Talk:Audi RS 6

Fair use rationale for Image:AudiRS6 2008.jpg

Image:AudiRS6 2008.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source

Is this link [1] classed as a WP:RS? I have particular concerns regarding their quote that the new RS6 is limited to a production run of 999 units - however, my local Audi dealer is not able confirmed this, and the official Audi sites (Audi.com, Audi.co.uk, and the press sites) all have no such indication of a production run limited to 999 cars! -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of total production of 999 units -- except the special run of "RS6 Plus Avant" towards the end of C5 RS6 (2002-2004) production. Each of these RS6 Plus got a serialized plaque saying "XYZ of 999" of some sorts near the transmission selector. I do not know if all of claimed 999 RS6 Plus were ever produced. Several reference to this numbers are as follows:

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/47314/audi_rs6.html http://www.worldcarfans.com/2040418.002/audi-rs6-plus-with-extra-zest http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_101273/title_AUDI-AG-Launches-RS-6-with-Extra-Zest/newsarticle.html etc.

I think the key phrase is "no more than 999 will be produced..."

Now, the total number of C5 RS6 (incl RS6 Plus) is somewhere around 7000-8000 worldwide. The link http://www.worldcarfans.com/2041022.001/production-of-the-audi-rs-6-comes-to-an-end claims 8081 total. There are some other different numbers. The total numbers of RS6 imported into USA was supposed to be almost 900, but in the end at least 1437 units were imported - this is in reference to a Service Action Campaign dated issued in beginning of 2009 (link of a copy: http://forums.audiworld.com/rs6/msgs/45538.phtml) claimed by Audi of America. (For clarification, *all* RS6 imported and sold in States by Audi of America had D.R.C. suspension system. D.R.C. was optional elsewhere in the world.) Sorry, I don't know French. (: Virtual bob (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Turbo.fr is the official website of the Turbo TV show. It's broadcast weekly on French channel M6. I'd classify that as reliable. --Pc13 (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Audi R S4 - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 09:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange statement

"The DRC's main disadvantage is that it operates without the need for complicated electronics" what kind of statement is this?--Hooperbloob (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing! 86.181.117.134 (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The kind of statement it is, is part of a string of vandalism from the same IP address on April 27, 2012. This person also changed the caption of the interior photograph to indicate that the Audi's seats are "inferior to those in the CL55 AMG" and changed the sentence after the one in question to state the failure of the Audi suspension could "cause death." He also claimed in the same sentence that the suspension is "clearly inferior to Mercedes." I have reverted the vandalism. P924 CarreraGTS (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! What do you think about his 'five or more miles of flat asphalt' edits on 4 May? Mischievous at best, IMO. 86.181.117.134 (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed that as well. Obviously this person does not have the best interest of the page in mind, and that statement even if true is not cited or particularly relevant. Top speed is top speed, regardless of distance required to achieve it. P924 CarreraGTS (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Audi RS 6. 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/20110817071238/http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com:80/cars-trucks/Mercedes-Benz_E63-AMG/ to http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Mercedes-Benz_E63-AMG/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203011205/http://usedcarsworld.co.uk/article/audi-rs6-avant-uk-version-2008/ to http://usedcarsworld.co.uk/article/audi-rs6-avant-uk-version-2008/

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) 07:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)