Talk:Nissan GT-R

message: Hey, guys. The Nissan will return in 2015 Le Mans. The name of LMP1-H will be debut as the "Nissan GT-R LM NISMO". This will successed the R391? User:Superstarsqx   — Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nissan GT-R LM NISMO at 2015 24 Hours of Le Mans 

message: There are quite a lot of people who still think the new GT-R carries the Skyline name. Car & Driver falsely call it a Skyline GT-R, I think it is turning into a common misconception of it being a Skyline, when it really isn't. Yes, we know it has something to do with it's predecessor, the Skyline GT-R. Gouryella (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources that back that statement up? What would your proposed rewrite/addition be? I think the article states it pretty clearly that it is not a Skyline, even though there is no source for that statement. Matty (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article clearly states this vehicle not being called a Skyline. Would be interested in seeing what proposed changes you'd like to make still. roguegeek (talk·cont) 04:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: R32, R33, R34, R35!!!! Kind of obvious!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.191.146 (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it be included that the GT-R is NOT part of the Skyline family? 

message: In the July 2009 issue of sport auto the GTR ran a Nürburgring 7:38 laptime.  That same month in an issue of Autobild the GTR outpaced the C6 ZR1 by 19 ms around the Contidrom test track.
can someone find sources online these are German magazines and I'm not sure if the articles are online yet? 69.65.224.246 (talk)
::According to the reference provided in the article, they have not updated the webpage - it still says Von Sauma made a 7:50 lap around the ring.Hj108 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the issue of Sport Auto magazine referred to above and can confirm the 7:38 lap time of the Ring driven by Horst Von Sauma.Hj108 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 magazine tests

message: If it is not part of the skyline family then why its it predecessor the Skyline GT-R? --203.211.70.193 (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Predessor???

message: In 2002, the GT-R has been removed from Skyline range and is separated in 2007, because Nissan wants the Skylines to run on a luxury-car style, while the GT-R has moved to its own performance line.
la nissan gtr a 480 ch.elle peut aller jusqu'a 340 kmh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.4.199 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for Nissan Skyline and Nissan GT-R has been separated. 

message: Paris Salon ... (Djole93bg (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Nissan GTR facelift ? 

message: Sonsofthepatriots & 70.116.78.36 claim that Nissan did not select the twinturbo V6 VR38DETT & DCT transmission because of reliability issues, even citing the class-action lawsuit that resulted from inappropriately used road cars. This is pure conjecture and NOT based on facts. The SuperGT class in which the GT500 race version of the GTR competes does not require the production of homologation versions of the competing cars and the vehicles that take part are far removed from any production version (to keep costs down that are associated with homologation). Indeed, the 2010 GT500 category winner, the Honda HSV-010 GT, does not even exist as a roadcar. Could one therefore conclude that any road-going Honda's engine & transmission is unreliable? Unsurprisingly, the Honda HSV-010 GT sports a 3.4 litre V8 engine with a sequential transmission just as most other competitors in that category as is dictated by regulations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_HSV-010_GT 
The DCT transmission's reliability was the bone of contention of the class-action lawsuit and used by the aforementioned to argue that this was the reason for Nissan selecting a sequential gearbox. Again, nothing could be further from the truth as it was used as weight saving measure. Moreover, most manufacturers that offer DCT transmissions on their road cars do not use these for their race-versions. A good example would be Porsche's 911 and it's racing going versions which all use sequential gearboxes.
--O-star1 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SuperGT engine & transmission choice 

message: Made a minor change under the "Facelifted GT-R" section as it was still written in the past tense.
````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BadPlatypus (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense changes 

message: I write in by machine translation. Kazutoshi Mizuno, the chief engineer of GT-R has said that he will produce R35 five more years. This information is described by the Japanese motor magazine. I delete description "being replaced in 2013." .
Mizuno's remark is here. GT-R　ニュルブルクリンク24ｈ参戦決定, ニュル24時間　水野和敏が率いるGT-R開発チームが参戦
--58.93.130.4 (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  R35 is produced till at least 2016.  

message: Parts of this section seems very sensational and full of PR, as if written by a journalist and/or marketer. Recurring words as "sensational", "astounding" etc contribute to this. Therefore, there seems to be a strong case to be made for a complete rewrite of the section to make it more factual and less ... Enthusiastic.
