Talk:Aston Martin Virage

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

Brands Low‑importance

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

Vantage Trivia

The rear light design on the Vantage was taken from a Bova coach which was seen by some of the development engineers at Aston Martin. LewisR 20:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Availability

I've deleted the statement about Aston offering the Virage as a 1996 model. A review of the 1997 DB7 for The Mercury News says: "With this pair of two-door models, Aston Martin returns to the United States after not selling cars here for two years."[1] A review by a different author (posted on the same site, but for the Chicago Tribune) is even more specific: "...[W]e had forgotten Aston Martin existed. Probably because it didn't offer cars here in the 1994, '95 or '96 model years, when its V-8 couldn't meet federal emissions standards and it couldn't afford to add a passenger-side air bag to the handful of cars it sold here."[2] Those statements track with my personal observations of searching classified ads over the years for my own research: I've never seen a '94, '95, or '96 Virage offered for sale in the USA. Sacxpert (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aston Martin Virage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111208112447/http://www.topgear.com:80/uk/videos/aston-martin-virage-test-series-17-episode-2 to http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/aston-martin-virage-test-series-17-episode-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virage image

I don't see anything bad with the image you are replacing TKOIII. The car is still and the background is good. There may be people in the car but there aren't any good images available of the Virage to justify using an image without people in the car. Even an image of the Virage long wheelbase convertible used has a guy in it and that is moving. However, this car is not moving at all. The image you are using is has much poorer angle, background and reflections. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but i'm looking at the image you want and the car is very clearly moving as its seen being driven down a road. Also, I don't see what's wrong with the angle and reflections of the image I picked. The way I see it the only redeeming part of your image are the angle and background, as mine is higher quality, less blurry, not moving, at a similar/equally as good angle, doesn't have people in it and is higher resolution. I think though maybe we should put it to a vote and see what others think and get outside opinions. TKOIII (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image inserted by TKOIII is preferable, happy to elaborate if this goes to an RfC. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a moving car? The wheels are still and not rolling. The picture is not blurry at all as you are claiming. Maybe blurry when you zoom in which anyone would hardly do.

This however is a moving car and has a person sitting inside it. I don't know why you have issues with persons present in the car when no wiki policy supports what you're saying.

I think the best way would be to let other uninvolved editors express their opinion on an rfc so that an independent decision could be made.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for Virage infobox

This RfC has been started to allow independent users uninvolved with a dispute regarding the image of the Aston Martin Virage to choose amongst a set of images.

The image set is as follows:

1
2
3
4
5
6 (new)

Any input in this regard will be highly appreciated. I won't participate in this RfC due to being involved in the dispute regarding the images. U¹ _quattro TALK 10:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 — It has the least cluttered background. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC) ... but I would never buy a green Virage. 17:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 - Absolutely awful colour however ignoring that IMHO it's the best image out of them all, The rest are either too dark or don't show the front well. –Davey2010^Talk 11:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 - Even though the background is not that captivating, the color is OK and doesn't only show the front, but also gives more glimpse into the interior as well. Idealigic (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also won't cast a formal vote as i'm a part of the dispute, however, I would like to point out a couple things. First, Image 3 could easily be cropped which would probably make a big difference as it would remove the people from the picture which may make it a more appealing choice for those who otherwise wouldn't have chosen it. Also, if its allowed i'd like to suggest this as a sixth image to add to the lineup as it may be a viable contender. TKOIII (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- must there be only One? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well there can only be one image in the infobox but I suppose you could probably add another image outside of the infobox I guess. TKOIII (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Options 1,3,4 have cluttered backgrounds. Options 2,5 have the same colour as the background. Option 6 (added by TKOIII) has distorted perspective. May I suggest option 7 that has the correct 3/4 angle, simple background and a colour that is distinct from the background (although the colour is closer than I like). Stepho talk 21:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Option 7 is already the main infobox image. Why was it added here?U¹ _quattro TALK 04:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Stepho-wrs I'd request you to cast your vote again as the image used as option 7 is already being used in the article.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can an image not be used twice in an article? I've never heard of that being a hard fast rule but maybe it is somewhere in WP:MOS. TKOIII (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes it is in WP:MOS, that is why you don't see images being used twice and even if they are, they are changed.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Oops, I didn't notice that option 7 was already used. I withdraw the suggestion. It's not a hard and fast rule but it's pretty silly and wasteful to use the same image twice. I choose option 1 as the least bad of the images. The background is cluttered but it does show the shape of the car. Stepho talk 21:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - reluctantly, they all have serious problems. I thought option 2 until I clicked it and saw the terrible resolution etcetera. If there are ever car shows again then perhaps one of us can snap a better picture some day. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Does anyone know more about the Australian car in picture #3? I am curious about the unexpected extractor vents on the side. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is a Virage which underwent a Works Service conversion as stated in the article:

