Talk:Ford Taurus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Taurus

I'm on my third Ford Taurus. I had an 88, a 93, and I now have a 2002. The 93 and 02 are both six cylinders. The 88 was a four cylinder vehicle. I think putting that type of engine in car as large as a Taurus was a mistake on Ford's part. A Taurus with that type of engine was underpowered because it was too much car for that size engine. On some hills I would have trouble because the car didn't have enough power to get up the hills. When I got the 93, I noticed that the car didn't have as much trouble, but the engine in general didn't run as fast as the four cylinder did. JesseG

production

my parents were wanting a Taurus, so we went to a Ford dealer. the man at the dealer said that the Taurus is no longer available new to the general public, but it is still in full production for the fleet market, and Ford has no plans to completely halt production because of it's fleet market popularity.

Correct. The 2006 Taurus was the last public Taurus available at dealerships. Ford continued to make 2007 Ford Tauri, primarily for rental car companies and fleet companies. As of now, expect to see 2008 Tauri in the showroom closer to the summer and fall of this year, as of current predictions. - KB

Fourth Generation Version 2

Is it really neccesary to have a Fourth Generation Version 2 in table since there have been no significant changes in the vehicle (I added years behind station wagon for the Fourth Generation). The table seems already too long. I deleted it after I added the blue boxes. The Taurus received a minor facelift for 2003, but all the information mentioned in the table. The engines and pecs are the same, on other sites the tables do not mentioned every singly minor facelift either. Thank you. Gerdbrendel 06:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Transmission Woes

There really needs to be some detailing of the fact that the Taurus transmission is basically an unreliable lump, someone who knows a bit more (and can write in the "wiki voice" better than I) needs to Detail the progression from AXOD to AXOD-E/AX4S to the late 3rd gen on AX4N. Also, there needs to be an explanation of the fact that the aluminum forward clutch piston on the 1995 and older models is failure prone, and that the pistons were made of steel after 1995.(?)

facelift

As you know, I'm very commited to making this article a featured article, so I started work on a major do over to get it there. I started with removing the bog info box and citing more sources. I am next going to get this peer reviewed, and hoping at least to get it the "good article" thumbs up. I, and my fellow wikipedians will be working hard to get this article ready for resubmition as a featured article. --Karrmann

big infobox

When I nominated this article for FA status, one thing that detracted from it was the big infobox. I also noticed that the big infobox made it harder to read. I put in the normal infobox to make it easier to read, and to better it's chances of becoming a featured article. --Karrmann

I strongly disagree. The big infobox is very helpful, and is fairly standard across automobile articles. I don't see how it would keep this article from attaining FA status, though the numerous errors (and awful blue boxes) might. Let's put it back in temporarily so I can keep working on the content and discuss here whether it should be in or out. --SFoskett 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Feature article

Ok, I have updated this article with all my might. So now we need to prepare it for feature-hood. Judging from the old comments, here are some things that are needed:

1. Free (non-PR) photos of all generations
2. Perhaps eliminate the big infobox (one comment - see above)
3. Fix the redlinks
4. Peer review

Anything else? --SFoskett 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I will let you work your magic, but I did notice that the the Infobox makes it less comfortible to read. The years, engines, and models are already there in the sections, so I really see no need of an info box except to take up space. --Karrmann

By the way, I think we could slip by with the current pictures --Karrmann

Ok, it is just about ready, I just need to make some minor touches. I think it is ready, I'll go ahead and nominate it again.

Taurus in Sweden

Before Ford made an estate version of Ford Scorpio, the Taurus estate was avaliable in Sweden. That would be around 1989-1991. Ford Taurus was also the first flexifuel (ethanol-gasoline) car avaliable in Sweden. I think it was around 1995-1999, because there are 2nd generation Taurus's in Sweden, but most of them are of 3rd generation.

Apart from these versions (estate and FFV), Taurus has never been sold in Sweden. Unfortunately I have no source (only my memory), and I don't know if the Taurus was sold in other European countries, so I don't want to put the information in the article. --Boivie 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Taurus was available also in Finland, and they were available at least from the first generation up. Sizewise it overlapped the rearwheeldrive Scorpio lineup of the same period's European Ford. It was considered as somewhat extraordinarily good for an American car, in that it's driving and handling characteristics were better than in usual American cars of the period. It's usage of interior space was effective in both the cocpit and the boot (or trunk), and in typical american way it was comfortable to drive... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.93.188 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I really like the article. Just a comment: The image in the intro should be replaced with a better one, because the car blends in the background and doesn't appear clearly. Maybe you should use another 4th generation picture, or from another generation (I like the second and the third). Anyway great work. CG 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think some of the pictures need to be changed. I think for history sake the pictures should be as close as they looked when the came off the line from the factory. Out of respect to the car, I would like it to look its best. Ryan J Pasch 00:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First generation

I removed a paragraph from the "first generation" section which read:

The design was far more aerodynamic than the bluff designs that had come before. Ever since the 1973 oil crisis, American manufacturers had sought technologies

It just kind of trailed off mid-sentence and I didn't quite know where it was going. --W.marsh 01:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed where it stated that the Essex models used the ATX 3-speed, it was actually the 152 HSC cars with the ATX. I also clarified the Essex engine's head gasket problem.-- Sable232 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems

The first and second gen was supposed to having rust problems inside the door, and under the window sealant. Whopper 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lew Veraldi, Father of the Taurus

I think something should be added to this article about Lew Veraldi. Considered by many to be driving force behind the Taurus from development to production. If you need some background information let me know :) Ryan J Pasch 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Successor

The Freestyle is not really a successor because it is a different class of vehicle. Should I remove it from the successor category. The other two make sense. Bok269 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the Freestyle is the successor to the Taurus wagon. Karrmann 18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Informal peer review, 2 August 2006

It needs (i) a thorough copyedit to fix the basic spelling/grammar errors, and (ii) someone to make the article 'flow' properly - right now it reads like a typical WP page, i.e. written by ten different people who didn't consult each other.

• Opening paragraph...

"This model was a bold new step in American automobile design..." This whole paragraph looks tacked on, is full of POV, and needlessly refers to two other automobiles. If it should be in the article at all, it should be in a 'Design' section, not in the opening.

"During that period, the Ford F-150 remained the country's best-selling vehicle, leading sales along with several other vehicles not classified as 'cars'" reads like it has been tacked on by an F-series fan. Just rewrite the last line before this to specify that the Taurus was the best selling passenger car.

• First generation

"The Taurus and Sable siblings used flush aerodynamic composite headlights...etc etc" Again, what's with the Audi 5000 infatuation? That's two Wikilinks to it in the first five paragraphs. And putting a blurb about headlights above all the details on the different engines?

• First generation SHO

"It is said that the reason why the SHO was created was..." isn't cited. Avoid weasel words.

There looks to be the remnants of an edit war with a Toronado fan at the bottom of that paragraph. Either the Toronado was faster, in which case ditch the SHO's claim, or the SHO was faster, in which case ditch the Toronado owners' whines.

