Jump to content

Talk:Ford Motor Company/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 31 August 2020

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus; whether Ford should redirect here is another discussion to have, but there is clearly no consensus to move this article to Ford. Sceptre (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


Ford Motor Company → Ford – Move per WP:COMMONNAME. 35.141.137.229 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

*Support the automotive company is clear primary topic worldwide, even in the United States when they also refer it to a River and it is already redirect to this article. 118.96.254.151 (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Strike sock !vote.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
new Indonesia IP editor, welcome - AGF but see also blocks on Bangalore RM In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Somewhat sceptical about the outcome of the last Talk:Ford (disambiguation) RM. It won't make people's heads explode to have ford/Ford, which is patently ambiguous, be a dab page. There is WP:NOPRIMARY for ford/Ford, so the current redirect to Ford Motor Company is as wrong as "apple" would be if redirecting to Steve Jobs' company. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: last move request was around 2 years ago, if you have new arguments maybe we should file a new request though I'd probably wait until this is closed first. I think this is somewhat similar to Apple and Cars where the crossing is prominent enough to prevent the company from being primary by PT#2 and Mercury where there are several well known meanings so there is a DAB at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems somewhat unlikely from above that a closer will move FMC over ford. Not even convinced that "ford" is the WP:COMMONNAME for FMC, since out of context ford is not the common name for FMC at all. In a sentence "Ford engine plant to close", fine, but "ford was" search in Gbooks produce fords and Fords more than FMC. But surely the "ford was" test is not a new argument, but one that seems to have been ignored. But at least status quo now is not as unhelpful to readers as this proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Please, if you want Ford (disambiguation) to be moved to Ford, don't talk about it here, because the supporters of this move agree that Ford Motor Company is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Ford. Please make your own requested move at Talk:Ford (disambiguation) if you don't agree that Ford Motor Company should be primary topic of Ford. 35.141.137.229 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
new to Wikipedia, South Sumatra Palembang In ictu oculi (talk)
But you don't mean to have that discussion there while this one is going ahead? While the company has been established as the primary topic for "Ford" it can still be reviewed before moving the company to "Ford". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to have it while this one is active. I am saying that once this one is done, people can then go to Talk:Ford (disambiguation) and request a move there. 35.141.137.229 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support move - Most recent consensus is that Ford MC is the primary topic of Ford (see Talk:Ford (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 August 2018). I agree with that consensus, but regardless of that, there can be no argument that the common name of Ford MC is just Ford, and since Ford is already a redirect as the primary topic, there's no reason not to move. Those who disagree that this is the primary topic should instead look to move the disambiguation page. A7V2 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see this as a needed fix for anything. I would agree that FoMoCo is the most comment usage of Ford (hence the redirect) however, no one is going to confuse the current title for any other entity. Basically I'm not sure what significant problem this will fix. Springee (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
*Support move "Ford" already becomes redirected to the global automotives company, which is clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For those who disagree that this is the primary topic should instead look to move the disambiguation page, which already named as Ford (disambiguation). 114.125.46.113 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Strike sock !vote.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and another new Indonesia IP editor, also welcome - again AGF but see also blocks on Bangalore RM In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this perennial proposal. No reader will be surprised to find this article titled "Ford Motor Company" as that is the name of the company, and reasonably common to see in other media when to the company itself is referred to. A move would be a solution to a non-existent problem. --Sable232 (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sable232: Are you don't know that the automotive company is a Primary Topic for Ford? "Ford Motor Company" only used for official and document purpose, for example Ford quarterly report, Ford annual report. At something else, they are known just as "Ford" (just as many auto companies such as "Nissan" not "Nissan Motors", "Toyota" not "Toyota Motor, etc) if you disagree that this is a Primary topic, please take the discussion at disambiguation page. 36.68.167.178 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Toyota is relatively unambiguous so its reasonable to think that its almost always called by the short name, I don't think that that's the case with Ford where the full name is commonly used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@Yet-another-Indonesian-IP: I said nothing about whether or not this is the primary topic, and I don't think that's relevant anyway. Stop bludgeoning the discussion and trying to discredit editors who oppose the move. --Sable232 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Necrothesp: Did you read my message above? If you want Ford (disambiguation) to be moved to Ford, then go to Talk:Ford (disambiguation) and make your own requested move there. This discussion is about moving Ford Motor Company to just Ford, and it has nothing to do with the location of the dab page. Again, please go to Talk:Ford (disambiguation) if you don't believe FMC is primary for Ford. 35.141.137.229 (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
