Talk:Lincoln Town Car

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lincoln Town Car has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lincoln Town Car article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Lincoln Town Car has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Lincoln Town Car is a selected article in Portal:Cars.

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Brendel

	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.)

I have some doubts about the 2006 information added by 141.213.130.145. What I've read is mostly the opposite--the Town Car may go front- or all-wheel-drive soon, while the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis are likely to stay Panther-based for some time. RivGuySC 00:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see cites on speculative information - on such, we should especially ensure that the speculation reported is by others, rather than the Wikipedia authors themselves. Removed until we get some references. —Morven 04:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Getting good 2 Good Article 3 Needs NPOV/OR/Crystal balling taken out. 4 Userboxes 5 Added Lincolns Online to the External Links area 6 NO redesign? 7 Images 8 Image 9 9-11 pic 10 Compeition

[edit] Getting good

Let's congratulate ourselves a little. It took a while, but this article is shaping up pretty nicely! RivGuySC 03:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

Hi, I have noticed that our article seems to be quite well received by others (knock on wood) and is featued in the car portal. I think adding a "good article" tag as on the Ford Taurus or Lexus LS article would be arporiate. Let me know. Thank you. Signature^brendel 07:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is appropriate. I started the article two years ago, and it's been great to see so many people pitching in. Town Car owners & fans know their stuff! RivGuySC 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs NPOV/OR/Crystal balling taken out.

There are a few assorted problems I noted in this article:

• Unencyclopedic POV -- Things like "the Town Car has earned its status," "generous dimensions," "continues to honor the time-tested luxury formula"
• OR -- goes hand in hand with the one above, editors are writing their own personal conclusions and ideas into the article, rather than citing those of authorities and reviewers.
• Crystal Balling -- "With the Wixom Assembly Plant closing in 2007, it is likely that the Town Car will end production as well." We're pulling that out of our ass if we include it. Yet another original conclusion.

This article has lots of information, but it needs to present it in a more encyclopedic form before it can get to featured quality.

Night Gyr 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but "Generous Dimensions" is not POV. Have you seen the car? Generous proportions is just a very elegant way of saying huge or large or oversized. The car is a foot longer than the Caddi DTS. Saying "Generous Dimension is the best way of describing the vehicle. Also the "time-tested luxury formula is a quote from NCTD- I'll make sure it stands out in the text as such. Concerning the Wixom plant there is no "Crytsal Balling." Ford said in its press release a few weeks back thst it plans to close Wixom in 2007. Whether or not that means the end of production for the Town Car we do not know. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

I recently created a Lincoln Town Car userbox for my userpage and thought I would post an example of it here. Enjoy!

Thanks. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Lincolns Online to the External Links area

Lincolns Online is a near-real-time source for Lincoln Town Car information. They have a message forum that provides invaluable repair informaiton along with technical articles on repairing and restoring these vehicles to like new (or better in many cases). The founder of the site is DaKat and the chief mechanical engineer is Dereck. I figure I've saved about $3000 in repair/diagnostic costs by visitng the site, researching, and chatting with others. It is a must if it involves the Town Car. (This unsigned comment was left by 68.204.147.169)

Yes, forums can be very helpful and often professionals are among those participating in the featured discussions. So, while Lincolns online may have a great forum with knowledgable members, Wikipedia policy states rather clearly that Forum should not be featured in the "External links section" as they are not exclusively written by professionals and do not have strict NPOV policies. You see, the external links sections is like a "Further suggested reading" section, it refers those you would like to research an article's subject more to professionally written articles on the subject. Thank you for understanding, if you would like to do more research on wiki policy regarding this subject I'll be more than glad to provide you with the link. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the policies will change to make Wikipedia.org worthwhile. Most of the articles are not written by "professionals" unless "self-proclaimed" means something. NPOV policies are vague at best. Sorry you all feel that offended and jarred by including the best Lincoln Site on the Internet on your page. (This unsigned comment was left by 12.151.80.14, who is likely the same user that appeared earlier under the IP number, 68.204.147.169)

I don't feel offend myself, I am merely stating that links to forums are froned upon by Wiki policy. But since there is no clear policy on the issue I am going to leave the link in. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO redesign?

