This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Bavaria C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria 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.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Automobiles C‑class Mid‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands C‑class 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is the Q7 the A7? I hadn't heard that they were one and the same... --SFoskett 00:30, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

No they are not. The A7 is a coupe. I didn't see it mentioned in the article, though. Bok269 23:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem? According to this article, the MMI is a "user-friendly" interface. Nevermind that Car & Driver and Consumer Reports both reviewed the system throughly and said it was nothing short of demonically possessed.

Worse, I have the MMI in my A8, and its demonically possessed as well (nevermind the gearbox).

I think this article needs clean-up, besides "user-friendly" is a subjective term anyway so it must go.

the idrive, mercedes' thingy, and the MMI are all "user-friendly".. thats what the companies call them, but many say they are not.. i agree, we should remove it.. ??

Hello, of course this is a big Audi advertising :)

Stef

--World arm lamp 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please, in this article there is detailed information about a aluminium interior trim and nothing about the drivers visibility and pedestrians safety.

what is more important ??.

I do not own this car but sometimes i have to deal with it in the traffic.

Stef

--World arm lamp 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturer is the Audi AG, not Volkswagen. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Q7 Can anybody fix it? Thanks 'n' regards from Gool Old Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.199.168 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Thanks for the tip off, i corrected "Audi" to "Audi AG" as someone already changed it from VW Jenova20 11:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article says there will be no other Q-series Audi. What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Q3 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.156.53 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - not taking credit as i didn't do this, but it's done Jenova20 11:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this debate once and for all.

This article revision shows tables with safety ratings by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and IIHS, apparently for model year 2015 : 2015 Audi Q7 (NHTSA) and 2015 Audi Q7 Large SUV / 2008 Audi Q7 (IIHS) , but they are based on older crash tests : IIHS says "Ratings shown are the latest available for this model year" and "Applies to 2007-15 models". For NHTSA, 2011-2015 show same roll-over rating but no reference, whereas 2007-2010 all reference the same 2007 Side Crash document number #5852, 10MB for rollover.

It is common; see these other examples of ratings spanning multiple years from the same test : Mercedes E 2014-2016, Buick Regal 2012-2016, 2016 Infiniti QX60 2014-2016 (set up newest and oldest test in separate windows side by side to compare document numbers)

Audi (and other car manufacturers) pay for the tests, so they only perform the tests when necessary. When new test is not necessary, they carry results over from year to year rather than pay for a new test with the same result. Q7 and Cayenne has not been crash tested in USA after 2011, perhaps piggybacking on the 2011 Touareg test as they share the same PL71 platform. IIHS has chosen to explicitly display 2008 result for 2015 model, NHTSA indirectly so.

Whatever the case, Wikipedia goes by Verifiability, not truth; all content must rely on reliable sources, not opinions by individual WP editors. NHTSA and IIHS are generally considered to be very reliable sources. If NHTSA has made a mistake, it is up to Audi to contact them. Until then, NHTSA shows Q7 with a rollover risk of

Long story short; NHTSA and IIHS are reliable sources, and they say the 2015 Q7 has these ratings. If you have reason to believe otherwise, please supply source. TGCP (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2015 model year Audi Q7 is the first generation not the second generation, the data applies only to the first generation and does not belong in the second gen section. Also the results carry over year to year within a generation, they do not carry over to the next generation. As of now the IIHS and NHTSA have not published results for the second generation Q7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolipopprag (talk • contribs) 11:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spell that out for you again: NHTSA and IIHS *have* published results for 2015 Q7 : 2015 Audi Q7 (NHTSA) and 2015 Audi Q7 Large SUV / 2008 Audi Q7 (IIHS) "Applies to 2007-15 models" - read the sources; it says so right there. It is the choice of Audi and IIHS to carry over results. TGCP (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the results go in the first gen, I will fix that. TGCP (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Audi Q7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081128173040/http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1007 to http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Audi Q7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022033606/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article687697.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article687697.ece

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Audi Q7. 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/20091025174134/http://www.carautoportal.com/audi/audi-q7.php to http://www.carautoportal.com/audi/audi-q7.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105192259/http://fourtitude.rely.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/1662 to http://fourtitude.rely.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6/1662
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813220733/http://microsites.audi.com/q7-globe/ to http://microsites.audi.com/q7-globe/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I hope you are all having a Merry Xmas and a happy new year !!

I was going through a few edits and found that in some articles such as List of sport utility vehicles, there happens to be (in my honest opinion) an image that does not look up to par. Ok now this is my personal opinion, however I have found a nice assortment of images which I would like to discuss with everyone, more importantly Vauxford, Charles01, Mr.choppers and Davey2010. Look, I know we have reach consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS, however this was a 2 way only discussion, and to ensure reduced bias, I have decided as per this and this one (This is however a different issue altogether) discuss with everyone. I will however not replace the current version (Vauxford's) for the front and rear, because for mine, I did the front view shot (I did the rear but it was damaged, so chose not to upload). I've identified the faults of the images, so therefore it would be nice to rank them from best to worst. I've listed the faults below, based on my opinions.

