Talk:Ford Falcon GT

FPV GT

Given that the FPV GT is not a Ford or a Falcon, I propose that it would be better if covered on its own page rather than under "Ford Falcon GT". GTHO (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As Ford have always claimed anniversary GTs based on the original 1967 Falcon GT it is quite clear that Ford Australia believes otherwsie. --Falcadore (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

FPV GT R-spec

As the FPV GT R-spec is just a higher performance version of the FPV GT, the very small content of this new article should be merged here. --Falcadore (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

The GTHO is a higher perfomance verison of the GT also, and they have there own page. I don't see any difference, nor harm in having a seperate page for what some see as a modern day GTH0 Space alligator (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The GTHO does not have its own page. GTHO has its data pulled together on the Falcon GT page. If the GTHO, the biggest performance name in Australian motor racing sits on the Falcon GT page was does a very brief limited run R-spec? --Falcadore (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Under the page Ford XY Falcon GT, so seperate from the Falcon GT page.Space alligator (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But definately not on its own page. That page only has XY GTHO anyway, not XW GTHO or XA GTHO. So it still doesn't explain why the GT R-spec should get its own page when XR8, or XR6, many many times more important models do not. --Falcadore (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If many other important models lack there own page, thats not that fault of this page is it not? The role of this site is to allow people to access information about topics, am i correct? To condense the info into one page would be confusing. The Ford Falcon GT page atc more of a gate-way to other variants, consisting of spec charts, and the R-spec will be added to those charts linking to this page. Just as this page contains links to Ford Performance Vehicles and Ford Falcon GT pages. The page also contains cited sources, and links to both the FPV website, and the R-specs standalone website.Space alligator (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but you are not demonstrating why this version of the Falcon is deserving of a stand alone page when no other single model of Falcon does. Instead of a short article here, it would much better be served to be presented as a part of the Falcon GT article. After all It's name is not that of an individual model is it, or it would be like the F6 which has its own identity. But the FPV GT R-Spec is just a small part of the GT identity, it's there in its name. Also, secondary sources are just as importnant, if not more, than primary sources like PFVs website.

IF the GT R-spec had a multi-generational identiy for exmplae like it had been present in BA, BF, FG it would have a much stronger case. --Falcadore (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC) --Falcadore (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the R-spec has got multi genrerational identity...with the BF and BFII falcons having R-spec models, and those models will be expanded apon. Also, the F6 variations of the FPV have there own page. Again, if a certain model has not got its own page, thats not the fault of this artical. If you cannot properly reserch the subject, then obviously you opinion has very little value. Im beginning to think that you are just showing non-objective thinking, with a biased and/or personal agender.Space alligator (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

why do all the HSVs get their own page then?? GTS, Senator and Clubsport?? there not different cars just different spec levels. what's next you going too make omega, berlina, Calais and SS have their own page too??? why does W427 deserve a page then?? its just a higher performance HSV by that theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.85.70 (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Those other HSVs have established seperate identities. As does the FPV F6. The GT R-spec has always been a GT thoguh and an article on the GT already exists so additional detail should be incorporated there. Much in same way that various Impreza WRX and STi models are covered by the Impreza article. If FPV wanted the R-Spec to exist separetly from the history of the GT then it would have been very easy to call it the FPV R-Spec instead of the FPV GT R-spec. Simple really. --Falcadore (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

actually they do not. they are specifications. . all based on the commodore. they all share the same body and are built on the same platform as the holden commodore. . this here is another example. all built on the same platform as the commodore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildrider84 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Chevrolet Camaro is based on a Commodore. So we should merge that too? You think the Ford Fairmont, Fairline and LTD should be merged into Falcon? --Falcadore (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Camaro might be based on a commodore but it doesn't make the commodore a Camaro now does it?? two complete different cars. the current Camaro is not a VE series now is it??. haven't seen a VE commodore coupe yet or is that what you call the Camaro?? here's a hint. do your self a favor. got too your local new car dealer and ask about any car get a brochure and look at the different specs levels you can get. I seem too think your a holden fan so go look at your local holden dealer and ask about the different specs of commodore you can get. then go ask about HSVs there all the same, even ford, even Toyota. how many specs of camry can you get?? point is that I am making is that if your allowed too have all different HSV cars on here so should the FPV cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildrider84 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well then I suggest you start a merger discussion on the various HSV cars and suggest a destination location for all those cars. In the meantime we can return to the subject and you can suggest why the FPV GT R-Spec is sufficiently notable that it should get an article independant of the FPV GT. --Falcadore (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There is one car that is quicker than the FPV GT R-Spec and that is HULK_BA's (RAPID_BA) Super Charged XR8. This XR8 does 6 seconds down the quarter mile and is feared by most drag cars. This car has 3000RWK.

