Talk:Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Recent changes

Please let's discuss certain things before changing them.

  1. References are references and are formatted correctly. Changing them to external links is not consistent with Wikipedia standards.
  2. Vehicle dimensions are part of the automobile infobox and were unreadable in that table. There is no problem repeating information - that's what an infobox is for.
  3. I don't understand why aka is not appropriate, but we can leave it for the time being. Once it is changed to MKZ, I suggest moving Zephyr to aka.
  4. Where did the pronounciation come from? I saw a debate on it but no real answer from Lincoln.
  5. Wikipedia policy is to prefer free images to non-free ones. If you would like a better free image, please go and take a photo. But if there is a free alternative, we always use it.

Thanks as always for the other contributions! --SFoskett 14:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Right back to you - please avoid deleting valid information that you have no personal knowledge of, or changing images based on your personal preference. Such actions are contrary to Wiki guidelines. The pronunciation came from Ford at the Chicago Auto Show. See the report from Reuters: [1]. The high quality clear PR image came from Ford Media, was well documented, with full copyright and source info - and was far superior to the dark amateurish photo it replaced, which you reinstated. --T-dot 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
He's right his picture was better since it actually showed an MKZ (different grille and rear view mirrors). So, what was the issue- Didn't have the correct licensing? Thanks. Gerdbrendel 00:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the images, Please refer to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements where it states that Wikipedia policy is to allow fair use images "until such time as free images become available". This has been discussed ad nauseum in other areas of the 'pedia. While it is true that the photo is of a Zephyr and not an MKZ, and while it is true that it is not the best photo ever, the policy is clear. As far as changing the image BACK after I changed it out with an explanation, please see Revert#Revert_wars_considered_harmful_.28the_three_revert_rule.29 and reconsider changing thigs without discussion.
I am curious about what I deleted that I had "no personal knowledge of". I am not aware that I deleted any content - indeed I welcome your additions. I did question the pronounciation because I had not yet seen that Reuters article, but did not delete it. --SFoskett 14:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aka Zephyr / Infobox

I meant it is not appropriate to say MKZ, aka Zephyr. The MKZ will not also be known as the Zephyr. The car has one name, as of 2007 it will be just the MKZ and for the 2006 model its just Zephyr. One could list both names in the name box, but that would be inappropriate. I think the way it is right know is just best; only mention MKZ as the name on this site (no aka) and keep the 2006 section in tact on the Zephyr page. My other concern is the transmission being listed twice, once in the infobox. Also if dimensions are listed in the infobox on the MKZ don't we have to do the same on all other pages, in order to create unity among car pages? Anyways, the way it is right now is okay, the infobox aligns nicely with section lines. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 00:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions) calls for giving articles precise, common names and redirecting other names to it. Since there has already been another unrelated car called the Lincoln Zephyr, and since the new Zephyr and MKZ are nearly identical, my reading of this guideline is that we should use the name which is most precise, and that would be "Lincoln MKZ". It would certainly be inappropriate to split this car's article in two just because Ford changed the name after the first year. Normally I would have no problem with using the original name and redirecting others into it (there are many examples of this - see Pontiac SV6), since the original name was "already taken" as it were, we can simply use the new name for clarity. The guideline is clear about not naming things for what they are not. Therefore, "Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ" would be clearly incorrect since this is not the name of anything. "Lincoln Zephyr (2006)" would be acceptable, but I propose that "Lincoln MKZ" is just plain clearer. Finally, the convention so far has been to use the article name in the infobox and put other redirects in the "aka" field.
As for the infobox itself, please note that the intent is to be consistent as you suggest - to have nearly all fields filled in for nearly all vehicles. The dimensions are getting filled in as information is available (see Buick Reatta for a recent example) and they have been part of the infobox since its inception years ago. It was not filled in in some articles just because no one had the information. If you would like to discuss the content of the infobox, please see Template_talk:Infobox Automobile. --SFoskett 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name

Hello, folks. I'd just like to ask why this article was moved from Lincoln Zephyr in the first place. Regardless of what it's going to become in the future, the fact is, right now the Lincoln MKZ doesn't exist, but the Lincoln Zephyr does. I think it was a premature and imprudent choice to move the article, and so I propose that it is returned to Lincoln Zephyr. Thanks in advance for your input. Airline 00:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC) p.s., Why is the Zephyr spoken of in the past tense in the article? It's still in production! There's no reason for all of these premature name changes. Until the 2007 model year, it is the Lincoln Zephyr, not the Lincoln MKZ. Airline

That's why there is a mention for the 2006 Zephyr on the Lincoln Zephyr article, just like there was before. This article solely describes the MKZ which will come to the market as 2007. That's also why got rid of the "aka" in the table, becuase you're right its the Zephyr for 2006, and the MKZ for 2007. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 02:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power Ratings for Duratec 35

If you would check the power ratings for the duratec 35 V6 engine you will see that it has actually been rated at around 270/275 hp and 250 or so lb ft of torque. I don't know the exact numbers but if you google it you'll be sure to find it, i remember reading this on www.jalopnik.com, as well as autoblog, and edmunds inside line or karl on cars blog (This unsigned comment was left by 68.73.7.219)