• Future

"Retail Taurus sales had slumped significantly..." Incorrect use of the <ref> tag needs repaired.

• Popular Culture and Famous Owners

There's an awful lot of duplication here, mostly of irrelevant info. So Rachel Dawes drives a 1992 Taurus in Batman Begins? Who cares? Unless it has a specific contribution to the movie plot, it's just a car - she had to drive something. These two sections should be combined into one, and pruned mercilessly.

• Categories

Cult car?? (note: I'd just like to say that I think that entire category is a CfD candidate, if you ask me...)

• External links

A Ford Taurus tribute video gets precedence above the official site? And there's a "Ford Taurus quiz" link?? See WP:EL, please.

• WP:MOS#Pictures is pretty clear about not sandwiching a slim column of text between two images. Since there's so many infoboxes, the various left-justified pictures are interfering with the article more than contributing to it. I'd recommend a gallery at the end, or just ditching the extra images entirely.

• Anything else I may have missed

The above list is not exhaustive, so don't just fix the above and think you're done.

The above review was copy/pasted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. -- DeLarge 08:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've given the article a sort of 'first makeover'. I hope it's a bit tidier, now. - Ballista 10:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bravada's changes/proposed course of further action

I have rehashed the intro section to be more in line with WP standards/usual formats - essentially it should serve as a summary of the article for users that want to get a quick overview with the topic of the article, highlighting most important facts. It is kinda "halfway there" now, as I am not at all satisfied with the present state, but I guess the final summary should be written when the rest of the article would be finished.

• Do we have any proof that the Taurus was named after the constellation and not the bull itself? Besides, it would be good to dig out the naming story - I guess it could be itneresting and insightful.
• The Audi 5000/Citroen CX connection does not seem too obvious to me, and read more like an editorial than encyclopedic article. If anything, this should be discussed in the text with very good referencing, but I guess this was just somebody's musings.
• The info on retooling Chicago should actually be integrated into the closing section, but it should be revamped in its own right.

I have also modified the closing section. "Future" is not a good caption for an automobile that has just been discontinued. In general, it can be written a lot better, with accents weighed out more reasonably and with more sound logic (e.g. Taurus probably isn't discontinued b/c of the closing of the Atlanta plant, but the other way around).

I think the article is too big now for catch-all reviews and edits to make much sense. I guess working on subsequent sections could be easier and make more sense. I believe actually the first section is missing, as for an automobile that important and article of that size, much more can be said about the "pre-production" time, i.e. the development of the vehicle, concept etc. For examples, see Mini or Talbot Tagora.

As concerns the current first-generation section, my gripes would be:

1. Style - it might not sound well, but an encyclopedia requires much more sombre style. Starting from the first sentence, there are many more or less POV expressions, weasel words, overt generalizations and unfounded statements.
2. Wikification - in many places, the article reads OK to an auto enthusiast, but not to a generalist WP user. It should be made sure that all peculiarities of the automotive market, design and engineering are either explained in the article or wikilinked, so that a reader not acquainted with the topic could understand everything.
3. Lack of references / unfounded statements - flush headlights and NHTSA, Audi 5000/Stubebaker Avanti, head gasket problems, lightweight two seater (SHO), most powerful FWD car and the "keeping up with" thing - either need to be VERY well referenced or to go. Given the girth of the article, the latter would not be that bad.
4. Poor readability - apart from being filled with technicalities, the text is not very consistent and moves from one issue to another without an easily followable train of thought. I believe separation into further subsections could help - like trim levels, design changes, driveline etc. (also see other articles on cars, especially FA and GA, for examples of good structuring).
5. Images - it shouldn't be that hard to get copyright-free images of first-generation Tauruses (in sedan, wagon, and perhaps SHO forms).
6. Missing info

• If the LTD was the predecessor, why isn't it mentioned in either article? I am totally not familiar with pre-Taurus 1980s Fords, so I guess for users like myself it needs to be explained what was Ford's competitor to the Celebrity at that time - Futura, Fairmont, LTD or what? Seems like the nameplates were moving too (this actually pertains to more than this article only).
• Some sales numbers compared to preceding models and competitors/segment sales volume, preferably in a chart from, would come in handy to illustrate how big the change was actually.
• If prices are given, they are only of any use when compared to prices of other contemporary automobiles.

Oh well, seems like it is not going to be as easy as it seemed... Bravada, talk - 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Taunus/Taurus

Yes, let's please keep the Taunus disambig comment - it is helpful, esp. in Europe, where the Taunus was once a common vehicle and the Taunus mountains are well known. - Ballista 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not and say we did. I don't think there's enough likelihood of confusion to merit the disambigation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a wider issue emerging, now. The WP is a truly international project, which means that 'centricism' has no place. From a 'US-centric' point of view, of course TAURUS is better known. However, from a European perspective, the reality is quite the reverse and TAUNUS is better known, both from a geographical connotation and, esp. in older folk and those with a 'bent' for classic cars. To put it into perspective for those not aware, TAUNUS used to be synonymous with FORD, in Germany and continental Europe, that's the scale of its 'fame' - it was a household name. I say it should be on BOTH articles, as a helpful note to any editor or reader who might, quite understandably, feel that a typo error has occurred when reading. When such a discussion is going on, it's better (and good etiquette) not to revert edits, as there's a danger of an 'edit war'. - Ballista 04:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the Discontinuation section

I think there's an error in the article about the discontinuation of the Taurus/Sable. Using ConsumerGuide and Automobile as a couple references, my research says that the following is the course of events. 2004: Last year for Sable wagon. 2005: Last year for Sable sedan & Taurus wagon. 2006: Last year for Ford Taurus sedan, no wagon or quadcam engine. This applies only to retail sales. CG and the other publications do not cover fleet-sales (which is why they show the last year of the prev-gen Chevy Malibu to be '03, ignoring the 2004 Chevy Classic model). So, I'd say needs to be reworded to say discontinued after 2006MY, retail sales continue until end of 2007MY. Any contrarian evidence? If not, I'll make the change. Sacxpert 21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Related to Windstar?

Apparently someone has interpreted "based on the popular Taurus Sedan" as "The Taurus and Windstar are related!" The Windstar used the same powertrain as the Taurus. It might have used a similar front suspension setup, But, if I recall, the rear was different. I take "related" to mean the vehicles are built off the same platform. Other thoughts? --Sable232 02:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I shall rremove it. I already reverted it once. Karrmann 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You will want to remove Lincoln Continental also then, it's not built on the same platform either 2nd citation added stating its off the Taurus platform. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.59.10.54 (talk • contribs) .