• 
  Current and most used one. The problem I experience with this photo is of the dramatic tilt and also the pillar behind the car is very distracting i.e. in my opinion it looks like the car is wearing a hat which of course may be perplexed. Also the pixels are of concern, but I'm sure thats just one only factor. Remember, even the low end cameras can still produce awesome shots. Another issue is the image is very noisy. The car behind isn't too much concern, but compared to the other three, it is identified as a fault. However the rear shot of the car is no problem, its much clearer and also would be suitable for the article. Also the rear end is tilted and blurry as a result.
• 
  This is the suggested example. The reason being is because it does not have anything growing behind it and also has a decent background. It also has a good pixel range, but remember I do not care too much about it. Some of my photos are from my Nikon camera or iPhone 7 Plus. The only problems I can identify out of the four options is I did not take the shot at a prescribed height, rather I took a step back too far resulting in slight distortion.
• 
  This image taken by M 93 is not too bad. I do like the image because it is clean, focused and also at chest height (the user must be tall, as I'm relatively short) and is well executed. I do however have slight concerns because some of the areas look very dark and also may have relative distractions. I think this and mine are good replacements, but of course everyone can say what they wish.
• 
  Its a decent photo, however this is too reflective as the sun and also the shadow is annoying. Also it looks relatively distracting. However its still a nice photo, but if the user reduced the shadow, then things would work out

Please could everyone help me out and pick out of the four which would be the best replacement for Vauxford's Audi Q7. All are equally decent, however I would like more opinions, not just mine and Vauxfords. If anyone can spy any better examples, please do not hesitate to add it here. The more examples, we get, it makes life easier for us to identify. Davey2010 & Charles01, since you two are the experts in quality, could you please judge an example and find whether either of the 4 examples would be suitable for use on Wikipedia in the stub articles, such as J-segment, Audi etc. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I would say the 2nd image is that little bit better - It's less whiter whereas the first one seems just that tad more whiter if that makes sense, The second one stands out more to me than the rest .... I would like to hear others opinions before this is changed. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 08:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You ask that we choose between these four. I don't understand why you pick on these four. They're all quite good as examples of things not to do, but otherwise.... Anyway, here goes:

I haven't worked out why you want to replace a picture by Vauxford. If his is one of these it would be helpful to know which one it is. If his is not one of these, then why have you not included it?

The one on the left is overexposed. Loss of detail. The automatic camera was more interested in the hedge, I think. Not a bad hedge, though I agree the piece of gate post apparently emerging from the roof is unhelpful. Zoom setting? Or is it just that someone put the wall in the wrong place? Angle not wonderful. Photographer should have placed camera slightly higher. It's a tall car. Also, if you want to tilt the car, it's more attractive if you tilt slightly towards the viewer than if you insist on tilting slightly away from the viewer.

The second one would also be better if the photographer had stood a little higher. But it's not as bad in that respect as the first one. Also the photographer has managed to avoid over-exposing the white car. One or two odd reflections in the windows, but not too much in your face. Background interesting for the wrong reasons. Is that a giant finger print on the grey wall? If wheels are turned it is usually better, for a portrait shot, if they are turned towards the viewer rather than away from him/her, though that is only slightly apparent in this case. And maybe I'm simply being deceived by a little bit of zoom distortion which is a bit of an on-going theme with this photographer (tho ... there are plenty that are worse!)

The third one would be better if the sun had been moved clockwise. Right now front underexposed, hood/bonnet overexposed. He's got the side pretty well, though. And he's persuaded his camera not to take an unhealthy interest in the trees behind: that's not always so easy. The adjacent white Audi into which the subject merges is a MAJOR negative for me, though.

The fourth one is at first blush the most pleasing. Niceish angle (though one that I find one only sometimes gets away with). Background interesting without being overwhelming or messy. Clearest of these four images as far as the front of the car is concerned. And it's an interesting front. BUT this one is badly let down by reflections on the bodywork. And there's a distracting something on the foregound on the right side edge. Easy to cover over with grass using a manipulation programme, but less so with these trendy block-paving surfaces.