It is perfectly normal to propose renaming of another page on a related RM. My comment stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
So if the overall consensus on this RM is to move Ford (disambiguation) to Ford, then does that mean that the DAB page location will change to Ford? 35.141.137.229 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
*Strong support the automotive company is clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even in the countries where "Ford" also refer to border crossing. 180.242.45.27 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Strike sock !vote.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Er, one of the new Palembang IPs has already been blocked on Talk:Bangalore#Requested_move_24_August_2020, welcome another new Indonesia IP to Wikipedia In ictu oculi (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME since Britannica ("Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register") uses "Ford Motor Company" and WP:NOPRIMARY since although the company is well known globally so is the crossing. I don't strongly object to having the company as the primary topic but I still think that it would be best to have the DAB at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: If you disagree for this being a primary topic for Ford, you can place own request move at Talk:Ford (disambiguation) and see what consensus are made for that. I think "Ford" already redirects to this article and "Ford Motor Company" only used for official purpose like Quarterly Report that being published by ford for each month of financial year. 180.242.45.27 (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
You don't want me to do that while this RM is in progress (unless we put this one on hold?) and given Britannica uses "Ford Motor Company" I don't think you can say its only used for official purpose. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Just because Brittanica uses “Ford Motor Company” is not evidence of common name. They have their own title conventions and are not subject to the same constraints as we are. —В²C ☎ 17:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The quote from COMMONNAME says that other encyclopedias are among those to assess. EB is usually regarded as WP's rival in that people consider it to be highly reliable and us to be highly un reliable. EB is usually considered the best among sources unless natural disambiguation applies or a NC says another title is preferred. EB also can have more than 1 article with the same title so the fact that they haven't chosen "Ford" is good evidence of common usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There are so many things wrong with this Born2cycle comment that difficult to know where to start. No.1 a 4-edit IP from Illminster UK made that decision 12:56, 13 April 2017‎ 78.151.59.30 talk‎ 77 bytes -3,490‎ ←Redirected page to Ford Motor Company undo. No.2 WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant because "ford" is also the commonname of "ford". No.3 The primary topic issue is not settled; because ford means ford. What is the point in making RM votes like this? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
It doesn’t matter WHO made the decision. It was over THREE YEARS ago. Nobody searching with “ford” and ending up here in that time has complained, much less discovered an issue that they thought needed addressing. That’s about as solid as community consensus ever gets. PLUS... #PRIMARYTOPIC issue for Ford settled settles it for sure. —В²C ☎ 20:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course COMMONNAME still matters. It’s mind-boggling how after all these years you still don’t grasp the most basic WP titling concepts. Every ambiguous term is the COMMONNAME for multiple topics, by definition. To say that COMMONNAME doesn’t matter just because the term is ambiguous is to dismiss 20 years of community consensus behind the primary topic concept.
The primary topic issue is not settled because “ford means ford”??? That’s an argument? Per this “reasoning” the primary topic issue at Dodge is not settled because “dodge means dodge”. What utter nonsense.
I’m sorry, IIO, but you’re not making any sense. With the deep level of lack of understanding and appreciation for how and why titles are decided on WP demonstrated in your own words, it’s no wonder you find so many things “wrong” with my !vote. —В²C ☎ 20:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There was an RFD in May this year.
Well I have cited COMMONNAME and given a quote from it with a highly respected source that supports this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale, yes, you've cited COMMONNAME and found a source that routinely uses the formal name for its article topics rather than the common name; not surprisingly, it uses Ford Motor Company. That hardly establishes that name as the COMMONNAME of this topic. That same source, Brittanica, also goes with Volkswagen Group, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Bentley Motors Ltd., Volvo Aktiebolaget and Toyota Motor Corporation while we use the COMMONNAMEs, Volkswagen, BMW, Nissan, Bentley, Volvo and Toyota, respectively. Your example not only does not support your argument, it refutes it. I stand by my claim that opposition arguments offered here are not based in policy, and should be (un)weighted accordingly. --В²C ☎ 05:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: the quote says Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register so that maybe suggests those others should be moved. I'm not sure why you're dismissing EB as a source for COMMONNAME? