Talk:Lotus Cortina

Redirect

This needs to redirect to Ford Cortina. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.172.165 (talk • contribs) 21:21, September 28, 2006.

I disagree. Despite the Ford Cortina article implying that the Lotus Cortina was simply one more model in the line-up, it wasn't; Lotus fitted their own engines/gearboxes to the Ford-supplied bodyshells at their own Hethel plant, and made radical changes to the suspension, as well as replacing many body panels.

Not only that, but the L-C's motorsport significance means that there's plenty of articles that will want to link directly to this page. The London-Sydney Marathon, the 1970 London to Mexico World Cup Rally, Jim Clark, etc etc.

What needs to be done is: (a) the Ford Cortina GT picture needs removing; (b) the Ford Cortina article needs rewriting and expanding, and (c) this article needs expanding. --DeLarge 00:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. I agree with that. This needs to be rewritten to distinguish the Lotus from the Ford. 67.188.172.165 21:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Rallying

What were the disqualified for? RJFJR (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this refers to the 1966 Monte, it was the headlight rule infringement that also disqualified the Mini-Coopers and Rosemary Smith's Coupe des Dames-winning Hillman Imp. Thereby handing the win to Pauli Toivonen's Citroen</tin_foil_hat>. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_Rally#1966_controversy. Mr Larrington (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Article name

Isn't the correct name for the car the Ford Cortina Lotus? --Falcadore (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Responding four years later is a bit odd, but an across-the-board change from Lotus Cortina to Cortina Lotus in the body of the article has recently been made. I don't have a strong opinion on the name, but I recall reading somewhere Colin Chapman named it "Lotus Cortina" while Ford marketted it "Cortina Lotus", and calling the Lotus-assembled cars "Lotus Cortina" and the Ford-assembled cars "Cortina Lotus" (or, using 1967 as the cut-off line in accordance with Lotus-Ford Twin Cam#The Name) is the generally accepted and predominant practice, with the obvious tendencies of Lotus fans to call it Lotus Cortina and Ford fans to call them Cortina Lotus.

In any event, WP:NPOV requires to present both views when there are two (or more) opposing/conflicting/disputed views with due weight, so I'd suggest a partial revert to reflect both sides. The above 'assembly' criterion may be a convenient way to conform. There are many reliable sources, one group using one, and the other group using the other name (e.g. Factory race entry records vs. Ford brochures), I'd think. Falcadore and GTHO, your input would be welcome here. (All the previous editors of this article before this change may had reasons to have created and edited the article as "Lotus Cortina", so a discussion here before the across-the-board change might have been more appropriate.) Yiba (talk | contribs) 01:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that sales brochures are the best indication of the correct name. The Mark I brochures use “Consul Cortina developed by Lotus”, “Cortina developed by Lotus” or “Cortina Lotus”. Mark II brochures all seem to use “Cortina Lotus”. Looking at another source, I see that the “New Car Prices” listings in The Autocar magazine from 1963 and 1970 show “Cortina Lotus” under “Ford” rather than listing “Cortina” under “Lotus”. GTHO (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see your view as described. How would you suggest to handle the above WP:NPOV issue? The other view may treat FIA Homologation papers (e.g. http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulation/file/2014_Appendix%20K_WEB%20(131220).pdf#search='FIA+1963+appendix' page 268 for lack of access to 1963 paper) and factory race entry records as the source backing "Lotus Cortina". That view might consider Lotus and Colin Chapman, as the designer/creator/assembler/homologator of the initial batch, to have more intrinsic naming rights than Ford as the assembler/marketer who chose "Cortina Lotus" for sales activities. I see both views to be legitimate, and one-side-only presentation to be against NPOV. Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The car in question is primarily a road car, not a racing car. Frankly I do not believe that FIA documentation is particularly relevant. --Falcadore (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, again, I see that view quite clearly. I don't feel comfortable speaking for "the other view", but I do recognize that the other view exists. Normally the name on FIA homologation and the way the model is named by the maker(s) are the same. While the FIA paper per se may not be relevant, "the other view" would argue that it is a relevant document to back up how Lotus/Chapman named the model "Lotus Cortina" as the designer/creator and the initial maker.

What I do feel strongly about is the WP:NPOV requirement, and the "Wikipedia tries to describe the dispute, not engage in it." principle. What is your view on "presenting both sides", Falcadore? Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Re the homologation issue, reference to page 19 of HomologatedForms-SortedByMake&Model-2010 would suggest that the Consul Cortina Lotus was first homologated, as a Ford, on 9/5/1963. No homologation under “Lotus” is apparent.