Lp500 (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the section has a lot of problems. Anyone who has commented here should feel free to be bold and at least remove the inappropriate adjectives, either here or on any other article where they are a problem. There's clearly a lot of trimming to be done to this section. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermarket tuning-part sensationalist 

message: The "Comparison test" section is irrelevant. As stated elsewhere, this is not advertising space. There is no similar section on any article for most of the cars mentioned. I propose that the whole section be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leigh911 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Comparisons between brands in car articles are discouraged here, because too often they turn into a pissing contest. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison tests 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nissan GT-R. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071026102535/http://www.gtrnissan.com:80/specs.en.au.html to http://www.gtrnissan.com/specs.en.au.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071026011926/http://www.edmunds.com:80/il/nissan/skyline/index.html to http://www.edmunds.com/il/nissan/skyline/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017234100/http://www.edmunds.com:80/insideline/do/News/articleId=107616 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=107616
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071018104650/http://www.edmunds.com:80/insideline/do/Features/articleId=123066 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=123066
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080502172709/http://www.edmunds.com:80/insideline/do/News/articleId=126032 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=126032
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101231230901/http://nissannews.com/newsrelease.do?id=2093&mid= to http://www.nissannews.com/newsrelease.do?id=2093&mid=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024133643/http://www.edmunds.com:80/insideline/do/News/articleId=123047 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=123047#3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201125042/http://www.autocar.co.uk:80/VideosWallpapers/Videos.aspx?AR=235168 to http://www.autocar.co.uk/VideosWallpapers/Videos.aspx?AR=235168
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090616002822/http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0508_ct_OnTrack.pdf to http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0508_ct_OnTrack.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091217015948/http://www.autocar.co.uk:80/VideosWallpapers/Videos.aspx?AR=245697 to http://www.autocar.co.uk/VideosWallpapers/Videos.aspx?AR=245697
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100114021511/http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de:80/vergleichstest/audi-r8-5-2-fsi-nissan-gt-r-und-porsche-911-turbo-im-test-1569786.html to http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/vergleichstest/audi-r8-5-2-fsi-nissan-gt-r-und-porsche-911-turbo-im-test-1569786.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927124908/http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Nissan-GT-R/230696/ to http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Nissan-GT-R/230696/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080412000528/http://supergt.net:80/supergt/2008/0801/0801racv_e.htm to http://supergt.net/supergt/2008/0801/0801racv_e.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080415090154/http://supergt.net:80/supergt/2008/0803/0803test_e.htm?1v to http://supergt.net/supergt/2008/0803/0803test_e.htm?1v
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080423112145/http://supergt.net:80/supergt/2008/0802/0802racv_e.htm to http://supergt.net/supergt/2008/0802/0802racv_e.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080113211321/http://www.targa.com.au:80/Media/Releases/GTR.html to http://www.targa.com.au/Media/Releases/GTR.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090503033500/http://www.sportcom.com.au:80/targatasmania/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=1&limit=1&limitstart=0&Itemid=59 to http://www.sportcom.com.au/targatasmania/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=1&limit=1&limitstart=0&Itemid=59
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090510091549/http://www.onelapofamerica.com:80/history/2009/results/showResults.shtml?y=2009&res=OVL_CUM to http://www.onelapofamerica.com/history/2009/results/showResults.shtml?y=2009&res=OVL_CUM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071214015507/http://www.mcr-ltd.com:80/demo.html to http://www.mcr-ltd.com/demo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080211114547/http://www.autoblog.com:80/2008/02/07/nissan-gt-r-cant-take-aftermarket-wheels-unapproved-race-track/2 to http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/07/nissan-gt-r-cant-take-aftermarket-wheels-unapproved-race-track/2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219225704/http://www.edmunds.com:80/insideline/do/Features/articleId=135586 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=135586
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You talk about the GTR as if it is the only model of GTR. I understand that it is the 2007 successor to the Skylines but it is necessary to make it apparent that this is an r35. Speak about the R35 not the skyline. too broad of language.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesPickles (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you rephrase that please - it is not very clear what problem you are pointing out or what solution you want.  Stepho  talk  22:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPECIFY 

message: https://gt-r50.nissan/#/en - unsigned by 93.38.65.148
:Feel free to add it to the article. An additional non-Nissan reference would be good too.  Stepho  talk  22:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nissan GT-R 50 Italdesign 

message: has just deleted the tuner info. For most articles I would 100% agree with you. But the R32..35 Skyline (and a few others like the Toyota AE86) seem to have a tuner movement that is far larger than the original car itself. I typically see modified Skylines almost every day on my drive to and from work. Some sort of summary of the tuner market would be helpful - at least in broad strokes.  Stepho  talk  04:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it should be mentioned, most cars never go as far as the GT-R has in drag racing. The thing about the speed limiter was also the topic of much discussion. It should be less exhaustive, trying to cover the entire history of the incremental improvements in quarter mile times and increases in power is much too broad. The tunability of the car very likely caused some people to buy the car and ignoring that seems like an error. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief section on the prevalence of tuning is suitable, as it would be for the AE86 and a few other products. We do not need exhaustive lists of tuners and outputs and lap times and such. This article is quick becoming an entirely useless and unreadable mess. I am a JDM fan but I think maybe editing this article should be 100% restricted to people who think that this is what R33/R34 should link to. If eliminating any mention of tuning is what it takes to keep fanboys away, then I could be in favor.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuners 

message: I saw an artical that they wrote MY2013 GT-R can accerelate 0-60 mph in just 2.6 seconds. Can we add it for this page?