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that line in COMMONNAME must be relatively new (less than ten years I bet) and is problematic. Most encyclopedias are more apt to use formal names in their article titles than is WP, and that line implies the contrary. But this discussion belongs at WT:AT. For here I think we can see that despite what someone managed to slip into COMMONNAME, actual titles demonstrate community consensus is to favor less formal and more commonly used names in our titles than those which tend to be used by traditional encyclopedias. —-В²C ☎ 14:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Which part of COMMONNAME do you think most supports a move from Ford Motor Company to Ford? I think one of the biggest issues for Commonname is will people search for the wrong thing. William Jefferson Clinton vs Bill Clinton would matter since, as you type, the auto complete for "Bill..." is not going to suggest William. However, if you start typing "Ford..." then Ford Motor Company is at the top of the list. I totally get, "Commonname" when we are dealing with something where the formal name may be confused (Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster) with the common name. I don't see any way someone searching for the auto mfr "Ford" would be confused to land at "Ford Motor Company". This would be a concern with FCA vs Chrysler but not here. Springee (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The notion that there needs to be a practical search justification for using a more common name over a more formal name is unknown to me and has no policy basis as far as I know. The only question before us is: which name is used most commonly in reliable sources to refer to this topic? While some news sources do use “Ford Motor” or “Ford Motor Company”, most just say “Ford”. Here are a few recent examples. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Plus, plain Ford is just better WP:CONSISTENCY with how most of our other car maker articles are titled: Dodge, Volkswagen, BMW, Nissan, Bentley, Volvo, Toyota, ... —В²C ☎ 16:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Those references are made in the context of cars. In that context, Ford naturally means Ford Motor Company and is unlikely to mean anything else. But without that context, it is still ambiguous. What if "Ford" was used in a discussion of US presidents?. Or in a discussion of water sources. Wikipedia does not have a background context until the reader actually arrives on the page, therefore the context cannot be assumed.
Likewise, invoking WP:CONSISTENCY assumes a context - which may not be the context that the reader is thinking of. And all your examples involve names that are much less likely to be used in other contexts (Dodge might be different for a dictionary but not here).
Allowing the search box to show alternatives as they type is user friendly and very natural to use. As they type "Ford" they see a list of liekly topics and can choose the one that matches wha they are thinking. Why on Earth would you want to replace that with a guessing game?  Stepho  talk  22:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
This objection applies to every ambiguous title with a primary topic, including Dodge, which has a page and a half of other uses listed at Dodge (disambiguation), but also Paris/Paris (disambiguation), Porsche/Porsche (disambiguation) esp. Ferdinand Porsche, etc. So, really, this objection implies the car company is not the primary topic for Ford, but every time this question has been raised consensus has been that it is the primary topic (See section below). Given the primary topic status, the ambiguity/context/guessing-game argument is moot. —-В²C ☎ 23:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes if the context is established you would refer to the River Thames as just Thames or the Mississippi River as just Mississippi but that doesn't make the shorter titles the desirable ones. Obviously the strong counter point is that most of those (other than possibly Ford) are usually known to the everyday person by their shorter names and it may be the case that EB is using a too "official" name but I thought that one of the major reasons we use common names rather than always official names is that that is what most other encyclopedias do. Obviously if most readers are likely to use the shorter name to search then the companies should be considered full matches for primary topic purposes even if the articles are actually placed at the longer titles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like you’re confusing the purpose of COMMONNAME with the purpose of PRIMARYTOPIC. PRIMARYTOPIC is about arranging titles to make internal searches more efficient. That’s why we look at page view stats to determine PRIMARYTOPIC. COMMONNAME is just the main guidance for deciding an article title. It has nothing to do with search likelihood. Of course the river is not primary for Mississippi like this article is primary for Ford. A better example is Nile despite Nile (disambiguation) and the availability of Nile River. Whether Thames or Rver Thames is used more commonly is a good question, but I think there’s no question that the car company is called just Ford far more frequently than Ford Motor Company. That’s why Ford is the COMMONNAME, and, since the car company is also the PRIMARYTOPIC for Ford, why Ford should be the title. --В²C ☎ 21:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Note that in non English speaking countries they usually don't have "River" as a prefix of suffix. Britannica uses "River Thames" but for some reason it also uses "Nile River". Along the same lines maybe Mississippi (disambiguation) should be moved to Mississippi. Along the same lines although I don't think people would ever talk or (or search for) "Toyota Motor Corporation" even though Britannica uses that name Britannica uses "Skye" even though we use Isle of Skye. In the case of Skye though its pretty clear when looking at other sources (both reliable like the OS and unreliable like advertising websites) that "Isle of Skye" is very common and probably more so than "Skye" alone. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m only seeing reasons to Support in this latest comment. Will you change your !vote? —В²C ☎ 20:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
That might apply to Toyota but its less clear with Ford, I think PRIMARYTOPIC and COMMONNAME aren't clearly satisfied and that we should just move Ford (disambiguation) to Ford (as most of the opposers appear to be arguing) and just put this to bed. My opposition is still rather weak though. And what's you're opinion on Skye? Would you have supported that move that was made last year? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no personal knowledge about Skye vs Isle of Skye usage except for the “Skye vacation” Google Search results I just got which suggest Isle of Sky is the more common name. Similar to how a search for “Ford rental” clearly shows that Ford is the more common name. Even if you think it’s close, CONCISION as the tie breaker clearly favors Ford. —В²C ☎
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PRIMARYTOPIC issue for Ford settled

