Talk:Porsche 968

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Porsche 968 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

Automobiles 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sports Car Racing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing 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.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing articles

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.

Untitled[edit]

Is there a reason why the picture of a 968 CS that I posted was removed? link

I think it is interesting to keep it as its body shape is a little different from the two 968 Convertible that are currently on the page.

Antp 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back; it seems entirely appropriate to me for the reasons you cited.

Atlant 12:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highest specific output?[edit]

The article incorrectly states this: "The engine also had the second highest specific output (power per litre) of any street-legal, naturally-aspirated automobile ever sold up to that time;".

That was done by Mercedes' 190E 2.3-16 way back in 1984-1985 with 185bhp from 2.3 litres (80bhp/litre) - European models only Then a couple of years later there's BMW's E30 M3 with 195bhp from 2.3 litres (85bhp/litre) And there's the Honda CRX with 150-160bhp(?) from its 1.6

User:anonymous 17:05, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.50.81.249 (talk • contribs) .

I think that was supposed to be a reference to the engine's high output (not specific output). I thought the engine was actually the highest-output four at the time, but since I'm not sure, I'm going to delete the sentence altogether. Stephen Hui 23:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, there's a comment specific to the output. I went ahead and deleted the sentence in question. Stephen Hui 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of 944 motor swap link[edit]

Anyone else have an opinion on whether the 944 engine swap link that User:Mergedplot and I have been going back and forth on belongs in this article?

In my opinion, the link has no significant relevance to the article -- yes, it's an interesting 968-to-944 engine transplant, but that has nothing more to do with an encyclopedia article about the 968. Are there links to 911-to-Boxster engine swaps in the 911 article? Or links to Corvette-to-911 engine swaps in the Corvette article?

I've moved the link to its own section and flagged it as having disputed relevance. If consensus is that the link's relevant, I will stop removing it. On the other hand, Mergedplot, please have the decency to stop adding it if the consensus is that the link's irrelevant.

Stephen Hui 07:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===Third Opinion===

I am answering the request for a third opinion. I agree with Stephen Hui -- interesting as it may be, the goal of Wikipedia is not to serve as a portal for third party sites. Allowing this link would open the door to linking all sorts of extraneous sites that add no encyclopaedic value (how to mod a PS2, how to turn your computer into a dishwasher, etc etc.). As much as I hate a slippery slope argument, I don't see how this is relevant to Wikipedia. /Blaxthos 08:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===Another Third opinion===

the site should not be included as a reference because it does not meet reliability guidelines
the site should not be included as an external link because it does fall under WP:EL#Links to avoid.
It is not appropriate to describe insertion of the link as WP:Vandalism.

-- Chondrite 09:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen,

You act as though I'm continually adding it. I don't remember the last time I added it. Probably weeks ago. It is my opinion that you should have gone this route first, instead of deleting it three times (leaving me wondering if my adding it even worked, and thereby I re-added it). Second, the only message I got from you was rude, with you threatening to "report" me as a "vandal." You treated my addition as if I was a porn website looking for free traffic.

Back to the question at hand. The article (and several other articles and Porsche books I've read) states that the 968 was originally going to be called the 944 "S3". People use that term in regards to swapping a 3.0L VarioCam 968 engine into a 944 all the time (at least those in the 944 community). Therefore a link to my site might indeed be relevant. Especially since I do not portray the car on the site as THE 944 S3, I have stated in black and white on the site:

"'In the fall of 1991, Zuffenhausen announced the Series 3 944, model designation 968. There was a brief period where what we now know as the 968 was to be designated the 944 S3'

My car started life as a 1989 Porsche 944. Not a Turbo, not an S, not an S2. But as fate would have it, I have been able to set out on a journey with some good friends to create a 944 the way it was meant to be. The 'series 3' 944 took on styling changes, as well as a name change, and we know it now as the 968. But as the above excerpt from 'The Art Of Racing' (http://www.cantonia.com/history.html) mentions, the 968 was originally going to be named the '944 S3'."

So, it is quite obvious to anyone coming to the site that I'm not making up a name out of the blue, such as your reference to a 911-Boxster engine swap not being included in the 911 article. You're right, that would make no sense. Besides the fact the factory never intended a Boxster "S2" with a 911 engine. This is very different. It's too bad you can't see that. With all due respect to the user above, this is also entirely different then "how to turn your computer into a dishwasher" -- unless Dell was originally going to make the Inspiron clean your dishes, AND multiple articles (including one on Wikipedia) made mention of that fact.

Include it or don't include it, I really don't care. If was your pompus message that I got that made this entire thing humerous to begin with. If you would have gone this route first, this would be an non issue. Subsequently, it is now such. Enjoy!

Mergedplot 15:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=== "Links to avoid" ===

And with all due respect to Chondrite... you consider it also falling under "links to avoid"?

7. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums.

"US 968 Enthusiasts' discussion forum (968forums.com- registration required)

US 968 Enthusiasts' discussion forum (968.net)

US 968 Enthusiasts' discussion forum (Rennlist)"

-M

Mergedplot 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the 944s3.com link from the main body of the article per Blaxthos and Chondrite's third opinions above. I have left the link in the External Links section although technically it (and the forum links) doesn't belong there, either.

Stephen Hui 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, if it doesn't technically belong there, don't include it there. If that's the rule that's the rule. I'm not asking you to break rules or do favors. Also, I agree it should not be in the body, I don't believe that we ever disagreed on that. Best of luck I'm sure you have your hands full being an editor.

Regards,

Matt

Mergedplot 17:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that the dispute seems to be resolved. If the 968 was originally developed as the 944 series 3, and this is supported by reliable sources, then the information should be included in the 968 article, and probably should be noted in the 944 article as well. The request for a third opinion was specifically in regard to 944s3.com, so I did not review the other external links. Any current external links that fall under WP:EL#Links to avoid should be removed from the article. Best regards, Chondrite 05:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the links and removed it. It's really no skin off my back whether it's there or not, it was only to help others. However, if it's going to be in violation of some linking rule, it shouldn't be there. Whether or not it was there was never the issue. The issue was how it was handled and the original message I received. But I am going to give the benefit of doubt and say that there was probably some miscommunication between Stephen and I and that's that. No harm no foul. Best regards and Merry Christmas. User:Mergedplot 06:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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

1994 Porsche 968.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]