How is that even vaguely important to this discussion? Personally modified cars fall a very very long way short of meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline for inclusion. --Falcadore (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

well maybe if you didn't go around making claims about how the FPV GT- R spec is just a higher performance GT you might not get comments like this?? HSVs are just all high performance holdens but yet they get too have a page for every model — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildrider84 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we were already discussing this and offered you a suggestion on how to proceed. --Falcadore (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well if you want to merge the Gt-R spec, maybe you should think about merging the w427 as well, cos even less of them were made ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC) babyf6

Nothing to stop you starting that merger, but that is a seperate discussion. --Falcadore (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge seems the way to go - it keeps the essential data and the GT-R is not significant enough to stand on its own. NealeFamily (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

not significant enough? have you ever seen one, or even looked up one, see how significant it is.....124.181.132.242 (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)babyf6

Looking at a car does not make it significant. Wikipedia has guidelines on this, please have a read of Wikipedias notability guidelines. --Falcadore (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Falcadore, have you been sleeping under a rock, it is the fastest car made in australia, surely that deserves its own page.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.27.162 (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The R-spec consists of 4 different models, and cannot be included in a general disscussion on other cars, as the Falcon GT page offers only a brief summery of each generation, and thats fine, as long as a user can then see an in-depth artical on a specific model.Space alligator (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedias prefered plan would be that you expand the subject material on both the Ford Falcon GT page and on the generational pages (Ford FG Falcon, Ford BA Falcon etc) rather than start whole new pages. Fewer articles written more comprehensively is prefered to a great many stub articles. --Falcadore (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an essay at Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) which discusses the criteria which might be helpful to all of you. Just a thought - Ford and FPV (Ford Performance Vehicles) would be able to be treated as two separate categories of Falcon, in much the same way as AMG and Mercedes Benz are. That might be a better way to proceed. Falcadore's comments in the section below are also relevant background as to what the Wiki communities consensus has been to date. NealeFamily (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already sussed out various articals on the site, particuarly the Mustang pages due to the vast array of subject matter that they cover, such as specific pages for certain models such as the California Special Mustang. Given that the R-spec runs a course ove different generations, inclusion in another page would simply be hard to follow. And yes, FPV and Ford are listed differently Space alligator (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The GT runs over several generations. Why would it be more difficult? That makes no sense. Including it in the GT article is remarkably simple. --Falcadore (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the GT page will require complete re-writing to accomodate the same insite that this page covers, the simplest idea is just to have the Falcon GT page as a general overview for each generations, and then over time improve the content on the seperate Models and/or upgrades.Space alligator (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Its an idea, but an idea that has already been previously knocked on the head, in the links provided for you previously. And besides, there already is a general overview page, at Ford Falcon (Australia). Nesting "overview" pages is not a good idea. No reason to not commence on the GT page. --Falcadore (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

But, the problem is, the R-spec alone is a seperate model, from GT, run over 4 different models including one non-GT model, and in the case of Cobra and FG variants featured numourous changes over the standard GT.Space alligator (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

References

EL GT

Rivision undone (removed re-direct) as no discussion was had. EL GT is part of a project to provide in depth information about the history of the line, and will have more information added.

Falcadore seem to have biased, personal and/or ill advised matters, and is vandlising these pagesSpace alligator (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The EL GT article seems confused. Was it a Falcoln or a Fairmont or Falcoln that used Fairmont parts or something else? In addition the model seems to be a minor version of a major model and have nothing to make it special enough for its own article at this point. I see Space alligator intends to add more so I'll wait and see.