In the RM discussion above the claim that the primary topic issue for Ford has been settled has been questioned. I’ve found these relevant RMs:

  • 2006 RM consensus to not move Ford (disambiguation) to Ford, leaving Ford as PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article, confirming this topic to be PRIMARYTOPIC for “Ford”.
  • 2018 RM confirms established consensus about the motor company being the PRIMARYTOPIC for “Ford”.

I submit that these RMs, along with the long-standing (since 2006) PRIMARYREDIRECT from Ford to this article, settle the PRIMARYTOPIC issue here as firmly as reasonably possible anywhere on WP. —В²C ☎ 20:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I submit that the above RM shows that no consensus can be called on this currently. Wikipedia is not perfect or always consistent. We had consensus for eleven years that New York (state) was not the primary topic of New York but see wp:NYRM for what happened, those that don't already know (and be warned it's a long and depressing read despite the eventual outcome and some issues are still not resolved).
The miracle of Wikipedia is that it works so well so much of the time. See wp:creed#consensus.
Specifically of course I still think that Primary Topic has reached its use-by date in any case. This is still more evidence of that. Andrewa (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Windsor Engine Plant

Hi all. Why the article Windsor Engine Plant was deleted? Apparently Ford has Windsor Engine Plant running in addition to Essex Engine Plant. Thanks. --Now wiki (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

Employees 260,000 - Source Ford Motor Co. Commercial aired during World Series - 10/23/20 - needs updated to reflect current # of employees - almost a year off. 71.222.132.191 (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Asartea Trick | Treat 04:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Formula 1 section

It reads currently: Formula Ford, conceived in the UK in 1966, is an entry-level type of formula racing with wingless single-seater cars. Many of today's formula racing drivers started their car racing careers in this category.

Really? Can anyone name a driver from 1966 who is still competitive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.173.90 (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Formula Ford started in 1966 but it is still alive and well and producing new generations of drivers. It's a continuing process, not a one-off event. I used to watch them in the 1990s between my races in the sedan categories.  Stepho  talk  06:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

History

How can there be there be zero information on Ford Motor Company's history as an aircraft manufacturer? The Ford Trimotor was a big part of the company and a major reason FDR approached Ford to build planes for the military. Willow Run was the largest aircraft plant in the world when it was built and it turned out thousands of B-24s, yet this entire history is missing from Ford's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottca075 (talk • contribs)

Please feel free to add a summary to the page - with appropriate references and links.
Also remember to sign your talk page comments by placing ~~~~ at the end of your comment.  Stepho  talk  07:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation Notices

It seems that every paragraph in the 20th century section is a non-cited source.