Here it is - http://www.the370z.com/other-vehicles/62676-2014-gtr-info-545hp-0-60-2-6-secs-7-18-6-ring-time.html Muffyogsan (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it seems to be someone extrapolating how fast it might be able to go, the press release it's referring to has no such claim. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was a 0-60 mph time in 2.6 seconds 

message: I saw some track focused car pages have a paragraph about them Nürburgring lap records. So can we add a paragraph about Nürburgring lap record of this car like them? Muffyogsan (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to add a new paragraph about the GT-R NISMO's Nürburgring lap time in lap record segment. 

message: Need to be added drag racing for this page. So I'm going to start it and I'm kindly requesting from other editors to help me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffyogsan (talk • contribs) 11:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: U1Quattro removed all of it, , if you want to restore it I would be fine with it. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored as there was no consensus for its removal, It does need trimming but I certainly object to its removal. –Davey2010Talk 19:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drag Racing 

message: As a general notification, this vehicle is going to be 2026 and is currently not in development. It's on hiatus. R35 production ends in 2022, with nameplate going on hiatus. I will not provide any information beyond that. Carmaker1 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  R36 

message: Why reverts? They were lap records. I actually checked every single lap time before adding to this page. You better check them. Game for Game (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason people care about Nürburgring laps is the long history of a large cross section of high performance cars being tested on that circuit, when you are talking about most other tracks there is no such stiff competition. I think WP:UNDUE weight is being given to unimportant information, as in WP:NOTEVERYTHING "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Toasted Meter (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I think you missed the point of WP:VERIFY. The article can only say what is in the references. If the reference specifies a lap time then that is no problem - we can say the lap time. If the reference explicitly says that the lap time was a record then we can also say that. But if the reference does not explicitly say that it was a record then we cannot say that it was a record. It's not a matter a trust. We inherently do not trust any editor - not me, not you, not any of us. Every fact must be either obvious or backed up with a reference that can be checked independently of any editor's honesty. If the reference does not say that it was a record then you would need to provide a second reference does say that it was a record - or shows a list of record times that includes that entry. Otherwise we would have to keep the time but remove the claim that it was a record.  Stepho  talk  21:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

text: "fastestlaps.com" is not a reliable source, it's based on user contributed/compiled information. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You got it wrong. I'm not saying to use it as a source. I already given reliable sources for the lap times. Stepho said "show a list of record times that includes that entry". So that's why I added Fastestlaps. Fastestlaps is the only internet source (I can find) that showing the lap times. You can clearly see that the lap times are records at the time. And also they used the exact sources what I used on lap times. I hope you understand. Game for Game (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at the links you gave. If they are user contributed then they fall foul of WP:USERGENERATED. Even if that wasn't a problem, they were not very clear about whether it was a record for the circuit (ie comparing all cars that have been on that circuit) or a record for the car. I could easily interpret "best" lap to mean "best lap that this car did but possibly other cars went even faster".  Stepho  talk  10:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

text: @Game for Game I would suggest you go read on WP:NOTDATABASE. In addition, regarding your sourcing, read WP:SPS and WP:USERGENERATED, this has been previously communicated to you via your edit request on Talk:PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds to provide reliable source however because this article isn't locked, you can't bothered even after I revert your edits supported by GTR fans forum site which is deemed as user-generated, and follow up with the same source. I didn't revert your follow up edits doesn't mean I acknowledge your edits. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

text: As the article stands now, we have references for the lap times but not for the claim that they were a record. Therefore, we can leave the times in but need to remove the claim that they were a record.  Stepho  talk  21:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. For those references that actually say it was a record (not just showing a time) then we can also say that. And for references that only mention the lap time without saying it was a record then WP can only mention the lap time. WP can only say what is in the reference - no more, no less.  Stepho  talk  10:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Then for those 3 we remove the claim that they were records - but we can leave the lap time itself.  Stepho  talk  11:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Thank you.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lap Records 

message: On August 6, 2021, Nissan announced, all 300 units were sold out and stopped accepting orders for the GT-R Nismo and Special Edition from costumers. According to Nissan, 99% of costumers chose to buy the GT-R Nismo
Costumers is misspelled
Done. Changed to "customers". Game for Game (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is this 

message: I removed some entries in this table that I would say are WP:UNDUE, 
"one of the best resale values of any sports car" is not all that much of a "recognition". 