The Continental is based off the Taurus, just look up "Ford Taurus+Lincoln Continental" and you'll see several links about it. --ApolloBoy 04:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, the same is for the Windstar. I added 3 citations, 2 of them says its off the Taurus platform, the first just says "based" but the others say it is built off the Taurus platform. I can look up more citations for you then. Click the citations, all 3 of them, and read the content, it explains it right in them. Ejfetters 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I ask to please not just revert edits, but discuss the edits more in depth first. I have tried to do this. I have added citations that contradict what you are saying, but you simply just revert it back without explaining why when my citations explain my edits. Like I said, the 2nd citation says its built off the platform, not just uses the engine and suspension. If you can find a citation that contradicts this from a more reliable source that explains what platform it uses then, and if its reliable, then of course, I will agree with you. I would really like to know what the Windstar platform is too if it isn't, because I am myself trying to expand and totally improve the ford platform page linked to at the bottom, and would whole-heartedly welcome ANY help you can give me, because its obvious you have a vast knowledge that you can help me with. Again, if its not the Taurus platform, and my sources are wrong, please tell me what platform its built on. Thank you. Ejfetters 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

All I ask is that we don't get into an edit war about this. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

According to a 1994 Motor Trend (or was it Road & Track?) that I own, the Windstar has the same chassis base as the Taurus, or something like that.

Strongly recommend asking the experts at BlueOvalForums.com (link: [1] about this. --Guroadrunner 04:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Latin American versions

I believe they were slightly different to US/Canadian cars; should I include this??? --TheM62Manchester 13:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Put in the export models section Karrmann 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Export versions

Since Israel isn't a country where they drive on the left side of the road, at least as far as I remember, why would right hand versions have been exported there? --84.142.156.240 15:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Current event" tag

Considering that an IP user placed the tag, I removed it as not applying, and Karrmann restored it, I'm posing it to the group: Is this a "current event" in the way the tag describes it? I consider the tag's use for signifying an ongoing event (like a weather event or a convention), or a developing story (like the recent Foley scandal). My understanding with the Taurus's discontinuation is that it happened, it's done and no longer ongoing, and now it's no longer a "current event" for purposes of that tag. That's my rationale for removing it earlier. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's over. --Sable232 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again on Feb. 20. Someone had reposted it. I agree also that this doesn't qualify as a current event. A current event would be something that is in progress as the article is being developed. This article just has a section that is based on a future event, not current(soccernamlak) 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Calm Down!

Could you all just sit down and cool it for a while? Ford isn't going to make an official announcement until tomorrow. We don't need to be making two hundred edits to this thing today. Wait a day, and make all the edits at once, maybe? --Sable232 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ford has not confirmed it in an announcement, though we pretty much know that it is going to happen. Plus, not all of them have been about the revival. Most of them were me just generally improving the article, by adding footnotes and expanding the sections about the past generations.Karrmann 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Taurus X

Do we want this in the Taurus article or the Freestyle article? I'd lean towards keeping it with the Freestyle despite the name similarity. Other opinions? IFCAR 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a different car. I think it ought to be kept with the Freestyle article for now. --Sable232 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ford will probably use the Freestyle name for its Fairlane-based CUV. -- Bull-Doser 01:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I say here, as it is basically going to be marketed as a new Taurus wagon. It is basically like how we have information about the SHO in this article. Karrmann 01:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The SHO doesn't share everything but its name and a few styling details with another model though, as the Taurus X does. We don't know how it will be marketed yet, it could be as dissimilar as Cherokee and Grand Cherokee. IFCAR 01:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Taurus X will be Ford'e entry level crossover, slotted below the Edge, or for possible Edge buyers who want a extra row. Karrmann 01:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is different from being a Taurus wagon. IFCAR 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But still, it is part of the Taurus line. Like the SHO has some different sheetmetal and mechanicals, but it is still part of the Taurus line, so it deserves a place here, same with the X. Karrmann 02:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that there isn't already an article dedicated to a car with SHO sheetmetal and mechanicals. IFCAR 11:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, there have been enough changes to call it a new car. Ford claimed that they made over 60 changes from the initial Five Hundred and Freestyle. Karrmann 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

< < < Moving indent back to the left < < <

I wonder, considering that the Five Hundred and the Freestyle were the replacements for the Taurus and are now becoming the Taurus, that the Five Hundred and Freestyle are best described as the "Fifth Generation", and therefore should be briefly described and linked to their respective articles with {{main}} tags. Then the new Tauruses should be sixth-generation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm amenable to that. Do we want to merge Five Hundred and Freestyle? IFCAR 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough diffrence between 2007 and 2008 that would make them separate generations. Calling the Five Hundred the "Fifth Generation" of the Taurus would only make things more confusing.

This page is long enough as it is, we don't need the Taurus X here. Sure it is "part of the Taurus line," but it's a competely different vehicle. Combining Taurus and Taurus X would be like merging Cutlass Ciera and Cutlass Calais. Bad idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sable232 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm with you on the Taurus X, and see where you're going with this, and in fact, separating out the Taurus X has some precedent in how a similar situation was handled. Chevrolet Lumina, which used the same name for a sedan and a minivan (two separate vehicles with the same name), has separate articles for both. Chevrolet Lumina describes the sedan model, while Chevrolet Lumina APV describes the van. Thus to apply this reasoning to our situation, Ford Taurus should continue to carry the description of the new Taurus sedan, while we should create a new article, Ford Taurus X, for the former Freestyle. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just made a new article for the Ford Taurus X, if you all could go on over and make it professional that would be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PorscheRacer711 (talk • contribs)

So far, so good. I've added some tags to it, and done a little cleanup work. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Schuminweb, I will add some more information to the article today. PorscheRacer711 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Split

I am keeping the pages together. I understand why the Taurus X could need its own article, but there is no need to make a seperate article for the 2008 Taurus. Technically, there was no break in production, there has been a Taurus for every model year since 1986. Karrmann 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but if we should need to free up the amount of info on this page, go ahead. PorscheRacer711 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

2008 Ford Taurus. Should it have its own article?

I just created a article for the 2008 Ford Taurus because of some talks about making this car have its own article. It will need some work and I will be glad when someone gives it some new information as well as a picture for it.

Please discuss if we should keep this article or bring it back to the one on this page. Thanks! PorscheRacer711 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that there is any reason for the Gen V to have a separate article. It is still a FWD family sedan. Some people think the FH should have been the Gen V Taurus in the first place; had that been the case, we probably wouldn't even think twice about keeping the articles together.

Another thing: for future reference, when a "split" tag is placed on an article, it's best to discuss first, then create the article if consensus says to do so. --Sable232 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But isn't there too much on this article as there already is? I dont mind what happens either way, but just getting to the correct part of the page to read about the new Taurus is a bit long and confusing. PorscheRacer711 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no need for the new Taurus to have its own article. it is not like the name was revived decades after the initial discontinuation, and there never was a break in production. There has been a Taurus for every model year since it first went into production in 1986. And the models are pretty much the same formula. As I said above,, I can understand the Taurus X having its own article, but the Gen five Taurus is going to stay here. Karrmann 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There are definitely longer articles for cars out there (check the Ford truck series for example...). Taurus X yes because its a different vehicle, not trim. But i'm with Karrmann on this one...Gen V is just the next version of the Taurus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.61.95 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