YY 08:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It does have a few cited sources here and there, but you're basically right, the section is quite weak in the sourcing department. That's a Wikipedia-wide problem, and it's worsening.... --Urbanoc (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The article already points to History of Ford Motor Company - which does have plenty of references. The history section of this article should be cut right back to a mere summary. It is also weird that the 20 years of this century have more coverage than the entire century before. See WP:RECENTISM.  Stepho  talk  22:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Not really. All potentially questionable/challenged content in an article should ideally be sourced, with inline citations, even if it's just a summary. The only summary style writting that doesn't need sources is an article's lead section, as it supposedly is a briefing of the topics covered (and, theoretically, sourced) through the rest of the article. Sources in other Wikipedia articles supporting the content sure are better than nothing, but at the same time it's not a strong excuse for us just don't try to solve it. Problem is, no-one will take the time to cite sources for it (I'm not planning to do it, at least...), so at this point keeping it as it is the only viable option which doesn't imply removing key info, although if this article is someday put forward for good/featured status that will surely be addressed by the reviewer. As for the recentism point, I'd say you're probably right because, as we come closer to present-day events, the article turns more and more detailed. In any case, most of the late-years focus is in fact sourced, so that's a problem with the section's balance, which is off. Especially as we guide the reader into a history-specific article. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the most viable option is to simply delete the contents of that entire section. The content is already at History of Ford Motor Company. We'd leave behind the smallest stub in the section here that simply points to History of Ford Motor Company. Also has the benefit of shortening this very long article. Assuming no objections, I can do the hatchet job.  Stepho  talk  23:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
That does sound reasonable. It actually addresses the concerns of our fellow editor in a simple manner. I personally support your idea, but I can't speak for the rest of the editors. If no-one appears here in the next few days with objections, I'd say we can assume you can proceed. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2021

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

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Clear consensus against the move proposal. There is discussion that, instead, the redirect Ford (currently targeting this page) should be replaced with the page currently at Ford (disambiguation); however a separate RM would need to be filed for that move. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ford Motor Company → Ford – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the title of this page should be Ford. It already redirects here. There are historical figures with the same name, but the company is overwhelmingly the primary subject of this name. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Note This move was discussed last year [6]. Springee (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this perennial proposal for the same reasons I opposed it less than a year ago: No reader will be surprised to find this article titled "Ford Motor Company" as that is the name of the company, and reasonably common to see in other media when to the company itself (as opposed to the Ford brand alone) is referred to. A move would be a solution to a non-existent problem. --Sable232 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    Wether it would be a "solution to a non-existent problem" is not relevant. Based on the WP:COMMONNAME policy, I think that Ford is the correct title of this article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this title communicates the exact scope of the article. I would contend that the problem is that Ford is a bad primary redirect here, and that Ford (disambiguation) should move to primary so that we avoid bad/lazy internal wikilinks. -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support PRIMARYTOPIC is established with PRIMARYREDIRECT. COMMONNAME because the proposed title is far more common than the current title to refer to this topic. Also per CONCISION (obviously). Why have policy, guidelines and WP:CRITERIA if we ignore them and make up rules like “no reader will be surprised”, “reasonably common” (but not as common; not the most common), “solution to non-existent problem” (that applies to almost all title changes unless you recognize inferior adherence to guidelines to be a problem), [current] “title communicates exact scope” (communicating exact scope is not the purpose of the title; the purpose is to communicate the most common name), and the dab page should be moved to the base name (despite the clear primary topic). Enough of the WP:JDLI arguments already. —В²C ☎ 19:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should instead consider moving Ford (disambiguation) back to Ford. As I look at this past year's traffic stats between this and an article like Gerald Ford,[7] they are comparable. In fact the former US President has tended to generate more traffic and regular spikes within the past few years.[8] Thus I would prefer that there really should not be any primary topic based on either usage or long-term significance. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I understand the thinking but in this case Ford Motor Company is a very clear name and not likely to cause confusion (unlike perhaps Leland Stanford Junior University). Also, while Ford may be the common name, Ford is also the last name of many individuals as well as a river crossing. I'm not sure where I would stand on a question regarding "Ford"-> disambiguation page vs here. I can see very strong arguments for each. Springee (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOPRIMARY as with last year, Britannica uses the current title and there are a huge number of uses, move Ford (disambiguation) to Ford instead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Strong oppose And I believe the disambiguation should be primary topic. This is not even a primary redirect situation much less a primary topic situation. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PC Power Management--Not Notable

