Talk:Mercury Sable

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMercury Sable was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Archives of past discussion[edit]

Archive 1

Top infobox image[edit]

I believe we may have a case of WP:ILIKEIT here with the top infobox image, as I've seen a bit of back-and-forth with the top infobox image, going back and forth between images of 5th-gen cars of comparable quality to the existing photo and the existing photo, and the reversion is being done by the uploader of the photo. I'm inclined to go with the auto-show one myself, because it has better contrast than the existing 4th-gen photo. Discuss? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think this image is better suited for the top infobox. Karrmann (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the auto show image is of positively dreadful quality, by far the worst in the article, and don't see how you are thinking otherwise. It is covered in distracting reflections, taken from well below eye level (contrary to WPA image standards). It's not a question of who took the photo, and I only reverted without comment because it looked like another knee-jerk "newest car should be at the top" edit. This image is unsuitable to even be present in the article, much less at head. IFCAR (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved some things around. I hope it suits you better. IFCAR (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The top image is not very good not because it is older model - because the car has visible rust and a hole in the front bumper. A sad representation of the car - wish someone could upload an image without rust and holes to illustrate the car as the lead off image. The Taurus has a nice image in the lead off, the Sable looks horrendous. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the WP:Autos conventions, age of the car pictured is not a factor in choosing an image, so that's not a problem. But if you'd like to look through the Commons for alternate suggestions you could post here for discussion, that would be fine. Another option would be if someone edited the cracks and rust out of the existing picture, which has a good angle and very nice background. IFCAR (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess it's ok, the car kind of was junk back then, so a rusty car with holes in it is a good representation of it - I won't try to make it look better, that picture shows what the car is truly like. Figured rust was a bad representation of the car, but hey, you guys must want it rusty for a reason. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or yeah, you can just be an asshole about it. That works too. --Sable232 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the personal attacks. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though the maturity level on this discussion is not very good - I would still like to bring a vote to this. Do we think we should find a better replacement since the car is rusty with a hole in the bumper for the top lead off image, or keep the rusted car with a hole in it? 74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion above about chaning the lead off image - why don't we use the one that came out of that discussion rather then the new one that is there now. Didn't see a discussion to change it to its current image. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sable232 was likely offended by your comments because the photo you were criticizing is of his personal car. While I'm sure it was unintentional on your part, "the car kind of was junk back then" was also something of a personal attack.
If you have any suggestions for a replacement lead image, based on that image's merits, please make them here. But I personally would not support that auto show image to be included anywhere in the article. IFCAR (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=[edit]

4th generation table is incorrect. The Vulcan engine is available on the 2001 LS. I have one. I don't have time to learn how to edit tables right now. Nehmo (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tea![edit]

74.204.40.46, I see that you were trying for some tongue-in-cheek humour with your crack about the Sable's poor quality, and while I tend to agree with you, it's well to be careful when making jokes like that, for tone of voice is lost in print. A smiley :-) would've probably defused the situation. And Sable232, I'm surprised to see you call someone an asshole on a talk page. You're usually way more thoughtful than that; even if you'd thought about it and decided the guy was really trying to attack you, what possible good could've come from the way you handled it? None. Please edit your text here on the talk page.

Folks, let's all please step back, take a couple of deep breaths, and have a nice glass of iced tea. We're not deciding the fate of the universe here, we're trying to pick the best image for an article about a car. Yes, we want to find the best one, but let's keep in mind the relative importance of the task. The sun'll come up in the East tomorrow regardless of which images are in the article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My intent wasn't to call him an asshole, my intent was to call out a snide, sarcastic, and unhelpful remark. Simply agreeing that the image needs a little touching up would've worked. But either way, it doesn't matter now. --Sable232 (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but the use of words like "asshole" can't possibly defuse a debate, it can only escalate it. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger nom[edit]

Merge - Montego was very short lived, and not much info. that holds up in its own sense, it was firstly a rebadge 500, and then it was rennamed to Sable, which was just a redesign of the Montego. Maybe 500 can hold its own, but I suggest Montego get merged. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Adding it in here would make this page more confusing than it needs to be. The Montego article already exists for it's original incarnation, it makes more sense to just leave the newer version there as well. --Sable232 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - but not that way. Montego should be merged into Ford 500 (leaving a disambiguation link or short article), ans Sable into Taurus. But certainly not Montego into Sable. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taurus merge[edit]