Why is the Town Car production just being moved instead of redesigned? Cadillac's deVille,now DTS has undergone at least 3 changes since the Town Car was new in 1998. The body is almost 9 years old and people must be sick of looking at this same body style. What are Ford's plans? 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I of course am inarmored with the current body style and from the comments I get most people seem to take to it. But my POV aside, Ford has not yet anounced any plans to redesign the Town Car. (I do agree with you it is time for a re-desgin after 8 years, even though I love the current one ;-)) PS. Look at a DTS from the side, its a 2000 Deville. Happy editing! Signature^brendel 20:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The current body style is absolutely gorgeous but of course its time for some sort of change. 2006 would have been a good time to redesign instead of a name change and facelift on the DTS. I somehow feel that if Town Car sales do not remain brisk under the current body style, we will be faced again with the possiblity of its demise maybe in 2009 or 2010. This is another reason Ford should consider investing in a redo. 09:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

True, Ford really is milking the Town Car for profits instead of investing into a complete redesign to revitalize sales. Signature^brendel 17:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fear not, faithful ones. There are plans for the Town Car in '08 and '10. Of course, plans can and do change, as the automotive marketplace and consumer preferences shift. But one can assume that, in general, Ford will tend to continue to invest in profitable programs, and tend to abandon unprofitable ones. There are an awful lot of baby-boomers entering empty-nest retirement age, and boomers have a taste for powerful, cool looking sporty-luxury cars, with lots of surprise-and-delight gadgets and features and innovative driver conveniences (and space), which also happen to make for great bragging points when heading for the golf course or the hunting-lodge cabin out in the country with friends. Be brave, Gerbrendel-meister. Enough said. --T-dot 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I removed many images that seemed to just clutter up the article, and moved some around. I, or somebody else should find 2003 or newer Town Car to put in top infobox. Karrmann 22:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to have 03+ model in the infobox. Many car articeles simply use the best looking one. Truth be told the dirveway shot is the best pic we have of a TC on WP. All other shots are taking of cars that are somewhat dirty, on parking lots or on the street. Unless someone can put a just polished '03+ TC in a dignified environment and shot a pic with just the right lightin the pic should stay. (The currently best '03 pic has a Chrylser Mini-van in the backgournd- in order to take a good car picture, I mean a really good one, you needs to be able to move the car and have constant access to it.) Also, please leave the collages, they illustrate the design changes described in the article-they are not clutter. That, said I left most of your changes in place and thank you for your efforts. Happy New Year, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just let me get rid of that gallery in the second gen section. Karrmann 16:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppse that gallery is less than pleasing to the eye ;-)- so go ahead. But please leave the infobox image, it's the best pic we have of a Town Car and the most beautiful pic should be in the most prominent place, see Lincoln Continental for an example. Best Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I personally don't see teh point in putting that side view image in the name section. How does itillustreate how the people are naming the car? We got pleanty of images in the Gen III section illustrating the Gen III, so I find the image redundant. Karrmann 01:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It just decorates the article. The image is free, I took it and it is quite a good shot. But if you truly think the pic doesn't add to the article and insist that it ought to go, we can leave it out. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't clutter the article at all, and it fits in very nicely right above the picture of the '78. I think it should stay, it's nice to have the side profile there. Now maybe if we put the same side profile of a '70s model underneath it, it would show the contrast between them and that would work even better.