I'd like to remove the section about PC Power Management / Night Watchman. It's 12 year old news, and I don't think it is terribly notable in the grand scheme of things. TAPwiki (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You are probably right. In any case, you can be bold and just remove it. If someone disagrees with you, they can revert you (explaining why, of course). --Urbanoc (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Green Buildlings / Facilities

I added a new sub-section about environmental facilities such as the Rouge living roof and the new Dearborn Campus Transformation plan.TAPwiki (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What will happened to 2020 cars/trucks waiting for chips?

Will these cars and trucks be sold as 2020s or will they be sold as 2022 or 2023? 2600:1700:7491:C4D0:9088:852E:4094:FA65 (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Depends on which crystal ball you use.  Stepho  talk  14:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

Section 7.8 is severely lacking, They now have 2 Championship Titles by Vaughn Gitten Jr. and now the lineup of Chelsea Denofa and Adam LZ running in their new RTR Spec5D Drift Cars. Vaughn no longer drives a Falken Mustang and has not for a long while. JasonIsPenguin (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually they did mention something that needs to be changed in that "Vaughn no longer drives a Falken Mustang" but they haven't provided any sources. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Sounds link @JasonIsPenguin: already knows the new details. Jason, you can add this in yourself - as long as you supply supporting references. Make an attempt - we will help you if you make mistakes.  Stepho  talk  23:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"فورد" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect فورد and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#فورد until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

This 2001 article has had 2,505 editors, 741 watchers, and 129,599 pageviews in 30 days, according to the stats. I would have thought it would be better.
  • Citations: The criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
"Citation needed" tags (back to 2018) are sort of a spoiler about the B-classification.
  • The article is reasonably well-written.. The "Hidden categories" gives indications the article has been marked "outdated" as far back as 2010 and includes 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2021.
I just happened to land in the "Corporate affairs" section, "Executive management" subsection, and it still shows Jim Hackett as president and CEO.
I am not sure how "Ford Motor Company Fund" (with a "citation needed" tag) landed in a prominent top-section spot (most people do like charities) but since the charity "now plays no role in the automobile company" it should be demoted down. The "History" section (very long 20th and 21st century subsections) could very well make use of some subsections. It may be just me but an article about a company that just barely touches on "The Man that Saved Ford" (remember Alan Mulally?) is missing something, at the very least a subsection.
I am reassessing the article to C-class per the above information. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Chronology

I find it normal for something I read to have a chronological flow. The "20th-century" and 21st-century subsections are actually (to me) a hard read. The dates bounce around like a super ball. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Seems mostly in chronological order to me. Only the 21st century paragraph starting "William Clay Ford Jr." is out of order.
However, there is a main link to History of Ford Motor Company. So, I'd be more tempted to rip almost all of this history out and leave just the main link and a single paragraph.  Stepho  talk  07:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I cannot argue with that. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amcsparkplug (article contribs). Peer reviewers: LindseyWilliams42, Cbrow25.

— Assignment last updated by ACSTS1010 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2023

In the section about indy car racing,

change "These speed records still stand as of 2018.[172]" to "These speed records still stand as of 2022.[172]" Sschwartz2013 (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

requests will be declined. -->

. --> }} 67.208.195.234 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

1999 sales

According to a report from 1999, Ford was excepted to produce or sell 7.77 million vehicles in 1999. This number included Mazda, which was owned to 1/3 by Ford 1996 to November 2008. However, OICA shows that Ford produced "only" around 6.5 million in 1999, and excludes Mazda, I wonder why.