Re the road car marketing, I note that an advertisement for Lotus Retail Sales Division on page 4 of Motor (magazine), week ending 25 April 1964, refers to 25 ready-to-go Cortinas developed by Lotus . GTHO (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

GTHO, I am not saying "Cortina Lotus" is wrong. I am just saying that there also is a view that deem "Lotus Cortina" to be appropriate as the name of the car. The FIA paper you pointed out lists "Lotus Cortina" also under Ford on page 20 with a later homologation date (to different classes), and I don't really know what went on. The WP:NPOV issue is the question I am raising, not the right/wrong of the names. Yiba (talk | contribs) 11:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the existing "Lotus Cortina is the commonly used term for the Ford Cortina Lotus..." sentence could be expanded to meet any WP:NPOV requirement, perhaps in a dedicated section headed "Model name" or similar. GTHO (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Anything other than "Lotus Cortina" is ridiculous, per WP:COMMONNAME. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

GTHO, I guess I could work on your idea, except that I am not an expert on the name issue, or the model, although I know a bit about the engine. I was thinking, may be I could create an article named Cortina Lotus, transfering the content that exists today, and changing the Lotus Cortina article back to what it was before your across-the-board switch from "Lotus Cortina" to "Cortina Lotus" in the body.

Andy Dingley, I believe your opinion to be a common view. But I see Falcadore/GTHO opinion to be valid as well. You know a lot about Wiki policies, so could you tell me if the above described way of creating "Cortina Lotus" article in addition to "Lotus Cortina" article (with almost identical content except for the names used in the body, perhaps with a caution on the top to future editors about the existence of the other article and the WP:NPOV requirement as the reason) would violate any policy? Of course it is messy, and is a maintenance headache, but in most cases no policy or guideline carries higher priority over WP:NPOV. Yiba (talk | contribs) 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is simply wrong, per WP policy, to split an article like that. There should be redirects from any credible variant of the name (right or wrong) to a single article under the correct name, per WP policy.
• I believe the "Cortina Lotus" name to be simply wrong. It's "Lotus Cortina", although "Lotus-Cortina" does have some small currency. Until today I'd never even seen "Cortina Lotus". The Lotus Cortina is older than I am, but I do remember the things. I'm no Ford fan, nor a Lotus expert, but I have worked (usually with loud swearing) on a few of them. As I'm not a Ford fan, the only reference book I have to hand is Ludvigsen's Chapman: Inside the Innovator and that uses Lotus Cortina. Chapman was also a famous egotist / careful brand manager and he always made sure that the innumerable joint products were "Lotus Foobar", not "Foobar Lotus". The few exceptions were generally when a deep-pocketed sponsor was paying the bill and insistent. After all, this car wasn't adding the prestige of the Cortina(sic) to a Lotus, it was Ford trying to make the Dagenham Dustbin sexy by giving it a green stripe and a Lotus badge. What sense does it make to hide the Lotus involvement?
• Finally, if some dusty paperwork in a Ford filing cabinet does show the "official" title to have been "Cortina Lotus", then we should still abide by commonname. "Lotus Cortina" should remain the article title and in use throughout the article and this "official" title (which has been lost to posterity, even amongst sad old anoraks like myself) was really the "Edsel Lotus", then that's a para at most. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, it's Ferrari Stratos, not Lancia Stratos. Oh wait... --Falcadore (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark I's are referred to as Consul Cortina developed by Lotus [1] where as Mark IIs seem plainly to be Ford Cortinas by the badgework. [2]

Some more references: [3] [4] --Falcadore (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

So a flyer by Ford, in a Ford context, that uses "Cortina Lotus" is proof that the name "Lotus Cortina" doesn't exist, even when it's sourced from a site that's called "Lotus Cortina.info" overall.

As for the "Ferrari Stratos", I have no idea what your point is. Are you planning to rename that article too? How about Fiat Dino while you're about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can find where I have said "Lotus Cortina" doesn't exist I'll happilly concede your point. In the meantime I'll point you towards the first sentence in the article.

But I think you will find a statement such as the "Cortina Lotus" name to be simply wrong is in fact laughable. Lotus Cortina certainly meets COMMONNAME criteria but Ford Cortina Lotus is certainly not wrong. --Falcadore (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Whilst there may be a case for using Lotus Cortina as the article title under WP:COMMONNAME, it should be noted that there is no resulting Wikipedia requirement for such an article title to be used throughout that article. Quote: "There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article". GTHO (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The masthead image is captioned

Ford Consul Cortina developed by Lotus

Ford Cortina developed by Lotus

It should be simply "Lotus Cortina" or possibly "Ford Cortina Lotus". This sort of bloviation has crept in throughout the current article to the point where not only does it fail COMMONNAME but it's becoming simply unreadable. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out (again) that the COMMONNAME guidelines refer to the article name only, not to the text. GTHO (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it has to be correct to the point of cumbersome. --Falcadore (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps for Andy Dingley's benefit I should point out I was always referring to Ford Cortina Lotus, not Cortina Lotus, in the event there was some confusion on the point. That is what I said in the first first line of this discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Lotus Cortina is the commonly used term for the Ford Cortina Lotus, a high-performance sports saloon, which was produced in the United Kingdom from 1963 to 1970 by Ford in collaboration with Lotus Cars."

"High Performance", eh.? HaHaHaaaHaaHa! NOT even for the 60's!

Slang

The article is sprinkled with British slang (e.g. dodginess.") It really should be reviewed (for which I'm not qualified) to make it more scholarly, and less like a cheap car magazine.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lotus Cortina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102043558/http://www.lotuscortina.net.nz/ to http://www.lotuscortina.net.nz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)