1999 Revisions

Just wondering, does anyone think that a short paragraph or few sentences would be good under the Generation III section? During the first few months of 1999, Ford made some small changes to the Taurus, specifically cost cutting options. If no one complains, I can write it up. soccernamlak 23:10 21 February, 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aight, changes have been made. Please don't delete as I feel this is relevant to the article. In terms of editing/formatting, go for it! Hope this helps everyone. KB soccernamlak (Talk) 9:49, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Hey, I know you, you are from the TCCA! Karrmann 11:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, same username. and ur Mcloud, right?Soccernamlak 23:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Just like i said in my intro, I pretty much is the key person in making this article the way it is. Karrmann 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhhhhhh...."pretty much is the key person?" i now fear for the grammatical quality of wikipedia.... :P just messin'...i like the article....very well written compared to others. keep up the good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soccernamlak (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Ford Taurus History

Why was the early history section of the Taurus removed? I liked that. I didn't think anything was wrong with it. Sk5893 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because the article is on the Taurus, not why Ford need/wanted/what went into making the Taurus? idk. you have to ask Karrman on that on. Soccernamlak 01:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I wroe that up last summer. I removed it because it has poor grammer, is a POV oriented, and poorly referenced. I am trying to get this article featured, adn that section will just be holding it back. I am almost there, I don't need a neutrality review. Karrmann 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a whole new page titled "History of the Ford Taurus" with that info, plus more info on how it was sold in recent years, discontinued, etc. Sk5893 13:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a section on the car's history is worthwhile, but that needs to be done in the main Taurus article, not a separate history article. Rewritten from scratch and fully referenced, of course. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

BringbacktheSHO.com

I am the founder of BringbacktheSHO.com, I noticed someone made some edits to the article, and I wanted to let you know that no one connected with the website made any of the edits. I would like a mention about the campaign and would like to know what you guys think of the idea. We are a group of enthusiastic, vocal and dedicated Ford owners that are doing what we can to convince Ford to re-enter the market it helped create with the 1989 SHO. The website is not an "advertisement" of any kind and have a lot more to offer than a few photoshops. The website and the campaign are now part of Taurus history and I think it should be documented. Ryan J Pasch 22:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against the site. as a Taurus enthuiast, I personally am proud of your site and support you all the way. The only reason I removed it was because who did add it made it sound too much like an advertisement boosting the site. if it can be worded to sound less like an advertisement, It can gladly be included in the article. Karrmann 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Karrmann, thanks for the support. I also wanted to apologize if I came too forward on the above post. I would love for the site to be included in the article, but am not sure how to word it correctly. By the way I have noticed that the article has come a long way and looks great! Ryan J Pasch 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Generation Wagon Picture

I noticed the rear view picture of the wagon on the Fourth Generation section looks identical to the wagon on the Third Generation section. Is that correct? rb26dett

Yes, that's right. --Sable232 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because the rear end didn't change from the third to fourth generation. (Or from the first to the second generation, for that matter.) IFCAR 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the wagon sheetmetal didn't change then it is not a completely new generation. The existance of a 'fourth' generation is even more questionable, as even less changed: the doors, roof, and windows were all unchanged from the 1996 Taurus. Davez621 15:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

dablink vs. infobox

This is a reply to a conversation that's been previously taking place via edit summaries, but as I do not want to make a strict rv now, here we go: the problem is that the dablink preceding the infobox appear ABOVE it rather than beside it, creating some unnecessary blank space atop the article, which looks really awful. I agree it formally does make sense to have the dablink first, but does anybody have an idea how to fix the aesthetic issue? PrinceGloria 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image

Ok, lets end this edit war. Sure, the other pic has some shadows. But the new pic is from a skewed angle, the car has bumper stickers on it, and the background is less than acceptiable. Pretty much, images like that make the article look unprofessional. Karrmann 20:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

But the point of the image is to note the rear window. What good is it if you can barely see the rear window? The bumper sticker on IFCAR's image can be Photoshopped out. --Sable232 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, as the bumper sticker can be digitally removed without much trouble. Besides, the silver body color better emphasizes the shape of the window by providing a contrasting color. And the window is what the whole point of the image is. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The color of the bumper changes around the sticker, which is why I didn't remove it earlier. Maybe someone with more Photoshop skills than me can make it look clean.

At least this way we can hope that some readers of the Ford Taurus article will be inspired by the picture to find Jesus. IFCAR 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that car doesn't have any major gashes in it. Religious paraphernalia on cars makes for hideous drivers in my experience. [2] So they can keep "Jesus" to themselves. I'll work on it later. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blacked out the contents of the sticker in the interest of NPOV, but I have insufficient photoshopping talent to actually remove the sticker itself from the bumper. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please remove the POV that is on the car.The picture with the bumper sticker is not professional and it should be covered (as well as the license plate frame). This article is about the car and its design, therefore, there is no need to try to communicate any other message. However, there are so many of these cars around that a new picture that focuses on the rear window design on a car in a nice setting would probably be the best solution. Any new subject car should also be devoid of all slogans or personal views. -- CZmarlin 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, we could just get a new image. TCCA Members I'm sure would be more than willing to let Wiki use a rear window image. If needed, I even have some I could donate Soccernamlak 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Tables

I fixed one table but one is still broken (in firefox), Fourth generation (2000–2007)> Cant figure how to fix it bottom line is missing..--— Typ932^{T | C}  11:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have the most recent model first?

Shouldn't we have the 2008 Taurus at the top? That seems to make more sense to me than having the fourth-gen model at the top.

And in my opinion, the most recent image isn't that bad. It could be better, but it's not hideous. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WIkiproject standards say that the infobox image is to be the highest quality image, not the most recent model. Plus, the fifth gen one is pretty grainy. I scanned and sropped it out of a photo my dad took simply to be a holding spot, as we didn't have any images of the 5th gen Taurus besides the 08 Five Hundred prototype. Karrmann 12:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TOP INFO BOX - Successor - Predecessor

I find it confusing that Five Hundred is used as SUCCESSOR to the Taurus,

I thought we could split the Platform, Related, Predecessor and Successor sections. Let's have one set for the OLD MIDSIZE Taurus - succeeded by the Ford Fusion and then have another set of those categories for the FULL SIZE Taurus - preceded by the Five Hundred and still current.

What do you all think?

or we should have no successor - only the predecessor - Ford LTD (1986)

Igor

Predecessor is "something that has been succeeded" by this car. Therefore, it can only include models that existed before the Taurus was introduced. It is NOT possible to list any cars made after 1986 as "predecessors".

Successor is something that comes after in time or order. Please list anything you want that is produced "after" the Taurus -- now or expected in the future!