Sorry - but the current "official" numbers released by Ford are 263 hp @ 6250 rpm and 249 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm, with a 6,700 rpm redline [2]. Anything beyond that is unfounded, unverifiable, unofficial speculation - regardless of the source - and not worthy of the Wikipedia, which is supposed to be based on verifiable fact. This is an Encyclopedia - not a speculation ragsheet or personal blog page. Let's keep to the official numbers, and update them if and when Ford does. Thank you. --T-dot 01:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Transmission

The Lincoln MKZ will use the same AISIN transmission in the Zephyr not the 6F transmission. If you go to the Ford Media webpage the gear rations for the 2007 MKZ and 2006 Zephyr are the same. The MKX will be using the 6F transmission and it has a different set of gear ratios. Also I work for Ford and the sourcing guide shows that the 6F is only being used in the Edge/MKX for 2007.

You're right. You should have changed it and given your reason. I changed it. - Wizmo 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I think that we should merge this article with Lincoln MKZ, leaving this page as a re-direct so that anyone searching for the Zephyr will be redirected to the MKZ. The article needs to be expanded, but how can you expand the article when the car was just made for one year, and then technically just renamed. I say merge the two, making sure it still says Lincoln's car for this platform was called the Zephyr originally and after the first model year changed to the MKZ. If it is written properly it will look just fine. 67.59.10.54 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There was also a Lincoln Zephyr back in the 1930s so you can't turn that article into a redirect. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if perhaps we should think about setting up the current Lincoln Zephyr article to be "only" about the classic Zephyr from the 30's, with a disambiguation note at the top saying "see Lincoln MKZ for info on the 2006 Zephyr". Or perhaps have a very short summary paragraph about the 2006 Zephyr at the bottom of the current Zephyr article, along with a small picture and note to "see Lincoln MKZ for full details...". I think it makes sense in the long run for "most" of the '06 Zephyr info to appear with the '07 MKZ info, for comparisons. Maybe think about renaming Lincoln Zephyr article as "Lincoln Zephyr (classic car)" - something of that sort, and set up a disambiguation page with separate links to the classic version and the '06 version - for those folks that type in "Lincoln Zephyr" or "Zephyr" in the search box. And maybe rename the Lincoln MKZ article as "Lincoln MKZ / Zephyr". If only Lincoln had left the name as Zephyr more than just one model year - but as it stands the '06 Zephyr has much more in common with the '07 MKZ than with the classic Zephyr, and I think we ought to set up the wiki-articles that way. Just my viewpoint - not going to do anything without a formidable consensus. --T-dot 18:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I your second ides is best; leaving the Zephyr article largely to the 1930s classic while having a short summary paragraph at the bottom w/ a link to the MXZ article. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I like the idea of making the Lincoln Zephyr about the classic Zephyr. At the top can't we just put something like on the Ford Taurus page, like "for the 2006-present Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ click here" to direct? 67.59.10.54 01:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That definitely is a possbility. I do prefer having a short summary paragraph sentence at the bottom, though I am open to the idea of a link on top. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think either idea would work, but definitely don't see a need for each the 06 Zephyr and the 07 MKZ do have their own pages. IFCAR 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well the Lincoln Zephyr article actually deals with the 1930s Lincoln Zpehyr not exclusively with the '06 Zephyr. The prposal I agreed to above says that we just have a small summary at the bottom of the classic 1930s Lincoln Zephyr article that mention the '06 Zephyr and MKZ. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lincoln Zephyr is its own model series. The Lincoln MKZ, though basically the same car, is indeed the replacement for the Zephyr. The article for the Zephyr should be entirely accurate, describing both the antique generations and the new generation, simply because the new generation didn't last particularly long doesn't mean it isn't a Zephyr. For whatever strange marketing reason, they have decided to no longer make this car a part of the Zephyr model series, they might eventually bring the name back for an entirely different car, but as it stands, the MKZ is a distinct model from the Zephyr and should be treated as such, even though it is rather similar. It mentions in the MKZ article that it was the replacement for the Zephyr, and that is the accurate statement. Similarly, it states in the Zephyr article that it was replaced by the MKZ.

I agree completely. Wizmo 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Should definitely be merged with Lincoln Zyphyr. It's the exact same car, folks. The decision to change the name of the model without any significant modifications to the product is due to Lincoln's continued struggle with identity. They are renaming all their products "MK__." The "MK" is shorthand for "Mark" which has relevance to their former Lincoln Mark VIII car line. --Heavy 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think The 2006 Zephyr info should be merged with the MKZ article and a link given at the top of the Zephyr page, it really is the same car, with only the most minor of changes between the 2 cars. SimonX 06:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The modern Zephyr should be merged with the MkZ. Because it is only one model year, people will eventually begin calling it the MkZ and having that go to Zephyr will be confusing at best.--Analogue Kid 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I don't get why my Image keeps getting reverted. It is crystal clear, well lit, and of better quality of the previous photo. It is also at a better angle. Karrmann 19:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

New image

Original image
The second (original) image isn't hazy, has a very similar angle, and doesn't have a distracting bow. The only advantage the new image has is that it isn't overcropped, but it's a better image overall. IFCAR 19:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget my original image. I eventually took that black Lincoln MKZ currently seen on the Lincoln MKZ page.