"Best Car to Buy Nominee" it was one of nine and did not win, the list is from Motor Authority which is not all that authoritative. 
"one of the Best Performance Cars" it was one of twelve and Car Connection is not much of a publication. 
"one of the Best Performing Cars" it was one of nine. 
"Used Sports Car of The Year" How many readers care about the "Car Dealer Magazine Used Car Awards 2019"? 
"The Most Talked About Car on the Internet" from "Zutobi", the volume of postings on the internet about a car is not so important as to be included in an article about the car.
You are giving undue weight to minor praise from minor publications. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and recognition 

message: Reception section added. Feel free to help to improve it by adding information from reliable sources. Thank you. XT RedZone (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: I've removed the Clarkson comment from the lede, as the lede should summarise the rest of the article, not be a dumping ground for additional miscellaneous info.  I've just checked the Nissan Skyline GT-R article lede, and it's in dire need of a rewrite, so is not a good example to compare to - WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding.  If it's to stay, it needs to be rewritten and better placed elsewhere.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: XT RedZone - "He didn't adduced a vehicle that in first place and leaved it unknown" - what?  Is English not your first language?  That would cast a different light on both this and the above situation.  Additionally, this may not be the best place for it in the current article state either, as this particular statement came from Clarkson's twitter account, and is not a Top Gear opinion.  I don't see where else it could go without rewriting the reception section though.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with that rephrased content. If you still think it should be rephrased feel free to do it. Just reverting every single edit and starting unnecessary discussions will improve nothing in this article unless wasting other editors time. What are you waiting for? XT RedZone (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nonsense.  If you want it included, you need to discuss it here and say why it should be included.  I don't see the value of including it without major rephrasing - which I'm not prepared to do.  Therefore the onus falls on you as the contributing editor to justify inclusion, but you need to do it without forcing your version.  You will notice that I still disagree with the top gear quote above, but have not forced my version while it is discussed.  Please have the courtesy to do the same here.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarkson statement from the lede 

message: If you list lap times below the heading lap records, it follows that they are lap records themselves. So a lap records heading shouldn't be above lap times which aren't verified lap records. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They're below the heading "Lap records" because they're lap records, which was according to the given sources. There's only 3 entries which requires a better verification, and I'm working on it. "Citation needed" tags will be applied only for those entries until that better verification was provided. XT RedZone (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Drachentötbär, and a lack of good faith by XT RedZone in their own edit summary.  Also, the latest addition was (as usual) poor quality English, so I've reverted that as well.  I stayed away as long as I could, but that was beyond the pale.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A time which isn't a verified lap record shouldn't be put into a list named lap records 

message: The anonymously added 10.5 seconds 400m time is probably fake and was never tested by the magazine. It's more than half a second quicker than any other standing start times for this car and the number of decimals is atypical for the magazine. Drachentötbär (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Nissan auto.it time 

message: Here's a source for the 2023 (2024 model year) update (I hate the term "facelift", but to be fair it looks like most the changes are front end):  I wasn't sure if I should revert the last revision with section changes, or try to re-add the new section in the new revision, but if someone wants to make that call, here you go. --Vossanova o< 13:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023/24 update 

message: Is there a page about the Nissan GTR Premium because I couldn't find it?50.93.90.64 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Premium is just a trim level rather than an actual model. It's mentioned in the "2023 facelift" section.  Stepho  talk  20:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see.50.93.90.64 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Nissan GTR Premium? 