I hope this helps to keep the product timeline in correct chronological order — CZmarlin 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in your definition. However, the old mid-sized Ford Taurus was discontinued, and replaced by the Ford Five Hundred (with me so far?), an entirely different vehicle, thus the successor to the old Ford Taurus. Then the Five Hundred was renamed "Taurus", therefore becoming the predecessor to the new full-size Ford Taurus (still with me?). Thus the Ford Five Hundred is both the successor and predecessor to the Ford Taurus. If you treat the old pre-2007 mid-size Taurus as a completely separate vehicle from the 2008 full-size Taurus, this makes far more sense, since about the only thing that the old and new Tauruses share are names. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But how did the fullsize Five Hundred replace the midsize Taurus? The midsize Fusion replaced the midsize Taurus, and the Gen 5 Taurus replaced the Five Hundred (and possibly the Crown Victoria, if that was Ford's intent). --Sable232 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The two "types" of Taurus (since they share only the name) must be differentiated. In other words, the Taurus "I" or "old" mid-size versions had a predecessor in the form of the boxy Ford LTD. Then there was a gap where the Ford Five Hundred became the successor to the Taurus "I" -- and the predecessor to the Taurus "II" or the "new" and completely separate version. Listing the Five Hundred as "both" to one "generic" Taurus in the info box makes no sense whatsoever, but I will not revert the edit to remove the double reference. It sure seems to be the preference to list it that way -- perhaps just to confuse readers. CZmarlin 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the discussion here, I propose we simply ignore the change in size .. let;'s keep LTD as the predecessor and no successor. I would then simplt propose a rewrite of the "Initial Discontinuation" section .. changing it to "initial discontinuation and reinvention" where we would dwell into the size change, the Fusion succeeding the midsize Taurus and the new Taurus being really the successor of the Five Hundred. What do you all thing? Iholas 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Confused yet?

First, where exactly is the threshold that determines what changes a generation? The first two "generations" of the Taurus (and Sable) look too similar to me to fully separate them, as do the second two "generations".

Second, I'll say that the new Taurus (and Sable) are larger than their predecessors, but to call them full-size is misleading. They are large cars, but "full-size" is a term better left to cars like the Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, Town Car, DTS, and Lucerne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weetbixkid (talk • contribs)

A "generation" as defined here is when a car gets a big redesign. The Taurus and Sable got that in 1992 with the change from first to second generation, as every body panel save for the roof was changed, and the look was streamlined considerably. Then between the third and fourth generation, the front and back of both the Taurus and the Sable got completely restyled from that funky oval design to something a bit more conventional. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer the second question: what else is it? It is most certainly not a midsize. What else is there? It's about the same size as the Lucerne. Just because it's not a Panther doesn't mean it's not a fullsize. --Sable232 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether the designation is being used in its historical or its contemporary sense. Now, only the three Panthers are a size higher than the Taurus/Sable, but even when the Taurus was first introduced GM and Ford had larger cars. IFCAR 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To be completely honest but EPA classification the Taurus is bigger than the Panthers, because it has more interior volume. That is the core issue with this Wiki article .. how do you handle a car that is really TWO cars, joined only by name ... I am happy the Taurus is back, but it makes it impossible to make this article easy on the reader ... Sometimes I really think we should just split the article in two - Taurus (1986 0 2007) , Taurus (2007 - ) Iholas 15:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not as if the Taurus is the only car to have grown over the years. What does a 2007 Camry or Accord have in common with its much smaller predecessors other than its name? The only difference with the Taurus was that its redesign was briefly called something else, otherwise there wouldn't be any discussion on the subject. IFCAR 15:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

I would like to say that this article seems to have a large amount of images, and are they really all necessary? Do we really need to show every angle of every version of every Taurus ever made? This is what it seems like is trying to be done here. I propose that someone does some serious clean-up on the images in this article, and trim them down considerably. I have tried, but it just gets reverted back almost immediately. The article is confusing and the does not flow well with all these images. Ejfetters 12:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples of what I propose get removed are:

• Do we really need 3 images of the Gen 1 SHO? This bring Gen 1 to having 6 images alone.
• Do we really need an image to show grey bumper on the Gen 2? This seems redundant. Gen 2 has 5 images.
• Do we need an image of a FFV Gen 3? It is the same sheet metal, same appearance, this seems redundant as well. Gen 3 has 8 images.
• Gen 4 looks a little better, 4 images. But can we move these around to make it look better?

Altogether - the Ford Taurus has an astonishing 27 images!! This makes it difficult for users with slower internet connections to load this page, and I don't believe you would ever find an encyclopedia with 27 pictures of the Taurus.Ejfetters 12:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, to get this article cleaned up, maybe we should forego boxes under each generation with every single detail for every aspect of the car. Maybe we can generalize this box and move it to the bottom of the article. Ejfetters 12:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Since no one has responded I am going to make some good faith edits to the article in regards to cleaning up the images. It would be appreciated if my efforts were not just reverted back to the way they were, but discussed here before an edit war is started. Ejfetters 08:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• More cleanup information, The introduction paragraph is extremely long, and a lot of this information can be included in the generation sections. This should be a short paragraph to introduce the article and go from there. Ejfetters 08:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I already removed some images that I felt were redundant, and there is some work I have planned for the article that will shorten up the opening paragraph. I plan on trimming much of it away. Karrmann 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just looked at what you've done it looks like a good start, if you need any help let me know. Like I said to ya on your page, maybe we can make a "Ford Taurus models" page to illustrate the infoboxes and images of various versions. If done, should note in the discussion of this page it was created to trim down the article so someone doesnt say oh just merge it back. Ejfetters 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You should look that page with Firefox, its big mess.. some pictures over those info tables and those boxes are also wrong in firefox..--— Typ932^{T | C}  22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I use firefox, and the article looks just fine. The only problem I seem to see is that the Taurus X is pushed down next to the table. Karrmann 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ford Taurus X crossover this is over table and Image:Mark-Martin-6-Car.jpg is over text, and those model boxes lines looks wrong,

4th generation box is missing bottom line all others the rows arent right, so you cant see clearly whihc engine is for which year and so on..--— Typ932^{T | C}  22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First-gen wagon image

As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, regarding Image:'86-'91 Ford Taurus Wagon.jpg and Image:1986-1991 Ford Taurus Wagon.JPG, I am of the opinion that they both suck. The former is cropped too close and has some contrast issues, as well as showing a specimen that's in somewhat rough shape. The latter shows the back end of the car awfully closely, but lacks the contrast issues of the other image and appears to be in somewhat better shape.

I realize that finding another live specimen of the first-gen Taurus wagon to photograph will be somewhat less than easy, but it would be by far the best way to go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a first generation Taurus wagon that isn't half eaten by rust, then you are a really amazing man. Karrmann 00:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

first picture

The first picture in this article is not the most notable. The picture of the first generation or the current generation would be better. Chergles 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to start the article off with an out-of-date if arguable "more clear" photo is spurious. It seems there is a single photographer pushing his or her own photos to the lead of auto articles with the arguement that the out-dated photos are "better." 842U (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Second/Fourth gen. Tauruses not all-new

Can someone explain how exactly the 'second' and 'fourth' gen. Tauruses were different enough to be considered a separate generation? In my books, if sheetmetal doesn't change, then it's not a new generation. The fact that the wagon was almost completely unchanged between the 1st and 2nd generations, means that it can't really be considered a new generation. The existance of a 'fourth' generation is even more questionable as even less changed: the doors, roof, and windows were all unchanged from the 1996 Taurus. I'll let the 'second' gen. Taurus slide, but the fourth gen. was a facelift, plain and simple.Davez621 16:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The second generation had noticeable changes outside of the sheet metal to differentiate it from the first generation, including engine differences, interior modifications, and the obvious exterior difference. But even letting that "slide," the 4th generation, although yes, it did share body and parts from the third generation, still had differences with engine specifications, transmission, and other subtle changes that allow it to have its own generation. For instance, between 2000 and 2005, the Duratec engines (24V 201hp) did not have secondaries, whereas the 1996-1999 Duratecs (24V 200hp) did. Granted, Ford was slowly killing the Taurus and re-used parts, but it was enough change to be considered another generation, although scrap metal from the 90s were still being used in the newer cars. --Soccernamlak (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