Fuzzy original image
The image I took was from my old digital camera. The current Lincoln MKZ I took came from a camera phone. -- Bull-Doser 21:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


I feel that having the photoshopped version of the mkz of the colourful background is very ugly. i prefer natural looking ones with natural backgrounds. I prefer "new image" above. I would appreciate it being reverted. If permitted, may I change it? Pautlorius 02:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I can add a white background but the photoshopped version is still far better than the "natural" versions- it looks classier, more professional and is better than any alternative yet. Using a natural picture would reduce the article's quality and to some extend infringe on its credibility. Signaturebrendel 06:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I still feel natural looking pictures are better because they are consistant with every other car-based article. To me, consistancy is professionalism. Natural ones are better because they show you where the car is as well; outside, car-show, promotional...its better! Pautlorius 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, it's not that hard to create a picture that looks like a factory promotional photo. Factory photos are either set with a "natural" backdrop or with an edited white background. I believe both options are classy and professional.
Brendel, it would be appreciated if you change the photoshopped color backgrounds to plain white. --Sable232 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, White is prefered and eventually I'm going to replaced those busy colored backgrounds. And yes, professional natural background photos are fine. But when we need to chose between having an artifical background and a on-the-street quasi-dirty car shot, the artifical background is preferable. Signaturebrendel 07:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow/altered background images on several lincoln pages

Lincoln LS Facelifted Lincoln LS
Lincoln MKZ
2007 Lincoln MKZ
Lincoln Town Car

My contention is that these images are not in the normal formatting convention of wikpedia. I tried to look elsewhere, but I can't find any instances where someone has butchered a picture like this for the sake of formatting. The person doing the inserts claims it is better than a candid street shot. Too much POV and artistic endeavour?

What say you?

CJ DUB 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

POV? Too much creativity? Well, perhaps by extremely bourgeois standards ;-). But this is WP we don't hold on to some kind of doctrine like insecure turtles, we are pragmatic and open to innovation. The images are prefereable over the usual on-the-street crap. Just because other articles don't have images as fancy doesn't mean these articles can't have them. That said, I plan on using a white background in the future. Signaturebrendel 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, fellow wikipedian, I would prefer that the images be left unmanipulated or manipulated by someone who does graphics editing for a living. A rainbow background is neither "fancy" nor encyclopedic. It is distracting to the point of being irritating. Perhaps a white background will improve matters... Had your creativity been an obvious improvement by consenus of more than youself (and I see, another user on your talk page), all's well and good, but these images are really pushing it. A street shot is perfectly acceptable, as long as there is no dreadful techincal flaw, though granted, there aren't many decent "natural" shots of Lincoln cars around. I've submitted a question on the talk page of WP:IUP. vLaDsINgEr 14:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I already said, that I will chage the backgrounds to white. A White background is preferable to a on-the-parking-lot shot w/ shopping carts in the background. Signaturebrendel 19:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The "nays" have it. I'm changing the doctored images to the more typical street shots. Do not re-insert them. CJ DUB 13:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work by popular vote. The above comments are mainly opposed to the rainbow images which you can revert. White background images will, however, stay and gradually replace more and more of the rather un-professional parking lot shots. Another alternative is too blur the background so other cars and disturbing little objects such as shopping carts are no longer visible. Signaturebrendel 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it since the discussion seems to be here. The goal is to have free images that are equivalent to a factory promotional photograph. This means they will either have a neutral, natural background, like this or a doctored white background like this. I prefer the first style, but since that necessitates an owner willing to have his vehicle photographed those are rare. --Sable232 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. Personally I prefer the high quality natural backgrounds (such as this) as well and see doctored white backgrounds as the best alternative when high quality natural shots arn't available. I will not re-insert the rainbow pics (as they weren't well received) but instead I will replace some of parking lot shots w/ simple white backgrounds. Again, it seem that we see eye to eye on this :-) Signaturebrendel 18:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merged

Just merged the Zephyr article with the MKZ, I have saved the Zephyr article on my user page in case anyone has any complaints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxplayer630 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this merger is nonexistent. There is not a single reference or note that the Zephyr was previously produced. From what it looks like, this car first came out in 2006/2007, which wouldn't make sense since Gregorie designed the Zephyr, and he died in 2002. Someone needs to fix this article, or undo the merger. 130.127.78.139 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing on the history of the zephyr

Why is there no separate article for the Zephyr when it has an extremely long history of being one of the predominate luxury cars in the 1930s? Second, this article follows no standards in having a "slashie" title. See for example, how the Porsche 911 article is laid out. Rizla 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)