There are a lot of pictures of Audi Q7s in Wikipedia Commons. On a quick glance there appear several there without significant issues. Replacing a picture by Vauxford or by EurovisionNim is not a bad thing to want to do. They have both inflicted far too many of their mediocre images on wikipedia, thereby drowning out the relatively small number they have uploaded that are ok or good. But you don't begin to reverse the overall impact of their contributions by simply setting up discussions about replacing one mediocre picture with another. There must be a few pictures of these cars without obvious issues in Commons. Maybe there are even one or two that are good. Please, go find. Happy days Charles01 (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Charles01, so if you were in my shoes, which would be the best option out of these 4. Please let me know. We need to decide out of the four chosen shots, which of them would be the best for replacing Vauxford's image. Unfortunately, these four are the only suitable examples. Please let me know. Please stop insulting me because of my height, I'm not a tall person 😓. Also the zoom distortion is because I use long lens, i use two lens, a 18-55mm and a 55-250mm. The latter causes more distortion, which I apologise. Could you please suggest how to fix it on Photoshop? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the distracting fingerprint as based on Charles01 on mine. Also I did a minor tilt fixup. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is eye-wateringly irrelevant. You're not meant to apologise for setting your lens inappropriately. You're meant to find and use better pictures, especially given the extent to which you insist on dumping pictures that you have taken all over wikipedia, and especially given the extent to which - no doubt with blessed exceptions - the quality of your pictures does not seem to change very much. I'm sure you have taken some excellent pictures and put them ... somewhere: but ... I don't think the one you want us to evaluate here are among the excellent ones. This is not a personal thing to you or anyone else. It's about not degrading wikipedia! If your height bothers you - and we all have things about ourselves that bother us - please talk to an appropriate therapist about it. I would not dream of "insulting [you] because of [your] height" (a matter on which, till now, I had no evidence and a matter in which even now that you tell us about it, as far as I can figure out, I have no reason to take too much interest). What a very odd accusation. And one for which I think you probably should wish to apologise. We can all do self-pity, but really, this is not the place for it! However, I make no apology for taking the opportunity which you present us with to draw your attention to the way in which your unconventional view of yourself appears to be affecting your judgment adversely when you submit contribution to wikipedia if as, in my judgement, it does here.

What I was hoping you would read and maybe even address is what I wrote about the pictures, one of which you say you think should be used to head up the article in place of another one that, for your own reasons, you do not want to use, apparently because it is a photograph by your former chum Vauxford. That is what you asked me to do. I will repeat my conclusion in case, this time, you will wish to display the courtesy to read it and think about it. You might learn something, and you won't know unless you try. None of the pictures you propose is particularly good. They all have rather obvious issues. That's my opinion. Do you disagree? In the event that you want to improve the wikipedia entry on this car you should try and find another better one. Probably there are already several better ones already in commons.

AND have a nice day! It seems to be Christmas again. Queue overeating! Charles01 (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to add to the gallery examples you find good. I don't mind at all. We will get Vauxford to make his own decision and base it on the image choice. It'd be no point removing the top half, as this won't really be much of an improvement. I wasn't insulting you, I was having a joke stating why my shots are like that so I figured I try this joke out. :). Also there are no other images that would be most suited, so either its between mine, Vauxford's, Dorefers or M 93s. Either of the four would work. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EurovisionNim Charles01 Firstly, the picture which I took does look different from my others as this was one of my early photos back when I had my PowerShot. For some reason, Nìm have been getting upset with this particular picture of mine. No hard feelings but No matter how much you seem my photos "mediocre" and "degrading" but your view and your example of a good image is far too inconvenient and I mentioned this several times. Guess you're as bad as Nim when it comes to listening. It not the best photo but useable I think.

Don't be such a pansy Nim, Charles was just describing his problem with the photo. No need to take every critic as a "insult". Vauxford (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford. I was only teasing Charles :). I didn't mean any harm. Besides your image of the Q7 that you took is blurry on one end, which I recall as per this discussion, you complained of my X5, even if looking good is blurry. Also the car behind doesn't really feel like a good choice IMHO. Of course, this is the exact reason why i brought it here to discuss mate, and to add, Charles01 is not able to select the best quality example out of the four choices prescribed to him on this chat, that was concerns me. Hes worse than me actually.

I also would like to note that Charles01 & OSX are the ones who like me are tight on quality images. I do not mind your DSLR images no problem, however I do mind the Powershot examples. Remember if an image is better quality whether it may be pixels or background, then it can be replaced. I've mentioned that to you a few times. Relax man, the main point is your image feels but this is why I brought it for discussion. If I had no problem, i wouldn't be doing this. I think the second one is good. Angle doesn't fully matter. The background is nice and clean. Its Fremantle, I can't help much, with the roads. I think the best thing for you to do is like Pil56 said to you on the Italian Wikipedia that "your" image opinions. But I do like your other shots. The most recent ones are really good don't get me wrong. You, myself, Charles are all great photographers, however images are often subjective in quality :)

I reckon we should use image2 based on suggestion that Davey2010 suggested. I actually don't have any problems with the way you photograph. However you go a little bit too personal with your photos. The pixel quality is essential as well as factors such as the background. Image 2 has a neat background and the black/grey backdrop blends well with the car. I won't replace. Also no, its not being too incovienant, we want the best images possible, and that means high quality examples. Also to note, there are too much visible CA in the photo, therefore linking to the fact that the quality of the image is distorted. Whilst its useable (I only took the front, so I'll use your ones in the later sections). I'll get Davey2010 to choose which of the image will be used. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I reckon we should use image2 based on suggestion that Davey2010 suggested" - Well ofcourse you're going to say that it's your image, Also we need to agree on a photo ... You cannot just say "Yeah lets go with Dave" and thus ignoring everyone else - If everyone says image 2 then great but if not then we wait untill a consensus can be reached. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 13:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my apologies Dave. Anyway, can we get another user say Areaseven to come and have a look. Like me, she is strict with the quality of the images that is used. However she isn’t fussed about CARPIX guidelines so she’d be a good help. Let’s do that and I’ll let other users to come and help out. Mr.choppers would be interested so do you want me to leave a msg on the talk page? Cheers —EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]