According to this report, Ford (including Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Lincoln) was also expected to increase its vehicle production to 9.15 million a year in 2005, and surpass General Motors as the largest automaker. 90.231.234.93 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to comment on "this report" when we don't know what that report is. Links would be helpful.
It's always a difficult question for whether to combine brands or to list them separately. In this case, I agree with OICA to list Mazda separately. Ford has always been closely linked with Mercury and Lincoln for almost it's entire existence. The advertising of them was always Ford for the common many, Mercury for the more affluent man and Lincoln for the rich man, with buyers expected to change brands as their economic position improved. Mazda, Jaguar, Volvo Range Rover have joined and later split from Ford, were not intimately linked to Ford for extended periods of time and did not form part of that economic progression.
Also be aware that some reports are US only, N.America only, or world-wide. And whether or not they include pickups, light trucks, full size trucks (eg 20 ton), motorcycles, knockdown kits (common in export markets) and vehicles made but not sold. A real minefield.  Stepho  talk  23:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
My first point on that is Mazda never came to be a consolidated subsidiary of Ford, even if Ford had a sizeable, potentially controlling stake. And Japanese companies are strongly guaranteed by the government, so less than 50% there may be a theoretical controlling stake but not an actual one. That's the reason I think Ford/Mazda and other companies (VW/Suzuki, Renault/Nissan..) were always counted separately by OICA despite the shareholdings technically giving control to one side.
Second (and this is a confusion very common, especially among American editors) production and sales are not the same thing. Companies sell all the time things they didn't actually produce (some are trillion dollar ones, as Apple) and claim sales in minority-owned operations as their own (eg Ford neighbour GM). It looks good at AGMs.
Third, OICA had to decide to which manufacturer it gave the production numbers, as companies tend to count for themselves facilities in which they only have a minority or a de facto non-controlling stake. The press and shareholders may go with it, but OICA needed to avoid the double counts. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
1999 report in which Mazda is included in Ford's total production (estimated to 7.77 million in 1999, including Mazda; OICA, which excludes Mazda, estimated around 6.5 million). Ford, including Mazda, was expected to surpass General Motors as the largest automaker in 2005, with an estimated production of 9.15 million vehicles, in comparison to G.M. which was estimated to produce 9.10 million. (However, Ford's production stagnated in the 2000s, so Ford even didn't keep its place as the second-largest automaker; Ford was the second-largest automaker, behind G.M. for the last year in 2004, with 7.91 million vehicles - including Mazda - as Toyota, with 7.87 million vehicles in 2004, increased its production to 8.4 million vehicles in 2005.) 212.100.101.104 (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Before we proceed, what do you complain about on this article exactly? I didn't find your points of contention the first time I looked around, but I supposed the 1999 OICA rankings were mentioned in passing. I glanced the article again a couple of times, and still didn't find anyting on 1999 OICA rankings. Most of the general rankings I found through the artice were sales and revenue/profit rankings by American media companies (like Forbes) which aren't generally considered too biased and certainly not try to diminish Ford (sometimes Tesla, but that's another point). Other mentions come from Ford itself (certainly not a source aimed at diminish Ford in positive rankings). There's a lot of conflating sales with production (as I said, something common in articles edited by Americans). The only use of an OICA ranking I found was a 2015 one in the lede, but by that time Ford was already almost completely out of Mazda, so a 1999 Mazda share ownership is a moot point, and you are free to remove that info as isn't presented in-line with Wikipedia policies, it uses Wikipedia as a source instead of OICA and doesn't clarify the ranking is the OICA one (as you mentioned, there are other production rankings, all of them paywalled BTW). Your criticism seems to be directed at the OICA ranking as a whole, not to a thing mentioned here, so the discussion should be cut/pasted to Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production where it makes sense, if you agree. If not, there's nothing more to say as this is irrelevant here. My following statements are made as if the discussion was moved.