I am considering making this article into a pusedo disambiguation page that will link the reader to each of the Ford Taurus generation articles. Before I do that, I would like to see if I can get a consensus on the move. Karrmann (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. I do not support the breakup of the Taurus article in the first place, and I certainly don't support shredding this one and sprinkling it on top of those. --Sable232 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As is, I think merging the Sable generations into the Taurus article sections makes the most sense. I'm still undecided on having the Taurus split up, but unless we expect to change it back, we can add the Sable into each generation without too much clutter. There's already a short section on the Sable in each of the Taurus generation articles, as I recall. IFCAR (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the reason there's a section on the Sable in each of those articles is because that's how Karrmann wants it (hence this discussion). There's not much difference in having a section on the Sable in the Taurus page(s) as opposed to letting it remain its own article. We all know WP is not paper. --Sable232 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some "no-nonsense" user actually "merged" Contour and Mystique - by slapping Mystique's entire article at the end of Contour's. I tried to sort it out a bit and ended up with an OK article, saving a few thousand characters. I am all for merging the Sable into the Taurus, as concerns breakup, the Taurus article contains loads of POV, OR, repetition, unencyclopedic and irrelevant stuff now, and once you prune it down, there isn't really that much to split. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinuation[edit]

I recommend taking out the piece of the article quoting Left Lane News since A - There's absolutely no confirmation from Ford that there is any plan to discontinue and B - http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business-8/1225355602113460.xml&coll=2 => "Earlier this year, Ford manufacturing chief Joe Hinrichs said the plant probably won't restart until the middle of next year when demand for the V-6 improves with the launch of the redesigned Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable vehicles". If the article is going to quote news, you may as well just start adding news links of unconfirmed information bloating and discrediting the article all together.

Article main Image[edit]

I vote for changing the articles main image. The image is terrible... I mean c'mon a wagon ? It's absolutely awful. There are many better images of the Sable to choose from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalCapital (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to a 2008 sable. Gives a much better impression of the car. Wikimann1234 10/14/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimann1234 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fatal flaw[edit]

google recalls;1995 sable,taurus,areostar,lincoln;2bolts holding 2bars 1x4Under engine and further back break,makes stearing impossible. also issue with brake spring.see recalls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.54.178 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mercury Sable. 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:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mercury Sable. 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:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mercury Sable. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ford Taurus[edit]

I decided to more-or-less merge this article with the Ford Taurus article, as the Sable was a sister model of the Taurus with mainly cosmetic differences. Each Taurus generation article already had a section devoted to that generation of Sable, and all the content of this article was either copy-and-pasted or adapted from the Taurus articles. I determined this article is redundant and would better off serving as a disambiguation page to each the "Mercury Sable" section in each Taurus generation article Reattacollector (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is more or less a fork of the Ford Taurus article, and a poorly written one at that, not to mention that every individual article about the different Ford Taurus generations had a section about the Mercury Sable basically describing the Sable and any unique features and options to begin with. I believe this article is completely redundant, as the coverage of these cars are better covered by the Ford Taurus articles. Reattacollector (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mercury Sable. 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) 02:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ford Taurus[edit]

I propose that this article be merged with Ford Taurus. While the Taurus and Sable have significant cosmetic differences, they are the same vehicle underneath. However, my main concern and reason for this proposal goes to the quality of the article itself. This article is poorly written and just about all of it's content is forked from the individual Ford Taurus generation articles. However, while the Taurus article has been continuously updated and improved, this article has been left dormant. Each individual generation Ford Taurus generation article has a section about the Sable that describes its differences and contains any unique Sable information, thus I think this article would be best shortened with links to the "Mercury Sable" section of each Ford Taurus generation article. However, if we decide to keep this article, it will need attention. It may need to be rewritten entirely and likely condensed, with the un necessary redundant information removed and each generation section linking to the individual Ford Taurus generation articles. Reattacollector (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sable had a long, distinguished enough run to warrant its own article. The article may simply need to be rewritten. While they are quite similar, Sable had more than a 20 year run, had unique trims and should retain an individual article. 17:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6210:4C00:94C:FB8:9F4A:780F (talk)
Oppose merge As I said on the talk page for the Ford Taurus article, both of these articles are B-class articles. Although that means there is room to improve to featured-article status, yes, neither one of these articles are hardly desperate for attention. When it comes to this article, I think its current format is appropriate. In addition, from 2005 onward, these two vehicles have diverging model histories (one was discontinued entirely while the other became produced for fleets, differing roles as revived full-size cars, and no sixth/seventh-generation Sable is produced). --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mercury_Sable&oldid=1203975889"