distraction in the background than some and seems to be a typical appearance. The current one has a rather prominent licence plate number, although that could be "fuzzed". I am not a person who notices the appearance of cars much, though, so I don't have a strong preference. Called by the bot.—Anne Delong (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F summoned by bot. I eliminate any image that has another car showing. Red is my favorite color. I don't think the convertible is the most common version. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Pinging User:U1Quattro, User:Mr.choppers and User:1292simon who all participated in the previous discussion. –Davey2010^Talk 19:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Davey. Sorry to be difficult, but I believe that editors should be able to state multiple preferences. As per WP:VOTE, the purpose is to determine consensus, and Wikipedia doesn't decide things by traditional voting. Allowing us to provide more detail about our preferences will be helpful to the process. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1292simon, Apologies for sounding grouchy but the whole purpose of this RFC is to obtain consensus as to what image should be used ... not what images but what image,

I'm not coming back time and time again with multiple RFCs ..... It really isn't rocket science to simply pick one image,

I appreciate there's a few good ones there however as I said people need to pick one, You're more than welcome to pick multiple ones but then your !vote will simply be ignored. –Davey2010^Talk 16:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going to run forever or a decision is going to be made Davey2010? Because it's been weeks since this has been open with no clear decision.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The desion making isn't up to me? .... Someone uninvolved would need to close it, That being said as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Duration RFCs are closed after a month/30 days and so it's only been 18, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 07:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I appreciate your determination to come to a resolution on this, select a single image, and move on. However I cannot see anything in 1292simon's response that suggested ending up with more than one image or running multiple RFCs, and I believe he has rightly brought up a valid issue about consensus vs voting.

Using this RFC as an example, say we receive five hypothetical responses A+B, A+C, A+D, A+E, and F+G. No hypothetical responder has indicated a preference for a single image as you desire, but a fairly clear (but not unanimous) consensus would have been established for A. Sometimes it will not always be clear cut, but it is the job of the closer to take neutral account of all contributions (and the quality of their arguments) when determining if a consensus position has been reached, not to simply count votes.

Even as the RFC requester, you cannot constrain how others respond by saying you only want a straight vote, or discount their input because they have not responded in the way you would like. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I already have, I didn't set the RFC up so we can chose between 2/3/4 images - I did it so that we can pick the best image out of a few already selected above this RFC, I'm not prepared to wait half a year to get a consensus on something (RFCs remain open for 30 days). If the closer wants to completely ignore my RFC fine however the status quo will then apply and the current image will remain until such a time where someone wants to waste 3/4/5 months of their life coming back here with 4-5 RFCs. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey2010, as I did not suggest an outcome of multiple images, taking a long time to arrive at a decision, or undertaking several RFC's I assume you believe that all of these things will be the outcome of a consensus approach and that it is for this reason you want everyone to follow a voting approach to decision making in this case.

While I certainly believe that you have good intentions in this, I am going to exit this conversation with a polite request to please consider that Wikipedia does have an explicit policy regarding decision making which is to seek consensus. Please give it a chance to work (you may be surprised) and please show respect to those who want to follow that process even when they are not complying with your own desired approach. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see where you're coming from and I'm aware of NOTAVOTE however there really is no best way of doing this other than to essentially have a vote ...., Ofcourse people could've stuck with picking 2/3/4 images but I felt doing it that way would cause more confusion, People have still !voted with a detailed explanation so in that respect it's a consensus=approach but layout-wise yes it's a vote approach,

I was under the assumption people would want to pick 2/3/4 images and then basically I'd have to return time and time again however reading your comment above I wouldn't of needed to come back (I don't think...) but anyway thanks for your comments here. –Davey2010^Talk 07:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is a semi-formal Wikipedia editorial process for finding consensus. The final decision is not made by the participants and the original poster has no power or decision making role. An administrator will close this and decide if there is a consensus or not. The more photos we identify as unobjectionable the more likely we are to find a consensus. I highly recommend everyone identify as many acceptable photos as they can or you'll be back here with another RFC if this one fails. Jojalozzo (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jojalozzo I can either close this RFC right here right now and waste each and every editors time who's commented on it ... or you could shut the hell up and allow the RFC to run its course, Your choice.

We're not doing the "I PROTEST TO THIS RFC" bullshit, The IP has given thoughtful comments which I will reflect on however we're not changing the way the RFC is being done now, Had you commented nearer the time I could've dome something about it but doing so now would be pointy and certainly confusing, Like I said I'll reflect on the IPs comments for future cases but we're not changing the RFC now. –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your goal is to find consensus since that is the process for decision making here. It's not a majority rule. I don't see how anyone can determine consensus if everyone !votes for one photo out of many. I certainly do not see a consensus in the !votes we have already. If everyone identifies all the photos they think are suitable then it's likely there will be a some common ground. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we went the multiple image route the closer would still need to look at which letter is picked the most ... and that could be problematic as 2 images could be picked the most ... meaning another RFC for both images, Either way the majority rule will be the case here, I currently see consensus to use F with C closely behind,

Thank you for your comments. –Davey2010^Talk 20:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Find fuel leak

Fuel leaking left side of engine reasons 120.159.79.148 (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]