message: Currently this article is extraordinarily long, with almost 25,000 words of prose. Some of that is due to fanatics filling the article with nonsense, but a lot of it is because this article currently covers the roadgoing GT-R alongside various different racing cars, such as the GT500 and FIA GT3 variants. Should any of those be spun off into separate articles? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if they should be spun off into separate articles, but I think the motorsport section in this article contains way too much detail that would be more appropriate at pages covering the activities of the relevant racing teams involved, especially with the customer-focused GT3 versions. For example, the amount of detail given to the Super Taikyu series here is pretty absurd since it is mostly an amateur series that doesn't receive a lot of coverage from independent reliable sources. With the GT3 variants, I think mostly a few sentences about each series – covering the championship wins and other notable results – in one subsection about the car's history in GT3 racing in general would be enough. The GT500 and GT1 versions can probably have more detail since both of them were raced in a single professional series, and at least the GT500 car received a lot of development throughout its use in the series. I think the road car's "Lap times" section could also be heavily trimmed, since most of the lap times have not received significant coverage from secondary reliable sources and Wikipedia is not a database of random lap times. Carfan568 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see we were both writing similar things at about the same time. I fully agree that the lap times section is currently a strong case of WP:NOTDATABASE applying. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we split off some of the sections about racing cars into separate articles? 

message: Now a certain sockpuppet has been blocked and the page has semi-protection, I think it may be wise to ask how relevant this "lap times" section actually is? I'm sure countless publications have taken this car around countless different motor circuits and recorded countless different lap times. Sure, Nordschleife times are always likely to receive some amount media attention, but how much encyclopaedic value actually is there to including how fast some journalist of whatever ability was able to drive the car around Driving Center Groß Dölln or the Llandow Circuit? Personally, I would limit such a section to  detailing times set by production-spec cars at the Nordschleife, Pikes Peak, and Tsukuba, and only if sources independent of both Nissan and the driver could actually be found reporting on those times. The current setup just seems like a target for bloat in an already bloated article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my comment in the thread above, I agree that only lap times that have received significant coverage from secondary reliable sources should be allowed to be included. The table should be deleted per WP:NOTDATABASE, and instead the lap times should be presented only in prose with context. I don't think it would be necessary to limit the section to times set at Nordschleife, Pikes Peak and Tsukuba, as reliable secondary sources generally only give significant coverage to noteworthy times. Carfan568 (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I bring up those courses purely because they're the only ones I would expect to receive such significant coverage (although with Tsukuba it might only get such coverage in Japanese-language sources). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed most of the section, leaving only the parts which do not appear to reference WP:PRIMARY sources. I am unsure of the reliability of the Autoevolution reference on the Goodwood Hill Climb time and the Tsukuba parts need someone who knows Japanese to figure out what's going on. This is just a first pass through. I also fixed some MOS:PSEUDOHEAD issues in the section. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a Google search in Japanese and couldn't find any sources covering the first Tsukuba lap time, so it can probably be removed unless someone finds a good source. Autoevolution appears to be a low quality source. For example, here another more reputable source is covering them misquoting a person and spreading false information. Some of their articles are clickbait-y and in general it seems to be a no-name publication. Also, I think the section should probably be renamed to "Other lap times" and the subheaders for the various tracks are unnecessary now since there aren't many of them and the times don't warrant a lot of coverage here. Carfan568 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed the section. Frankly it's probably more trouble than it's worth to have it around. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is likely the case. I did find this and this for the second Tsukuba time, though. Carfan568 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Those would probably be fine for a brief addition about the lap time to the section on the variant that set it. No need for a whole dedicated section, however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lap times" section 

message: "please change parctice to practice". 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:15E1:6E30:FBF1:377F (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: RudolfRed (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023 

message: This should be a good article 199.216.45.1 (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Only editors who have made a significant contribution to the article may nominate for GA. Your IP address does not appear on that list. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 00:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: Mass produced car is usually used as synonym for Production vehicle. None of the current and past definitions on Wikipedia fits to how it is used on this site. This self-created category doesn't exist and what readers suspect as meaning doesn't apply here. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the definition of "mass-produced" car ? 

message: The only official record is the 4-seater 0-60 mph acceleration. The drift record was made by a 1,361bhp car modified by GReddy Trust. The ice record was unofficial and the record claims in the tuning section are mostly tuner and fanboy bragging not supported by any independent instance for records. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-standing-mile-%E2%80%93-car shows that higher speeds were officially reached long time ago than those sold as records in this article to fool the readers. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete as much as you please as per earlier discussions. This page has more problems than just about anything in WP; at least there are adults in the room elsewhere.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-awarded records 

message: The  account has been blocked as a sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XT RedZone/Archive. Should this account's edits to this article be reverted per WP:BLOCKREVERT? They have made a lot of edits here. Carfan568 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by a block-evading sockpuppet 

message: Specs of Nissan GTR R35 117.230.12.155 (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specs of Nissan GTR R35