SES Sport Rims

Just wondering why Karmann removed the picture of my sexy ass Gen IV SES rims... - JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.42 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I removed them is because I don't see how they add a really relevant illustration to the article. They just took up space. To keep the article looking neat, I try to only use images that enhance the information in the article, like a shot of an interior or something. Karrmann (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead picture

Can we please change the lead picture to the current model to conform with the general set up of car articles. I keep hearing claims the 5th gen picture isn't as "high quality" but I just disagree with that. The subject of the photo is actually larger than the current photo and the resolution is identical. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolution has nothing to do with it. The image of the '04-'07 model does not contain another car or a building behind it like the '08 one does. Furthermore, the image you keep putting there is already used on the page. --Sable232 (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gateman1997, there is no policy or "general set up" that specifies the use of the latest variant of the subject auto as the lead image, and such a selection doesn't necessarily best suit the article. In the case of Ford Taurus, the first Taurus was a great deal more revolutionary and innovative than any subsequent variant — i.e., it is more noteworthy and iconic — and therefore would likely be a more justifiable selection for the lead image in this article. Please come contribute to the discussion here on WPA. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone with a first generation Taurus should wash their car and find a new Taurus in a parking lot. Then take a photo of both cars. This would be easier than an owner of a new Taurus trying to find a clean looking old Taurus. Chergles (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Calls for photo submission of interior

There are several comments about the oval theme. Missing is that there is not a single photo of the interior of the car. Consider taking a photo of the oval radio. This is a sorely needed addition to the article. Chergles (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, there are two linked external images showcasing some of the features of the 96's interior in the respective section. Karrmann (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

mpg

How many miles per gallon does the taurus 1993 get? sedan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.97.142 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Article breakup?

So who the hell decided that this article needed to be split up? (see First-generation Ford Taurus, etc.) --Sable232 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Me. I thought this article was getting too large and cluttered with development info for the different generations, etc. I just haven't gotten around to shortning the article. Karrmann (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So you own this article then? --Sable232 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe he/she was probably being bold. What's the problem? --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Because such a drastic change for a well-traveled page is something that should be discussed. One editor suddenly deciding that it's "too large and cluttered" tends to be frowned upon, I've found. --Sable232 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think the article needs to be broken up, I don't see why you'd object so strongly and be so accusatory towards someone who decides it should. "So you own this article then?" is rather extreme, and not quite logical. Anyone can decide to make an edit, no? IFCAR (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This article was once assessed as GA, therefore I guess such drastic changes should be discussed. I am not entirely against, but:

1. The article needs GA reassessment after the split, obviously
2. Can we address the generations more specifically than by ordinals - i.e. by internal production codes (those shouldn't be so hard to find)?
3. Taurus SHO should be described in the articles on particular generations - there isn't enough content, and frankly, the nature of the subject does not require a specific article. It looks more like trying to establish a separate entity that isn't.
4. I'd consider merging in Mercury Sable, there is little to be said of particular Sables that cannot be said of the Taurus, so there is more repetition and cross-referencing than actual original content. The fact that articles exist for other Mercuries is irrelevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not support merging in the Sable article. While there is some content overlap between Taurus and Sable, the two cars are fairly distinct. Most importantly, I don't think there's any advantage to merging the two to offset the potential confusion and information overload that would result from constantly describing where the two differ. IFCAR (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm... examples? PrinceGloria (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, let me analyze the Merc article - I will show you what I mean. Uno momento, SVP. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mercury Sable article repeats this one for the most part

I will refer to a specific paragraph in the Mercury Sable article to show you it repeats the Taurus article for the most part:

Lead

1. "The Mercury Sable..." - a bit compromised, but unique obviously
2. "The Sable was a milestone..." - unique info, though the milestone thing applies to both Taurus and Sable alike, Sable has just had the lightbar and "invisible" rear pillar
3. "The Sable was refreshed..." - well, along with the Taurus...
4. "The Sable wagon ended production..." - half of the tiny paragraph speaks about Ford remaining in production, the Ford article goes vice-versa when talking about that
5. "At the Chicago..." - same information in Ford article, except for some information (dealer demand) being unsourced

First generation

1. "Ford had lagged behind..." - info on lagging behind is in some form or another in the Ford article, though surprisingly not explicitly referenced, even though this fact is as important for Sable as for Taurus. Cougar article referenced does not mention Sable, the connection made is OR. Third statement also questionable, as what constitues "resounding success", and the Taurus can be and is being described the same way.
2. "The Taurus and Sable siblings..." - paragraph only repeats information given in the "Exterior" section for the 1st-gen Taurus
3. "The Sable was unveiled" - last paragraph of "1st generation development" of Taurus article, just before the "Reception" heading
4. "The bodyshell was smooth and aerodynamic..." - information repeated in several places of the Taurus articles, as most pertains to shared design features (save for light bar and wraparound rear glass). As a sidenote, most of the information in this paragraph cannot be found in the source given, or statements are misinterpeted.
5. "The Sable was introduced..." - after filtering for POV/peacock, some detail which could be easily integrated into the Taurus article.
6. "For the first year in the market..." - same information as with the Taurus, a table would come in more handy describing what engines were available in what periods in which models. Statement on head gasket is essentially unsourced and comical.
7. "The Sable had just..." - most of the statement cannot be referenced to the article given as source, which btw is the main source for this section and does fine with describing both Sable and Taurus at the same time.

Let me pause here. In case you do not agree with me, I guess I could come up with a merged section on both vehicles, but it would take me some time. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

I really don't understand one user's desire to merge the Taurus generation's articles together. I remember that when I first proposed to turn the Mercury Sable article into a disambiguation page linking to each of the Taurus generation articles that had a Mercury Sable equilviant. Needless to say, I am strongly opposed to the merge.

First of all, the only reason why I split the article up was because I believe it because too overstuffed after I expanded the info on each of the generations. It had sections on development info and press reception on two generations, and each generation section had around five long subsections highlighting the cars design, interior, models, engines, etc. On top of that, not only was the article overstuffed IMO, but it was over 75 KB long when I decided to split it up.

Second, I have done this before. The Chrysler Sebring article used to be an overstuffed mess because it covered all bodystyles (although they shared no mechanical components), and with little info, it was just a hit-and-miss mess that had its infoboxes run for long after the text ended. I split it up into three articles: I left the Sebring page to cover the sedan, moved all of the info about the two door to Chrysler Sebring (coupe), and moved all info about the convertible to Chrysler Sebring (convertible). A user opposed that article being broken up too. However, it managed to stay broken up mainly because like I said, the Sebring article was a complete mess before I broke it up. Now, I could understand merging the articles if they were of poor quality and/or very short. But that is just the thing, they are not. Look at the First-generation Ford Taurus and Third-generation Ford Taurus articles, for example. They are long, they contain lots of information (lots of it sourced), and I can not imagine how much of a long mess the Ford Taurus article would be if all of the info in each of the generation's articles was merged into here.