Also suggesting a merger is not vandalism - it is to promote discussion. You don't have to agree with the proposal but starting an edit was over it is not discussion.NealeFamily (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I made the EL GT article a redirect for a simple reason, and that is:

Ford XR Falcon GT

Ford XT Falcon GT

Ford XA Falcon GT

Ford XB Falcon GT

Ford EB Falcon GT

FPV BA GT

FPV BF GT

Are all redirects. I fail completely to see why the EL GT should not be treated the same manner. --Falcadore (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally it is not vandalism to do what the Automobile Wikiproject does for virtually all cars the world over. I would appreciate not being called a vandal for following standard wikipedia practice. Where have you established that either the EL GT or the GT R-Spec have achieved notability independant of their base model? --Falcadore (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Vandalisim was a referance to a redirect , one that pointed towards a artical that featured very little (no vital) information about the said Model, one that removed the artical and information written by me. "nothing to make it special enough" is an objectivable viewpoint, as this car is a collectable item, with history and passion attached to it.

I will be willing to merge to a page including the EA GT prototype and EB GT models in the future, but intill then i feel that this subject cannot be completely covered as a foot note in a grander aritical.

The XW/XY GT is on its own page, and part of my project for improved coverage, all models (or series) will be eventually on there own page, to accurately provide the specifications and perfomance details that are othervise lacking. Space alligator (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia deleted/redirected all those sort of pages across almost all cars about a year ago. I would strongly suggest that you bring this plan up with WikiProject Automobiles (which co-ordinates work on car-related articles) before going further less you find your work wasted when they follow through on previous policy and delete them. --Falcadore (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Previous debates to visit:

Talk:Subaru Impreza#Pulling the "band-aid" and suggesting various articles shoud be merged into Impreza

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 27#Mass article merger

These will give you an insight into how Wikipedia structures its automobile articles. --Falcadore (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That example is more relevent to say, the XR series, and Ghia series.Space alligator (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as relevant here. It's why there is all those GT redirects. If you really think it does not apply, ask the Wikiproject and get it confirmed. --Falcadore (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

They are only redirects because noone has been bothered to take the time to write an artical on them...Just Like the XW GT has its seperate page, Group A SS, other HSV models all have there pages. Are you suggesting that no artical be created on the basis of other peoples lazyness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space alligator (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. They are edredirects because it is against Wikipedia policy to create articles on specific generation/model vehicle like the GT in just EL. We have an EL article and a GT article already. Why create a duplication?

Why not just ask the Wikiproject if my word and NealeFamily's words are not enough for you? --Falcadore (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So why then, is there specific pages for Ford XY Falcon GT , or HSV Avalanche (to cite examples? As i have stated above, The EA and EB GT's will becoverd in an umbrellera artical, as they were created as a joint between Tickford and Ford, not a direct ford product as per the GT range before it. Other then that, there are significant changes to each model over the base. Space alligator (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The XY GT article is already a merged article as originally the Phase III GTHO had its own article, but there is no reason why the XY GT can't be merged into XY Falcon. As to HSV Avalanche, what article would you merge it into? Unlike the EL GT it is not a single generation vehicle, and unlike GT R-spec it does not have an immediately obvious parent article. Do you have a suggestion? --

Falcadore (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To Space alligator and Falcadore - take look at the Ford Mustang article - that may provide some guidance as to how you could revise the Ford Falcon. Sorry Space alligator, I know that means quite a bit of work, but you would end up with a more encyclopedic result rather than what is appearing to have become WP:FAN item. NealeFamily (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence my intention to cover the Tickford GT's under there own heading, as they are product of Tickford, In the same way that Holden GTS is a seperate (under Holden Monaro) from HSV GTS. Perhaps under Tickford Vehcle Engeneering. This will allow coverage on other select modles that would otherwise not be covered. Also similer to how Ford Mustang SVO and Ford Mustang SVT Cobra. As on one else is attempting to actually cover and expand on these topics, im finding it quite frustrating, personally attacked and bulliedSpace alligator (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Space alligator please don't feel like you are being picked on. That is not the intent of these talk pages. They are the means whereby we (that is all the contributors) can discuss ideas, articles, and content to reach a reasonable consensus within Wikipedia's guidelines. I am happy to help with the editing required because there is a reasonable amount of work involved even if it is a bit daunting. We are aiming for encyclopedic, not quantity - see WP:NOT. We wont always agree with one another and that does provoke debates like this one. Our objective should be to find a way through in good faith.

