Talk:Ford Puma (coupé)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Puma: the inside story book[edit]

I was an owner of Ford Puma from 2001 until 2004. To celebrate the end of production, Ford Europe has published a book call "Puma: the inside story" (ISBN: 0 86024 904 2) to every registered owner. It contains the story on the initial concept, design and also information about different models. I still have a copy of the book at home and I have put some of the information into the article. If any information in the article needs to be referenced I am happy to add references to the book as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnychan (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the small coupé[edit]

I've removed the following: "The discontinuation of the Puma seemed to herald the end of the small coupé market in Europe" From the 'discontinuation' section as it's not only based on nothing but two similar cars ceasing production in the same year, it's also thoroughly incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.10.153 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


add this web page to external lnks www.fordpuma.net

streetKA = based on (shock) the KA.[edit]

"replaced by the Ford StreetKa, which is based on the Fiesta just as the Puma was." clearly it was based on the Ford Ka, not the fiesta. -changed. and who ever said it was a replacement? a small coupe based on the fiesta, replaced by a convertible based on the smaller Ka? hm. reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.1.139.188 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Both the Ka and Puma are based on the same chassis, which is that of a Fiesta. Bob talk 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

What conceivable reason is there to remove all the links pointing to various clubs around Europe for the Ford Puma? Surely people looking for information about the Puma, /might/ actually want to find additional information about the car gleaned from these other resources?

Jaspinall 09:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this, which I've only just seen, I can't comment for all of the links that were previously in the section, but I do recall that at one point I went through every single link that was listed and checked their validity. Some did not work, and these I removed, I left everything else.

I've also reordered the list into alphabetical order to keep it impartial and informative. Wiki is not the place for personal opinons.

Springfire (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Stewart?[edit]

In yahoo's review (http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/ford-puma-2004294.html) it mentions that the handling was refined by, amongst others, Racing Driver Jackie Stewart. Is that a credible enough source for this to be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.10.153 (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is literature that also backs this up, but I don't have it to hand. I will look and integrate the info with quotes soon.

Springfire (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haynes Manual[edit]

Hi, Help Due to the lack of a workshop manual for my puma, would a Fiesta manual with the Zetec S suppliment [engine wise] Cheers Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.127.125 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for the 1.6 and the 1.4, but as far as the 1.7 engine is concerned, there is no equivalent within the Haynes publications.

Springfire (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Racing Puma[edit]

Why is over half this article dedicated to specification list of a single limited edition model? Can this be deleted or substantially reduced immediately? --Falcadore (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Racing Puma has a very local following, hence the large amount of information posted. Also, unlike the other special editions (which only had the interior, wheels or colour changed), there was a large amount of work involved in their production. Would a separate page dedicated to the Racing Puma be better? --Springfire (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Local following or vocal following? The point is, the article is now extroadinarily unbalanced, and weighted towards a small volume model only available in one of the car's markets? That is an excessive amount of detail for Wikipedia. It is not Wikipedia's role to act as a digital back up for the owners manual. How many other cars in Wikipedia have this level of detail? Whether the car has a following or not, we don't cover huge spec lists for cars. --Falcadore (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was a typo, I meant to put 'loyal'. I do understand what you're saying completely. I would like someone from the owner's club to edit that section of the article, and possibly concentrate on the development of the edition by Tickford, rather than specs, and someone from elsewhere in Europe to include details of the non-UK special editions. --Springfire (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited this section now. Some of the spec details were removed by someone else, and I've tried to remove any unnecessary information, opinions etc, and corrected the numerous spelling and grammatical and some factual errors.--Springfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.18.206 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Performance stats[edit]

The stats in this article clash with the ones on Parkers, which reckons the two smaller-engine variants are a fair bit quicker. Now, I'm not so naïve as to say that site's gonna be right all the time, but I can't see any citations for what we have here, so does anyone know where this article's data actually came from? If not, I'll be changing it soon.