Third, the Taurus has been sold in six generations over 23 model years (and still in production). They are also very diverse. The First generation was a very influential car that changed the way that all cars sold in America looked, felt and drove. However, the Fourth generation model was a generic, cookie-cutter sedan that was generally uncompetitive, and was sold primarily to rental car fleets. I figured that since the Taurus has those two very contrasting kinds of notability, it would be less confusing to the reader if each generation had a notable article. The First generation's article can talk about how notable the car was for the American auto industry, while the fourth generation's article can discuss how in this era, the model became generally uncompetetive and lead for Ford to discontinue the nameplate, only for Alan Mulally to rescue the name at the last minute. How confusing would it be to note in the Dodge Dynasty article "The Dynasty was uncompetetive on the marketplace due to the aerodynamic designs of its competetiors, such as the Ford Taurus", and when the reader links, they see the 2005 model staring them in the face, not knowing which model of Taurus is being spoken of.

Now, the only Taurus model pages that are below par are Fifth-generation Ford Taurus and Sixth-generation Ford Taurus. The Fifth-generation article was written to adiquacy by me, tired after spending all day breaking up the Taurus article. The Sixth-generation article is a stub, but that is because the model is currently in development, and Ford has been very hush-hush about the model. Heck, after just giving out the most basic, generic info about the car, Alan Mulally stopped himself and said, "I've said too much." I plan on rewriting that article sometime around January 2009, when the sixth generation Taurus will be unveiled during the 09 North American International Auto Show. Then there will be some real, tangible information about it.

Mainly though, there are many articles that have seperate articles about different generations to keep the article neat, and easy to use for the reader. Holden Commodore (Holden VE Commodore is a featured article), Ford Mustang, and Toyota Corolla are the first off the top of my head. I mean, I understand wanting to merge the articles, but they all are long enough and have enough info to suffice on their own, and again, it would just be a huge mish-mash of contrasting information that could be confusing to readers. Now, I understand perhaps getting rid of the Ford Taurus SHO and Mercury Sable. Again, I would easily turn them into disambiguation pages linking to the respective generation of Taurus that they share their body with.

So, that is why I don't want all these articles merged. Karrmann (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that I'm the only editor who opposed the split. It appeared at the time there were others who weren't keen on the idea; I'm giving this a chance to be properly discussed.

I don't see how having an article with distinct sections is "confusing." Generation 1, 2, 3, etc. down the page. It's not going to be a "mess." What makes an article a mess is excess and inefficient display of information. Whether it's on four different pages or one, the same information is in the same places.

As they sit, the articles have unnecessary duplication of information (how many times must one say a design is controversial?) and excessive wordiness, in my opinion. --Sable232 (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that that all the articles should be merged, but if you guys think that they should stay separate, then maybe they should. You seem to know a lot about the Ford Taurus Karrmann. 24.22.115.31 (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 9:23 Thursday, October 30, 2008 (pacific time)

It seems that the un-merged article would very very long considering the amount of content on the pages for each generation. I think its fine having it split the way it is now. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right about that it would be too big. It is big enough already. 71.193.162.77 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I am the same person as 24.22.115.31 71.193.162.77 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The split was well-done. I think there's enough information (and a diverse enough history) about the Taurus to have all these different articles. I say merge nothing. Chaparral2J (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ford Taurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Article suffers from trivia creep, some uncited statements and whole uncited paragraphs.

   C. No original research:

   Uncited statements may contain original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall a good article, just needs a little maintenance. Article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I went through and removed a couple of unneeded unsourced statements and trivia. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. --Leivick (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So far so good, but there are still large gaps between citations. Reviewers like me typically like to see at least one citation per paragraph, so there is no question where this information came from. The second halves of the second and third paragraphs (1st gen) are uncited. There is a bit about foreign models (3rd gen) which is uncited. First paragraph in 4th gen. And so on, I didn't check the rest but I gotta get going. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 11:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have started some basic maintainence. If you can name some specific of what you mean as "Trivia creep", I will remove it. Karrmann (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I can extend the hold time if necessary, so don't worry about the time limit. The "trivia creep" has been deleted, so don't worry about it. The last issue that is keeping me from passing the article are the uncited statements. At least one per paragraph, and there is also a tagged statement in the introduction. These are the only things keeping this from being a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 03:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has been delisted due to a lack of progress. Feel free to renominate when these issues have been addressed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture at the top

I think its time to put the 2010 Taurus at the top. Thoughts?--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 14:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The photo at the top is always the highest-quality picture available. If the best-quality image is a 2010 model, it will be at the top. Until then, it will not. IFCAR (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm still confused. The two photos are of identical quality, and you took them both. So why shouldn't the 2010 photo be at the top? It makes more logical sense.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not. The lead infobox covers every year of Taurus production, 1986-2010, and therefore would be perfectly illustrated by any Taurus, from 1986 to 2010. Even if quality were "identical", your idea would remove the only 2010 Taurus image from its appropriate place in the article -- the section about the 2010 Taurus. IFCAR (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy in the article

The phrase ". . .The interior was designed to be extremely user friendly, with all of its controls designed to be recognizable by touch, allowing drivers to operate them without taking their eyes off the road. . ." appears on just about every section of this article and makes me want to vomit, can someone make it so that this does not appear verbatim in every section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.163.248 (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge Taurus SHO into appropriate articles?

There is currently a standalone article on the Ford Taurus SHO. My standing is that the article should be deleted and each article about a generation of the Taurus should get something about the appropriate SHO. The redirect would lead here. Thoughts? Icanhasaccount (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, as per long knock-down and drag-out conversation about Toyota Camry Hybrid. No need for SHO standalone.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Support: the main difference of the SHO compared to the regular Taurus variants is the powertrain, and we have articles on the Ford SHO V6 engine, Ford SHO V8 engine (could possibly be merged with Ford Duratec engine), and Ford Cyclone engine. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Engines??

Maybe I missed it but I would like to see some discussion of which engines were available in the Taurus.

Speedtree (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is some discussion of engines, at least recent ones, in this article, and by clicking on the individual generation articles at the start of each section, you will likely find more. --Vossanova ^o< 21:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge generations back into article?

It's just a horrible mess with the split up articles. There's almost no info on the fifth generation taurus, and it focuses more on the five hundred. I also believe we should call the second generation the first and a half generation, or first gen refresh, rename the third to second, and rename the fourth to second and a half. The fifth gen should be summarized but not have its own section since it was only called the taurus in the US. Hence, that would make the 2010 model the third generation. Any support or opposes? Wikimann1234 10/19/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimann1234 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason this and so many other articles are split off is to allow more room for an in-depth discussion of an individual generation without making a single overwhelmingly large article. If everything were merged back together, we'd probably have to remove a lot of detail from the existing generation articles, and detail is nice to have. IFCAR (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with IFCAR on the merger, but Wikimann1234, I agree with you regarding the extra generations which are really just facelifts and the preoccupation of the Ford Five Hundred in article about the Taurus. I would also favour merging Ford Five Hundred with the relevant generation of Taurus. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Successors?