Honestly, we should be thankful that we have high-quality posed pictures on this article. Many of the images here actually look like factory photos. --Sable232 03:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It should only be removed from the article if its presence is actually detrimental to the article, and that's not the case. I would say there are a few too many images throughout; it's the only auto article I've seen with three images stuffed into an infobox, and one of the few with any interior images. IFCAR 12:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because I'm the owner have complete 24/7 access to it-as we already have determined that owner can get the best pics of their cars. I put in the interior pictures and the multiple outside shots to illustrate the design changes described in the article. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the quantity of images so much as the way some are mashed together. A set of four for the 98-02 design (yours?) and a set of three for the 95-97 (also yours?). A fair number of articles also have a lot of different angles of the same car, obviously owned by the photographer, but generally presented in more space-efficient galleries. But, it doesn't really matter. IFCAR 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, you don't mind the pics, just they way they're arranged. I'll look into using some galleries. I put in so many pictures to illusteate all the design differences. Mine is the '02- the '95 TC is that of another author who worked on this article back in mid '05. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. But I don't really mind that much either, it's just something that I happened to notice when this related discussion turned up. Really, either way is fine. IFCAR 12:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - it might be just me fussing - but I still think this article has far too many images cluttering up the page. One side-view image (yes discussed above) is inexplicably repeated: appearing in an infobox grouped with others and also riding solo in an unrelated paragraph, which is really visually annoying. Other images are placed on both the left and the right sides, with a slender column of text down the middle sandwiched in between, in clear violation of the Manual of Style on Images. The article just seems to me to scream out: "Look!!! Super fanatical enthusiasts did this article and love to show off pictures of their cars!" - so it really starts to taint the neutral, encyclopedic POV - and look almost like a (poorly arranged) advertising brochure from Ford fanatical enthusiast's web site. That said, I really do like the idea of combined 3-view images in the infobox, with a couple of high quality exterior shots of the entire vehicle, which very clearly define and describe the overall shape and notable exterior features visually, and perhaps an interior shot (which should be biased somewhat towards the driver's side as a viewpoint in my opinion). Any other images outside of the infoboxes should be very few and far between, and only provided if absolutely essential to properly illustrate the text description. I hate to nitpick - and I know y'all worked hard on this - and I am a Lincoln enthusiast myself, but this many images just seem to me to be overkill, and may prevent any hope of achieving maintaining a good or featured article status (although I really have no personal interest in that beauty-show queen elitist mentality). --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. I have re-arrenged the pictures, so they are all on the right, except for the door panel shot of third generation-which I keep becuase it marks a major design change. I didn't even notice that the side-shot was repeated in the article. I am, however, gald to hear that you "I really do like the idea of combined 3-view images in the infobox, with a couple of high quality exterior shots of the entire vehicle, which very clearly define and describe the overall shape and notable exterior features visually". Regards, Signature^brendel 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For the second generation section, I perfer to have the montage under "1995" where I feel that it illustrates the article better, as it illustrates all the changes made to the car during its facelift, from the 1990-1994 Model in the infobox. I also think it makes the article look neater. Karrmann 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have moved the montage below the infobox on the right hand side, so the article looks less cluttered. Signature^brendel 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9-11 pic

The 9-11 picture of a TC with a smashed windshield and the burning Pentagon in the background is completely unfit for this article. We are not talking about 9-11 here and the picture does nothing for the article esthetically. It is a depressing picture showing one of the worst tragedies in history and has no reason for being featured here. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope this isn't here to make a WP:POINT. --Sable232 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compeition

The DTS is the Town Car's main rival, while the Jaguar XJ is also made by Ford, is an positioned higher than the Town Car, so therefor, it is not a competitor. That is like saying that the Mercury Sable competes with the Volvo S40. Both are made by the same company, and the S40 is aimed at a whole different market than the Sable. Same goes by the Town Car and Jaguar XJ. Karrmann 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The TC and XJ are relatively similar as they are both aimed at the full-size luxo market, one being more expansive than another. The new similar section is fine as the DTS is the absolute closest rival, but consider that both the DTS and TC are much, much cheaper than their "import" rivals. The XJ was listed becuase it is a full-size luxury car w/ emphasis on comfort, despite the "import vs. domestic" pricing gap. Signature^brendel 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But, the TOwn Car is aimed at the mid priced Luxury Market, and the XJ is aimed at the high end Luxury market. And again, the XJ is not competition, because it is also made by Ford. Karrmann 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we go over this someplace already? "Similar" is NOT "competition". The DTS is FWD, therefore it is not similar to the Town Car. I recall having a conversation about this elsewhere a few months back. Can we get a consensus on this and put it to bed? --Sable232 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)