86.167.101.169 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford Puma. 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:

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) 16:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 August 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE, and probably WP:ENGVAR. What is a "sport compact"? Is it a thing for applying makeup after going to the gym? Even if we take it as meaning a "sporty compact car" both of those are subjective and could likely be applied to the current model which goes by the Ford Puma name. Both of these cars are small hatchbacks. If "sport compact" is an Americanism then it shouldn't be used since this car has far stronger links to the UK (on account of actually being sold here) than it does to North America (where it was never sold and is presumably not going to be legal to import until next year). It's also unclear what a "crossover" actually is. A crossover between sportiness and compactness? It appears to be some sort of industry WP:JARGON which is unhelpful to most readers. "Ford Puma (three-door)" and "Ford Puma (five-door)" could also be acceptable names, although they lack the immediate clarity of just stating the time period. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A much more generally recognisable disambiguator. Andrewa (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent move[edit]

@HumanBodyPiloter5: Although pinging isn't required, it would have been helpful to have me pinged since I'm the reason these articles are titled the way they are and I could have explained why. I'm also not sure how one supporter = complete consensus here, there could have been a lot more discussion especially since the previous titles were perfectly fine.
The reason I split the original article into Ford Puma (sport compact) and Ford Puma (crossover) is because they're two completely different body styles, not model years or production cycles. There are many examples of vehicles with similar name formatted this way; Honda Avancier (station wagon) and Honda Avancier (crossover), Chevrolet Trailblazer (SUV) and Chevrolet Trailblazer (crossover), Chevrolet Blazer (S-10) (though "S-10" is just the model its based on) and Chevrolet Blazer (crossover), these are all different vehicle classes and body styles. A good example of using the year title format as you requested moving these articles to is Jaguar S-Type (1963) and Jaguar S-Type (1999), since they're both executive sedans, just different model years. I'm sure if you were unsatisfied with the title, a better choice would have been Ford Puma (coupe) since it is way more recognizable than "sport compact" (even though I moved it since it's the body style listed in the infobox), and more disambiguating than "1997", since that makes it look like the Ford Puma was revived in 2019 as a compact sports coupe again instead of the crossover it actually is in reality.
Also, I'm not sure what the attitude towards the classification is, the original Puma is much more of a sporty compact car than the current one, considering the second one is a crossover SUV as marketed by Ford and as described by the article (and also seen when looking at the cladding and high ground clearance of the vehicle), not a small hatchback as you described. It's also very clear what "crossover" means in the car industry, it refers to a car-based SUV and it's a term used globally. All of this should be taken into consideration. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I'm also not sure how one support could be counted as a consensus. Andra Febrian (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is explained at wp:closing and wp:consensus. Actually I considered closing it as move myself as I thought a policy-based case had been made, and would have been justified in doing so. But I decided that it was more helpful to !vote myself. Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a general encyclopaedia written for a general audience, not a specialist publication aimed at people with an existing interest in the motor industry or car culture. The vast majority of people do not understand what these car body style descriptors mean beyond exceptionally self-evident ones like "hatchback" or "convertible". It's fine to say that a car is a coupé or whatever in the article itself, but the article title should seek to be as clear as possible to as many people as possible. The vast majority of people will find the difference between "Ford Puma (1997)" and "Ford Puma (2019)" or "Ford Falcon (North America)" and "Ford Falcon (Australia)" immediately apparent, but I promise you that that most people could not tell a coupé from a crossover from an MPV from a saloon based merely on the terminology alone, because those terms are to some degree WP:JARGON. The year that a car begins production or the country of origin are far more appropriate as disambiguators in article titles because they are WP:PLAINENGLISH. Using needlessly technical vocabulary in article titles, when a clear alternative that most people will intuitively understand exists, comes across to me as gatekeeping, even if that isn't the intent of those doing it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5: I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not an automotive publication. "Coupe" and "crossover" are encyclopedically definitive terms that people who even have the slightest trace of knowledge of cars most likely understand, and I'm sure that people are more familiar with the terms more than the car, and that people who don't understand the basics wouldn't be aware of the Ford Puma's existence and probably wouldn't even look for it in the first place. If this case were real however, there's an index created by me that exists to disambiguate