So, after clarifying that caveat, I can answer to your post. Thanks for the news article discussing the ranking. If LA Times is correct, at least is actually a production ranking instead of a sales ranking, which a lot of people tried to equate here (the study is lousy and laughably wrong, however, I'd look to read it too have a good time, but I don't want to spend the money...) I'd say the absolute statement "33.4% share is considered controlling interest" is just plain wrong, as that's not how things work in practice in the Japanese corporate world. You can have even less than that and actually control a company and more and the company can still operate independently if provisions are made. That only applies at things like naming directors and certain legal proceedings (ie from a legal standpoint). I still think OICA took the sensible route here.
Having said that, there was never opposition to add alternative production rankings that use other criteria. And PricewaterhouseCoopers is widely used through Wikipedia, especially in US-focused articles, so I don't oppose its usage here. If, as part of the study, Autofacts created a 1999 ranking and not just focused on the two American companies and if you have access to such ranking, you can add it here alongside the OICA one. But we won't use that failed study to "fix" the OICA ranking as that is original research and is against Wikipedia policy. That wouldn't be an OICA ranking but a Wikipedia made up ranking combining things arbitrarly. Hope that clarifies things. --Urbanoc (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
According to OICA's 1999 report, Ford produced 6.638 million vehicles in 1999 (excluding Mazda), and Mazda (then 33,3 % owned by Ford) 967 000 vehicles. Combined, Ford-Mazda produced 7.605 million, almost 100 000 less than 7.7 million which was estimated in the report that Ford was expected to increase its production to 9.15 million in 2005, and then surpass General Motors (with estimated 9.10 million in 2005) as the largest automaker. 212.100.101.104 (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah, so your real goal is to "prove" that Ford is bigger than GM. That OICA report separates Ford and Mazda. It also separates GM and Isuzu. With some creative accounting we can "prove" either one is bigger by choosing whether to include full subsidiaries, partial subsidiaries, cars only, cars+pickups, cars+pickups+heavy trucks, US only production, global production, knock-down kits, etc, etc.  Stepho  talk  23:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I never said Ford is bigger than G.M., but that Ford was expected in 1999 to increase its production to 9.15 million vehicles a year by 2005, and then surpass General Motors as the largest automaker, as General Motors was expected to produce 9.10 million in 2005.
Please listen or read more carefully what I'm saying or writing! 212.100.101.104 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Please state clearly what changes you want made.  Stepho  talk  23:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
In 2004, most news reports claimed that Ford had been surpassed by Toyota as the second-largest automaker (behind General Motors) in 2003, but that was not the case if Mazda's sales/production would be included, alternatively if Toyota would be counted alone without Daihatsu and Hino.
According to OICA, Toyota (including Daihatsu and Hino) produced more than 7.1 million vehicles in 2003 (of which over 6.2 million by Toyota alone), and Ford around 6.5 million. However, Mazda made around 1 million in 2003 and Ford-Mazda would therefore be larger than Toyota both in 2003 and 2004; first in 2005 did Toyota surpass Ford. 90.231.234.93 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Much easier if you include links to the data so that we don't have to waste time searching for it.:
In both cases OICA listed Toyota separately from Daihatsu and Hino (opposite of your claim). Ford is listed separately from Mazda (agreeing with you). If we combine them as per your wish (which is not a universally agreed thing) then you get the following totals:
Year Total Company Company Company
2003 7,220,764 Toyota (6,240,526) Daihatsu (897,116) Hino (83,122)
2003 7,718,667 Ford+Jaguar+VolvoCars (6,566,089) Mazda (1,152,578
2004 7,874,694 Toyota (6,814,554) Daihatsu (965,295) Hino (94,845)
2004 7,919,104 Ford+Jaguar+VolvoCars (6,644,024) Mazda (1,275,080)
This does indeed put the combined Ford production ahead of the combined Toyota production by about 1%. However, you have to make your case about why OICA's choice of combining companies is wrong. Remember that according to WP:RS and WP:SYNTH, we should rely on 3rd party references and not try to synthesis our own results.  Stepho  talk  01:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Aston Martin

Didn't Ford sell its remaining 8% stake in Aston Martin? 2601:2C6:5000:92F0:D9E9:6984:7D37:5EEE (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought they sold it back in 2008 but article is locked so I can’t fix it 2601:19E:4300:83E0:1D0:CFDA:9F25:44AF (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a reference?  Stepho  talk  21:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure that Ford sold Aston Martin in 2007. 90.231.234.93 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Motor_Company/Archive_5&oldid=1245677603"