Talk:Singer Vehicle Design

Notability

In response to the {{notability}} tag placed on the article, I've identified abundant coverage in a variety of reputable and reliable sources, including Jalopnik, Road & Track, Road & Track again, Top Gear, Car and Driver, Fortune, Die Welt, and the BBC, spread out over a period of years, 2013–2018. The article is in need of sources, but their existence is all that's required to demonstrate notability. Largoplazo (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added some references and removed the {{notability}} tag. Thaabomb (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

Flat6enthusiast, I'm going to remove the Controversy section again. Unfortunately, despite your good-faith attempt at adjusting it, it has too many problems (not just the one I mentioned in my first edit summary), and I can't just edit them out because it isn't clear to me what does belong.

Would you say this really rises to the level of a "controversy"? Some people prefer chocolate, some prefer vanilla; that isn't a controversy.

I can't tell what the section is about. It began, "Purists dislike the backdating trend ...". What backdating trend? The article thus far says nothing about backdating or any trend; I even searched for the string "retro". When you expand an existing article, make sure your additions integrate into the existing context, using terms that are already being used and providing any supplemental details necessary for understanding.

Wikipedia is a neutrally written encyclopedia, written in what is often called "Wikipedia voice". Wikipedia has no opinion as to what the perfect blend is between classicism and modernity. It can report that somebody has made such a remark about it, but it isn't going to state that as its own opinion because Wikipedia has no opinions, esthetic or otherwise.

"100% handbuilt with a huge emphasis on quality" is pure WP:PUFFERY. It isn't objective, it can only be claimed (making it subjective), and it can't be proved by a video. It's a two-part problem: Whether the quality of a product is high is a matter of opinion; whether it was built with an emphasis on quality is a related but separate matter, and its meaning depends on what the manufacture considers quality to consist of.

You appear to imply that being expensive establishes that a product was made with a huge emphasis on quality. That is not at all so.

Article bodies don't, except in restricted circumstances (typically, in referring to legal provisions or scriptural passages) contain external links. See WP:ELPOINTS.

I'm not sure the final sentence is a good idea. It seems to be saying, "Hey, enthusiasts, if you don't like what Singer is doing, here are some competitors you should consider instead." At best, it's off-topic; at worst, it's promotional.

I'm happy to discuss further if you'd like. I hope someone else who, unlike me, knows something about Singer in the first place can pitch in and opine as to whether something about this belongs here and, if so, to help hammer it into shape. Largoplazo (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply. Well, among purists (including myself as a classic Porsche owner and enthusiast), backdating, specially from Singer, is considered to be an internet trend. It started with rich people buying classic 964s to modify them and to give them the look of cars which basically did never exist. All of them, sadly, only exist for Instagram and Cars & Coffee events and the owners do not know or respect the heritage of Porsche. It is known among the Porsche community that the 964 was the most expensive and well built Porsche ever made (followed by the 993 and the 3.2L from the G-Type generation) because they wanted to save the company from bankruptcy, producing a "perfect" 911 generation. For example, during the next gen, the 993, Toyota helped them to decrease the cost of production. Those are 100% handbuilt cars with a lot of serial and matching numbers, a real product of german craftmanship. We consider that they should be preserved.If you don't mind, please help me to write a proper article on the subject.

Best regards,

Alex Flat6enthusiast (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a position to come up with an appropriate piece myself. For one thing, I know nothing about this, and I forgot to mention another problem with your addition: it didn't cite any reliable sources from which the text could be verified. So I even if I were inclined to give it a try, I don't have any sources to work from. I would never add substantial content to an article without being able to source it to some place appropriate. Perhaps someone else can help. Largoplazo (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will give it another try and before posting, I will show you the text. You will tell me if it is neutral enough to be posted on an online encyclopedia. Flat6enthusiast (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flat6enthusiast: I see you just gave it another (revised) try, and I removed it again. A reception section has to give an overview, attributed to reliable sources, of general opinion across people who have one (critics, enthusiasts). "Some people may not like it because" isn't such a thing, it reads like nothing more than personal speculation on the contributing editor's part. Largoplazo (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is it is. I am a Porsche owner myself and I know all the models from 1948 to today. Plus I am part of a classic club in French Riviera. You admited that you know nothing about the subject, if you need sources, I have ton of them, from forums to socia medias. Flat6enthusiast (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you have just described is what Wikipedia calls "original research." That's not what Wikipedia is designed to collect. If you want to share your personal experience concerning Porsche ownership, then find a site dedicated to Porsche vehicles or that sort of thing. If you want the information here, then find an existing print source for the information - such as a well-reputed Porsche book - and quote or paraphrase that. Please read more about the Wikipedia model; this is not an open forum for creating articles. Brian Willoughby (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created a Trivia area with simple facts which do not need sources. Please do not remove it. Those cars are important for a lot of Porsche enthusiasts. And I think that you may have a ton of other articles to correct, with subjects you really do know. Flat6enthusiast (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections strongly discourages trivia sections and yours was also completely uncited. If you would like to edit Wikipedia, please make an attempt to learn the rules and norms of editing. Edits must present a neutral point of view, cited with reliable sources, and reflect the opinion of those sources rather than you, or your friend's, own personal opinions. TKOIII (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are a pain in the ass. Flat6enthusiast (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The feeling is mutual TKOIII (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]