Can I suggest we break the Australian Falcon's into three major categories: Ford, FPV, and Tickford (you can cross reference all three articles using the a See Also paragraph). Then under each article paragraph under the version XA, XB, XC, ... with these paragraphs, in the same way as the Ford Mustang being a summary of an individual article about each version. Each version would then have all the models relating to that particular version discussed within, with no further sub-articles unless the particular versions model was of such notability to warrant a stand alone article.

You comments, criticism of my suggestion is welcome. NealeFamily (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this has already occurred. The Ford Performance Vehicles article serves in this regard as FPV only make Falcon derived models. Additionally as FPV was merely a rebranding of the Australian Tickford operation after Tickford was acquired by Prodrive this same article should serve the Tickford portion of Ford Australia's aftermarket tuning arm. So in effect there are only two categories, one major (Ford) and one minor (Tickford/FPV). The Ford Falcon (Australia) article already covers the whole history with sub-articles with each generation, matching the Mustang format.

Holden GTS and HSV GTS makes a poor example as the two models are seperated by over twenty years and derived from two seperate cars. HSVs vehicle naming procedure is complicated by Holdens insistance that HSV use no nameplates in use by Holden which is why no HSV has ever been named Commodore or Monaro other than the Commodore SS Group A, which was always sold as a Holden and not as a HSV.

Against that the GT has a long connected history based on a single model. While more recent GTs are sold as FPVs rather than as Fords, the anniversary models, which date to the 1967 Falcon GT clearly indicated Ford Australia see it as a continuation. Individual models within a generation like the Ford EL Falcon GT would correspond to creating an article only on the 1971 - 1973 model of Ford Mustang Mach 1.

The GT R-spec article has a stronger case, being comparable to the Ford Mustang SVT Cobra article, however that would depend on the GT R-spec being established as being seperately notable from the GT which I believe strongly has not been done. The parrallel

The inconsistent nature of the format of these two articles is also contradictory. The GT R-spec is an article on a multi-generational vehicle which is a subset of the GT, while the EL GT article is a specific generational model. Individual HSVs like the Clubsport are not broken up into individual generation models (like HSV VN Clubsport, HSV VT CLubsport, HSV E3 Clubsport, etc).

If the EL GT and GT R-spec were to be continued along this practice we would find single cars will be covered by as many as four articles. The BF generation of the GT R-spec would be written about on Ford BF Falcon, Ford Falcon GT (or FPV GT if Falcon GT was to be forked into Ford/Tickford/FPV), FPV BF GT and FPV GT R-spec. This would then create an incredible mish-mash of information, likely to be contradictory. Only the first two articles are neccessary. The later two are unneccessary content forking. --Falcadore (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Space Alligator, I am of the view that for the individual models such as the EL GT and other GT's you will need to show that they are notable in their own right in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. They may be, I have no opinion on them. I think that the examples of individual models in Wiki that Falcadore has given may assist you in determining what information might be needed to achieve that and what gives them notability. Also take a look at the guidelines I referred to earlier. Hope this helps and if you need further clarification please feel free to contact me or post here. NealeFamily (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyway to share a user's sandbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space alligator (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - the easiest way is to just let the user you want to assist with editing know the link - use standard double brackets and put the link on their talk page. NealeFamily (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have again redirected EL GT. Specific intersections of generation and model are too specific for Wikipedia. Can I recommend that there IS a place appropriate for this? There is both a Wiki and a Wikia where you could write extensively on this subject.

Wikicars, Wikimedias specific wiki on Cars, which is far more appropriate for extensive car coverage.

and

Autopedia, the Wikia specifically created for all things Automotive.

--Falcadore (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be a perfect place for it. NealeFamily (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Support redirect of EL GT into this page as per Falcadore. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems we're back here again. Please add detail to existing articles rather than unneccassary Wikipedia:Content forking. --Falcadore (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)