Talk:Ferrari Mondial

Misc
All the infoboxes for different topics are color coded. The auto ones need to have the automobile standard color specified at WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts. If you're going to change them, change them to that. Thanks.Hektor 19:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

is this the car driven by al pacino in "scent of a woman"??

Yes it is. Buzzm 02:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The latest edit of the Mondial is a little subjective re. the merit of the Mondial vs. the F40 and Testarossa. Buzzm 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

introductory paragraph
There is discussion of car colours, numbers produced etc. with no backup. Needs references.Rwintle (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

3 of the 4 photos are Mondial t. 2 of them have non-stock wheels. Buzzm (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Two years later, I am considering excising the fluff from this article. Colors of cars? Is anyone with me on the fluffiness here? Buzzm (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari Mondial

 * "Bias is often seen with what one chooses to omit, impartiality and truth demand full disclosure of all facts and let the reader decide"

Saw your update, added often missed facts about that episode to provide full context.

1) They tested a Mondial 8 (to specify which of the 7 distinct iterations of the Mondial) they tested
 * Fair point.

2) It was unrestored, dilapidated and with mechanical defect. (broken fuel lines)
 * Not relevant - May was being critical of the vehicle when released - interior space for rear passengers and position of the steering wheel does not change with a vehicles age, for instance.

Agreed space and position of steering wheel does not change with age, but a car with broken fuel lines will definitely affect performance...why omit that?
 * Because May was talking about the car when released, and as a model lineup - not just one particular vehicle they found in a breakers yard. To specifically point out that the model in question had leaking fuel lines implies that all criticism is levelled at that one particular car, and that's not the case - his quote was along the lines of "This is Lennon & McCartney's Egg Man - rubbish.  Six thousand people bought one of these, assuming, reasonably enough, that it would be terrific."

3) The very next Ferrari they nominated, and concluded to be 'even' worse was a mint F50.
 * Again, not relevant, as we are only saying that the Mondial was nominated - whether it was better or worse than a Mahindra, FSO, or F50 is not in scope, only that it was a contender.

How is that fact irrelevant? If you watch the next 5 minutes they conclude the F50 is worse, this reveals the very crux of the segment - it is a histrionic exercise of persiflage. Context is king - do you have an agenda sir? Why would you omit facts? I've seen disagreements on what constitutes as fact vs opinion, but this is *your* video - you cannot dispute they declared the very capable and much-respected F50 as 'even' worse, a very important facet in understanding the piece.
 * I would suggest it's far more likely that you have an agenda, given that since July the only edits you've made have been to the Mondial page - not counting my talk page, and Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout, where you modified the Mondial entry there. Why are you insisting on negating any criticism of the vehicle?  However, as a show of good faith and with a bit of rewording, I've left that bit in.

Added additional details you left out.

Hyperbolic perhaps? Inflation? Melodramatic? From "Top Gear?" nah..

In all seriousness, Top Gear was also already mentioned in the top as well.
 * I've removed that sentence - that section is about the history of the vehicle, and the Top Gear DVD is from 2012, and somewhat anachronistic in place there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Source? You posted the video...just watch another 5 minutes...hence the same source
 * You misunderstand the requirements for a source - a source is needed to confirm that "Some of the stigma bestowed upon the Mondial line can be traced to a few negative articles" - your attached source doesn't do that. Saying, as it does, that "the Mondial has always suffered a bad press" is not the same as "Some of the stigma bestowed upon the Mondial line can be traced to a few negative articles".  You need a source that states early criticism of the 8 has negatively affected the opinion of all other models since.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent updates
Changomo: You've been busy! It is protocol not to post pix of cars with aftermarket components, esp. wheels. The black t cab is sporting 355 wheels, not OEM wheels. I will set up the Mondial t section with a stock cabriolet in the infobox section and a coupe in the left/text section. More t cabs were made than coupes so that follows the production numbers. Giving you the heads up. Also:  Jury is out on the purpose of the relative comparison charts. This is clearly a Mondial-beats-all list. And I own one so it's not like I dispute the numbers -- it's the intention of the publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzm (talk • contribs) 02:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone:  Can someone find a good example of the coupe with all factory parts and trim standard? The lead photo on the page has a t coupe sporting 348 wheels.... Buzzm (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo swap
I have replaced the previous infobox photo of a silver Mondial8 with one of a red Mondial 3.2, and shifted the "8" photo down to the Mondial 8 section. I hate to admit to my bias here, and I accept this is a very subjective matter, but I just think the "3.2" shot is better, and red Ferraris do go faster, don't they? If the consensus is otherwise I am happy to be out-voted! :) ❮❮  GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯ 08:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Split "History" and other
I suggest the article could benefit from a bit of restructuring, as the existing sections are long and loose, and peppered heavily with lots of press quotes and comparison tables.

My thoughts are that the following work could be of benefit:
 * Split the existing History section into separate "Model History" and "Design" sections. This would allow the existing (& additional) technical content to go into Design.
 * Collect-up all the press quotes which are scattered all through the article, and place them in a new "Press Reports" section after the model variant sections. They can also be condensed by putting the source on the same line as the quote, such as "World's best car", Car and Driver 2025.
 * Consider having a separate section for all the Comparative Statistics tables, with them grouped by model variant. We could also trim these tables down in width/height by adding an extra header row with units, etc.