the two models as well as any other Ford products with the same moniker. I'm really just not sure why these random specific car pages should be moved against their already-established disambiguating title formats, as I had mentioned above. Using the year and country formats are 100% legitimate, just under the right conditions: [earlier year] and [latter year] for cars with the same body style and country of origin, but have too many differences to be merged into the same article; [country a] and [country b] for cars with the same body style but with different countries of origin; and [body style a] and [body style b] for cars with different body styles but the same country of origin. In this case, both models were developed by Ford of Europe in Germany but are two completely different classifications of cars. Again, I'm not sure why the request was closed with such little discussion, especially since it appears now that it isn't an uncontroversial move. I believe a more civil, thorough discussion should take place instead of a sarcastic request and a vague support.
@Andrewa: Since you were involved in the previous move request discussion, I will notify you about this, since I think your opinion on this would be relevant. You don't have to get involved if you don't want to, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""Coupe" and "crossover" are encyclopedically definitive terms that people who even have the slightest trace of knowledge of cars most likely understand" - Given the number of times I've had ordinary, well-educated people come to me asking for car-buying advice who have explicitly complained that they find the weird terminology the motor industry uses to describe cars confusing and unhelpful, you're going to need to provide a citation on that. I also don't understand how you interpreted my request as sarcastic. I was expressing genuine confusion at what those disambiguators were intended to communicate, especially considering that my understanding is that "compact" used as a noun means something one uses to apply makeup, and not a type of car. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanBodyPiloter5: I'm basing my statements off what I've learned during my life being interested in cars and my 4 years being associated with them on Wikipedia, it's just a suggestion like both of us have been making throughout this discussion. As for your understanding of "compact", compact/C-segment is a valid legal classification of automobiles worldwide, I've never heard the cosmetics item you're referring to referred to as such, either because I don't associate myself with makeup or perhaps it's just a dead or foreign term and I just simply think of it as a powder case. This decision can't be made amongst the two of us, we need a proper consensus rather than a personal opinion to make a decision before going ahead and requesting more articles like you did at Talk:Honda Avancier (crossover). The general Wikipedia car community and its long-time automotive-associated contributors have clearly established these title formats for describing the article's subject, and mass-move requesting all of these articles could be disruptive. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13: Just a heads up, I proposed a move reversal. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 August 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to original titles. Between this discussion and the last one, there is basically no consensus as to whether the year disambiguators or the type of car disambiguators are best, and there doesn't seem to be a demonstrated policy reason to prefer one or the other. Therefore the longterm titles are restored.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Reverting move as it was heavily disputed as per previous section, and was only supported by one user before the discussion was quickly closed. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I was actually considering doing this just now, but you beat me to it. I think that since this move broke the consistency of the title formats that apply to similar situations, I believe it should be moved back to its original namespace. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose moving article titles back to obtuse WP:JARGON titles. If for some reason the year that production began is unacceptable (which I don't believe anyone has made a policy-based argument for) then it should be moved to a WP:PLAINENGLISH disambiguator, such as the number of doors (which I suggested as a possible alternative in the previous move request). Sport compact in particular should not be used, as so far as I can tell it falls afoul of WP:ENGVAR, given the car in question was never sold in a country where that term is used or recognised (which would also mean it fails WP:COMMONNAME). Crossover is also particularly bad in the case of Ford vehicles, as it sounds more like a reference to a river crossing. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABLE. First, I don't think I have ever seen a Puma. But I immediately understand that 1997 and 2019 are model years, while "sport compact" and "crossover" are opaque at best. As a European, I don't know what's a "sport compact", while "crossover" remains hopelessly vague, as Crossover (automobile)#Definition itself admits. No such user (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Disambiguation by car type appears to be more standard as well as more useful for reader navigation than by year. As the car types are commonly used terms in both official and non-official contexts in mainstream and industry media, and are wikilinked in the first sentence, I'm not buying that they are unrecognizable, unusable jargon.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Puma_(coupé)&oldid=1201074596"