Talk:Ford Mustang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Ford Mustang appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 18, 2004.

Ford Mustang is a selected article in Portal:Cars.

	Cars Portal This article is supported by Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of Automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	To-do list for Ford Mustang:	edit - history - watch - refresh
	Keep the article in formal tone as much as possible. The article looks bad and even worse on wide screen display with Firefox 2.00. Firefox experts needs some inputs here. Symbols and acronyms must be cosnistant for Horsepower, torque, cubic inches, liters and so on. Watch for... ...POV's ...weasel words. ...fancruft. References. Propose moving model variants to separate pages and keeping basic stats on main page and short blurb (visible example: Putting the 80's Mustang models Ford Mustang SVO and Ford Mustang SSP on separate pages rather than incorporating them into the article itself and leaving a short blurb about them on the main page).

---

Contents 1 Multiple merges 2 Major Revision 3 Separate page 4 Big changes to the 87-93 Mustang article. 5 Poor representations, i.e. the images suck 6 Ford Mustang Sedan

[edit] Multiple merges

Do the following article really need to be stand-alone articles?

• Ford Mustang SVO
• California Special Mustang
• Shelby Mustang
• Ford Mustang SVT Cobra
• Ford Mustang SSP

The information provided in them is, for the most part, redundant. If you actually take just the unique information these articles provide, you'll find it is very little. I say every single one of them should be merged into here. Thoughts? Votes? Roguegeek (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_size. Note: This page is 60 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. Some should stay, others could be merged into the article itself. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's kinda what I'm thinking too. Any article above that has a fair share of unique information should stay. The question would be which ones do? Roguegeek (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Turbine06: Well Personally i Think these are All cars in their own right

to be honest this article is so bloated it sickens me. It so poorly organised it gives me headaches. But these so called seperated articles stated above (specifically those no longer produced like SVO or SSP) can be merged to respected era of mustang. for example the SSP, SVO can be combined together as a new page and can be linked from 1979-1993 mustang section.

Before you even consider any merge of anytype, cleanup the main article first. THEN worry about whether or not each model deserves it's own page or needs to be incorporated into the article itself. --Cesario (JPN) 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki_righter:

Keep them separate. The generic Mustang article is already a bit unweildy. Mustangs and derivatives have been around for 40+ years - lots of info on this car. Allowing different pages together with links from the original page allows detail to be added without making the original article even more difficult to read. Hyperlinks are one of the benefits of an online encyclopedia. Lets take advantage of them.

Stongly Oppose to merge, these articles are each well developed in their own right, something i'd like to see more of for other years/models of mustangs. --AlexOvShaolin 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the merge tag because it doesnt make any logical sense. I already created a seperate page for mustang variation.Jbrian80 08:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Revision

Time for some drastic action. I cleaned up some of the articles, Fix some factual errors, add citations, remove some POV's and weasel words. The content is pretty much the same I did some re-arranging in chronological order... if you hate it revert it. I didnt able to finished because I already spend hours editing. 24.83.153.249 10:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate page

Is it all right if i shorten this article and put the information another page related to the Ford Mustang.220.236.231.226 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dont worry if you scrwewed up you can revert it ;). I doubt these article can ever be merged, its getting too long. The only weay is to get these seperate article some decent exposure so they dont get obscured. Jbrian80 06:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I combined the the variants and seperate them by respected category rather then by generation...here is my crude sample (not linked pending approval) Ford Mustang Variants. Since other mustang variants was practically shutt off like from Saleen and Roush....a seperate variant page gives these obscured variants a chance to be exposed... Jbrian80 07:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

if a seperate page for variants was "approved" the burden on main article will be reduced.Jbrian80 08:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont want to be blunt, but face it wikipedia want 37 kb and the article was 57kb going down to 47kb. I have no choice but to put these variants on new page and its up to you to expand it. Put more info on Steeda, Roush etc. See Ford Mustang Variants. Jbrian80 19:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I approve. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big changes to the 87-93 Mustang article.

I cleaned up the fox body section of this page. A lot of the verbage was very opinionated (like how they said it was a GOOD thing that they switched to cast pistons in 93) and some of the facts were just plain wrong. It still needs a lot more information but at least now it doesn't look like some little kid wrote it.

Excellent, I been losing sleep trying to fix this article. Jbrian80 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor representations, i.e. the images suck

The mustang represents for most people a statement of performance, since basically 1966 onwards, or whenever the GT was introduced. This is even more true today, so why is this page full of images of poverty edition V6s for the later models?? Please replace the V6s with some standard, unmodifed GT cars. Go have a look at the Porsche 911 page. They don't have boring 911 coupes, they have GT3s and Turbos up there. Jeez. 192.197.71.189 16:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Mustang Sedan

According to AutoWeek [1], a Mustang sedan and station wagon are reportedly in development for the 2011 model year. It will replace the aging Crown Victoria sedan as Ford's rear wheel drive full-size car. It will also underpin the next Mercury Marquis and Lincoln Town Car. So the D2C platform will replace the Panther body. -- Bull-Doser 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

An enlarged D2C variant is almost certain to replace the Panther. However, I doubt Ford is stupid enough to make four-door Mustangs. This is just an "idea" they're throwing around, for now. --Sable232 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - seriously calling it a Mustang would probably be second only to the FWD "Mustang" Probe fiasco. This sounds more to me like someone missed a few important words and didn't differentiate between "Mustang" and "Mustang platform". Not to mention, that 'rendering' looks somewhere about MSPaint in quality. Ayocee 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)