Thoughts? ❮❮ GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯ 03:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Vehicle comparisons
I've taken this massive section out. It's huge, fancrufty and despite claims from the OP there are no comparative sections in other car articles. Also - as soon as you start adding these sections where do you stop? Why only a single Jaguar comparison? Etc. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do wonder how the cars were chosen, the omission of the E24 M6 which was a 2+2 car and made more power and was faster to 60 than all but the Mondial t is particularly glaring, even a list of true facts can have bias. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think, on balance, it is better out than in. Originally this data was spread throughout the article which negatively impacted on its readability as a whole. In late 2016 it was consolidated into this one section, which I think was an improvement at the time. As mentioned however, it never ends. More models keep getting added, making it ever more unwieldy and frequently biased, both towards and away from the Mondial, depending on each editor's POV. I also think the Legacy section is worth some attention (see new topic) ... ❮❮  GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯ 01:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As a general comment to the editors who advocate the insertion - either start talking about it, or if you are talking about it - stop using my talk page to do so. The correct venue is here, so all involved can see what's going on.  Might I also suggest DRN, as there's not going to be much progress here I think.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In the name of science ;-P I went and checked the articles for every one of the 33 "comparative" vehicles included in the Mondial comparison tables, and found only one, the Mercedes 560SL, which contains its own comparison table. It seems pretty conclusive IMO that the Wikipedia editing fraternity doesn't see them as necessary, or even desirable, for automotive articles. ❮❮  GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯ 09:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I too believe that the comparison chart feels heavy and it is not clear what criteria should be / could be used to curate it. For example, the 89 t and the 90 348ts use the same engine and although I appreciate the citations and refs, different testers will supply different information, some of it not even as well-researched as material here on WP.   Buzzm (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see the comparison tables were added back in recently by an editor who has not joined in the discussion here. Until the insertion can be justified, and that is done by discussion - not by just constantly re-adding - it stays out.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacy section clean-up?
I find the Legacy section a poorly-constructed hotch-potch of content. Does anyone have ideas on how it can be improved?

Is it intended to contain:
 * Press quotes? (we already have a Press Reports section for this)
 * Personal reminiscences by notable(?) people, with possibly commercial interests (eg Italia Autosport)?
 * A grab-bag of views, stats and statements that really don't belong in an authoritative encyclopedia?
 * All of the above (as-at present)?

At best I feel any section titled "Legacy" should summarise any enduring and well-accepted, pioneering or otherwise notable qualities that a vehicle established and passed on. Maybe the Mondial has some, maybe not. Any thoughts on what to do with this section would be most welcome. ❮❮ GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯
 * There not being any objections either way, I'll give it a go & allow others to comment on the re-worked content. Stand clear while I fire up my fancruft shredder! :) ❮❮  GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯ 02:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi,, I've done a reorganisation of the article. Not really. I've actually deleted a solid half of it. Most of the content was added by a sockmaster and was wholly undue, just bloated like a dead whale. Your thoughts as you mentioned about the Legacy section are correct. X-750 List of articles I have screwed over 01:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I just removed most of the information from the legacy section and replaced it with a quick two sentence summary stating how "The Mondial has historically been a target of derision from Ferrari enthusiasts, with many calling it the one of the worst Ferraris ever made due its styling, performance and weight. Some enthusiasts, however, consider the car a future classic due to its low price relative to other classic Ferraris". I think this sums it up pretty succinctly but if anyone thinks the section warrants more information, let me know. I could see some more relevant citations from period reviews being a nice addition. TKOIII (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Main Infobox restored
Between 4-12 April 2018 the article's main Infobox was deleted. While the Mondial has 4 sub-models (8, QV, 3.2 and T), each with their own Infoboxes, I believe it is important to have a "summary" one at the start of the article, as otherwise a reader has to scroll several pages just to get a good look at what a Mondial is!

Having a main Infobox looks to be the adopted approach for wiki auto articles covering a range of sub-models (for example Porsche 911), so I have restored the earlier Mondial one. ❮❮ GEEKSTREET  Talk Lane ❯❯ 06:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ferrari Mondial 3.2 Coupe.png (discussion)
 * Ferrari Mondial QV Convertible Black.jpg (discussion)
 * Mondial 8 Rear.jpg (discussion)

Pruning
Thanks for pruning this article. Please note that all the pictures uploaded by are copyvios. The only thing I would like to reintroduce is some of the production numbers. I will create a neat little table for them instead, though, and place it at the bottom of the page for nerds such as myself.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  01:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem, . Feel free to add the production numbers back in, those were probably collateral with those funny first and last chassis numbers or whatever that was I removed. Production numbers are used on other articles too, so full steam ahead. X-750 List of articles I have screwed over 01:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ferrari Mondial 8.jpg

Unpruning
(moved from higher up on the page)

The recent edit (1175012242) with almost 48K chars mod is ... big. I think it is better to have separate, compartmentalized, focus edits so that editors with varying levels of knowledge and skill can crisply absorb the intent of each revision. Buzzm (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a reinstatement of a huge block of unencyclopedic content (quotes from magazine articles, road tests, comparisons to othercars and various other journalistic puffery) that was previously added by an IP editor and reverted multiple times by various other editors. Looks like editor "Catsweat" is continuing the pattern of reinstating this material. No attempt by them to reach consensus with the other editors that have spent a lot of effort trying to remove unencyclopedic content from this article and make it read less like a promotional piece. Additionally the edit summary ("fixed formatting and sentence structure.") is obviously an attempt to misrepresent the content of the edit as something it is not. I'm not one to engage in disputes on wikipedia, but this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of WP:Disruptive Editing? Prova MO   (talk)  17:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with . Me and (and others) have already reverted these crufty additions several times. They will try to add it back, give it up, and then they will return in spring with a new username and do it all over again. Best,   Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They are at it again. Now immediately followed by small innocuous edit, presumably to bump the giant edit off folks' watchlists. Prova MO   (talk)  23:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)