In January 1992, Aston Martin introduced a conversion service, upgrading the car into a Virage 6.3. As the name implies, the centerpiece of the conversion was a bored and stroked 6.3 L (6,347 cc) V8 derived from the AMR1 racing car. This engine has a power output of 500 hp (373 kW; 507 PS) at 6000 rpm and 480 lb·ft (651 N·m) of torque at 5800 rpm, allowing the car to attain a top speed of 282 km/h (175 mph).

Other changes included 362 mm (14 in) ventilated disc brakes, the largest used in a passenger car until the Bentley Continental GT, and 18 in (457 mm) wheels. Visually, the 6.3 had wide flared bumpers, low sills and air dams, and side air vents.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No favourite candidate, but I'd argue that all the images showing green cars on green backgrounds are suboptimal because of visually impaired or colour vision deficient people.—S Marshall T/C 00:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: True but these are the only good photos of the Virage on commons right now. If you or perhaps any other commons user can take a photo of a different coloured Virage against a more favorable background, then that addition is welcome at commons S Marshall.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostInTheMachine: With some Quickening, a Virage might become a Vantage. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.choppers that is true for the engineering prototype Clarkson drove on Top Gear in the early 90s.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 - of the available options, it shows the shape of the car best. Unfortunately all of the choices have busy backgrounds. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1292simon please do not cast a !vote as you were involved in the content dispute. Me and TKOIII are already abiding by this decision. Please let uninvolved editors cast their vote. Thank you. U¹ _quattro TALK 17:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate and split Virage's year 2010

Like as the other wikis french, Italian and Deutsch do and as done for Aston Martin Vantage, we need to separate the two cars which have nothing in common other than the name and were actually built 20 years apart from each other. 93.150.208.27 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a huge article, so a split is not necessary based on size. But we do similar splits for the Alfa Romeo Giulia (105) and the Giulia (952) and also for the Mini and Mini Hatch, so why not? ~~It can't possibly do any harm~~. Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not rabidly against a split but my preference would be to keep them together. After 13 years, the 2nd gen still only has a tiny amount of information on it. The deletionists love to look for small articles without a guardian and terminate them. I fear for its fate. ;)

I have created a Aston Martin Virage (2011) that just redirects to the 2011 section of this article, as per WP:REDIRECT. If you really, really want to make a separate article then overwrite Aston Martin Virage (2011) as needed and link to it from here. But I still prefer to keep them together here. Stepho talk 09:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, too small new article. YBSOne (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ybsone, Stepho-wrs, Mr.choppers, and 93.150.208.27: I have recently expanded the second generation section, but with nearly 700 words, it still doesn't look like we're seeing a split, unless you guys have another opinion? 750 h+ 12:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still a little small for a stand alone article. I also think that somebody looking for 2011 Virage info will probably come to this page anyway, even if there is a separate 2011 page. But I'm not strongly against it. Stepho talk 04:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to split them as the new article is too small to even pass for WP:NOTABLE. Is there even enough info to make the new Virage stand out from the old as an article? If not, then it's best to keep them merged. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 02:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Stepho and Hansen for pointing out that the deletionists circle small articles. Don't split, please. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]