I know the taurus was briefly discontinued in 2007, but that was only for a few months. From 1986 to now, there hasn't been a single model year missing, so does it really make sense to say it has a successor considering it's a currently produced car? Bookster451 (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge Sable into this article???

The Mercury Sable page has almost no information, and each generational section leads to an article for the respective generation of the Taurus, which discusses information about the Sable there. It would make more sense to merge the sable into the Taurus, seeing as the Taurus article has been split up a while ago. Bookster451 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Mild support: after looking into the differences between the two cars, I am satisfied that they are closely related enough to warrant a merger. The below comparison is based on my personal observations and applies to the sedan versions only:

• 1986 model year: same body but unique fender panels to accommodate restyled front- and rear-ends. Also noteworthy are the unique wrap-around rear quarter windows. The key-line running down the Ford's side is absent on the Mercury version. The interiors are clearly related but are still stylistically quite different despite obvious component sharing.

• 1992 model year: as for 1986, but obviously the interior, plus front and rear fascias were restyled again (rear quarter windows carried forward). The missing body key-line down the sides appears to have returned for both sedans and wagons.

• 1996 model year: front-end almost identical to Taurus. The hood and front fenders are shared between the two cars, with only a unique bumper required to accommodate the restyled grille and headlamps. However, the rear is very different, going beyond the normal restyled fenders. While the rear doors are identical, the glass above it is all new (actually shared with the Taurus/Sable wagon). The rectangular rear windshield (as opposed to elliptical) and new decklid are also different, resulting in the two cars that have completely different rear ends. The interiors are largely the same, with no material difference between the Ford and Mercury versions.

• 2000 model year: front-end styling moved further away from the Taurus, now with unique fenders. The 1996 model's different rear door glass have carried over for 2000, so again, this is major difference with the Ford version. Likewise, the rear fenders are not shared with the Taurus, so the rear ends share no visual resemblance. However, the interiors of both cars are almost identical, with only trim changes.

• 2005 model year (Mercury Montego compared to Ford Five Hundred): identical front fenders and hood (but altered bumpers to incorporate restyled headlamps and grille). Identical rear fenders, tail lamps, and decklid (bumper unique). Identical interiors except for minor trim.

• 2008 model year: unique front fenders (and therefore hood, headlamps, and front bumper). Rear fenders and taillamp shape shared between both cars, with different decklids and bumpers fitted. Identical interiors except for minor trim.

Wagons apply for the 1986, 1992, 1996, and 2000 versions—being discontinued when the Montego/Five Hundred twins were released. In all cases, the wagons share identical sheet metal with the Ford equivalent. The 1986 wagons have unique tail lamp lenses (same shape) and different bumpers. The 1992, 1996, and 2000 model year updates are identical to the Taurus wagons in all componentry except badging (i.e. same bumpers and taillamp lenses).

Although the Sable sedan does have some reasonable changes when compared to the Taurus, the cars are still clearly heavily related. The powertrains and production years also marry up perfectly. My biggest considerations were the restyled wrap-around rear quarter windows from the 1986 and 1992 models, and the completely restyled rear ends of the 1996 and 2000 models. However, when I realised the glass above the rear doors of the 1996 and 2000 Sable sedans are the same as the Taurus/Sable wagons of the same years, this difference obviously became less pronounced in my view.

If the Sable was sedan-only I would probably argue for the retention of separate pages, but all other aspects considered (same years and development cycle, same powertrains, identical interiors from 1996, identical wagons), I believe these articles will be better served combined. This is not a strong endorsement to merge, but I still feel it is the better of the two options.

I have a much stronger opinion for the merger of the Mercury Montego (with Taurus or Sable, depending on the result of the above) and Ford Five Hundred (which should be combined with the Taurus). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Although when reading the above, I do agree that the similarities have been well-explained, I also think that the Mercury Sable article is also something that something that has started to grow into its own. In some ways, this will be a question that will come up with many articles for cars that are the products of badge engineering. I DO, however, support the merger of the 500/Montego into the Taurus/Sable articles; this goes with the convention of the Freestyle being part of the Taurus X article (instead of the other way around). --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

So would it be a better idea to remove most information from the Taurus article and put it in this one, and fixing it up with some references? Bookster451 (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would support merging Montego to Sable, and Five Hundred into Taurus. Bookster451 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Very weak oppose - Often different in metal as well as in brand, although develpment cycles and powertrains weigh for the merger. In the end, I am also not at all willing to spend my time fighting the people that will be appalled at the thought of a merger.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Sable To Taurus

Please state below whether the Sable should be moved into Taurus. Write "support" for pro-merge, and "oppose" for anti-merge. Bookster451 (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I've made my case above, but like Mr.choppers I won't be fighting for this one. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: The current article doesn't have much information on the Sable, and the Taurus article talks about the Sable anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookster451 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Meh: not entirely necessary, and probably a lot of arguing will occur as a result. I think that there are more important battles.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: As I said above in the initial proposal, things would be better served if we merged other articles (500/Montego) into these two rather than these two into each other. --SteveCof00 (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose': Mercury Sable is a separate nameplate. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

How did FORD TAURUS , get it's name ?

How did they come up with the name FORD TAURUS, because I sell FORD , and I have a customer, that could really use a good car, but they say they are not into the ZODIAC sign... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.25.160 (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Taurus is Latin for "bull" which is likely to be what the name refers to. --Daniel 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert back to midsize

I reverted the 2000-2007 model to midsize because when I changed it to fullsize I hadn't taken much consideration to the fact that the wagon was present. I wouldn't be reverting it to midsize if there only was a sedan, but considering the size was barely any bigger than the 1996-1999 model, it should stay as midsize.--Bookster451 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so that means the Contour was a compact car, and the Escort was a subcompact. Right? :D --198.228.216.15 (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The EPA, a.k.a. fueleconomy.gov, classifes the 2000-2003 Taurus as midsize, and the 2004+ models as large. Ford had 3 (!!!) full-size cars from 2005-2007--a Taurus, which competes with the top-of-the-line versions of the Camry, Accord, and Altima, a Five Hundred, which can compare with the Avalon and the Maxima, and the Crown Victoria, which competes with a Charger. The Fusion is mid-sized and compares with the Camry, the Accord, and the Malibu, and possibly the Avenger. --166.137.191.28 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Go with the cited information from the EPA for the size. Different years can be classified differently. Bahooka (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

NASCAR info relevant here?

I'm skeptical that the references to the NASCAR version of the Taurus are appropriate for this article, as the car in question isn't really based off of the Taurus it was merely styled to resemble it. Although I admit I have a hard time maintaining a NPOV otherwise I'd just remove the section myself. Thoughts? Raitchison (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1