Talk:Ford Maverick (2022)

On 8 April 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Ford Maverick (pickup truck). The result of the discussion was not moved.

CRYSTAL?

This article violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The article is also poorly named. Assuming there is a Ford Mustang release in 2021, would it be called a MY2021 or MY2022 release? If it is called a MY2022 release shouldn't the article be called Ford Maverick (2022)? Of course, the article shouldn't include a year at all, rather it should be something like Ford Maverick (Truck). (This also begs the question should the current Ford Maverick (Americas) article also be renamed.) — Garshgrang (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to violate WP:AUTOCONV#Unannounced vehicles. More official info could come soon, but right now it seems forums and spy shots are the primary sources. I'm neutral about deleting it. Regarding the title, if it's an international vehicle it should have the production year, since model year is mostly only for North American vehicles. --Vossanova ^o< 19:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is bordering on the issue. While I'm not for deleting an article that will end up being created again in the near future; this content cannot practically co-exist with other articles as well. At this point, it is best to keep things in limbo until more reliable (and additional) information comes out. (considering Ford has yet to put this on its website as a "Future Vehicle", it has a speculative tone and needs confirmation that it will be produced). --SteveCof00 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Ford's Future Vehicle site. BilCat (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article title should be changed to something like "Ford Maverick (pickup truck)" since it is highly unlikely there will only be a 2022 year model. Also, Ford Maverick (1970–1977) should be renamed to "Ford Maverick (compact car)" since they are vehicles of unrelated development, so production years aren't as relevant in disambiguation. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 04:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 April 2022

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) KevinNov3 (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Maverick (2022) → Ford Maverick (pickup truck) – Per talk page, more understandable and less time-dependent. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Kj cheetham (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are a couple of editors disagreeing on the use of model year, production year or "pickup truck", meaning this might be better left to a full discussion to ensure we settle on the right title, though the discussion is somewhat stale at this point. ASUKITE 20:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Automobiles has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Object Don't forget that there was a Ford Maverick pick-up sold in Australia 1988-1994. It was a rebadged Nissan Patrol (Y60) but it's still an officially sold Ford Maverick. See Ford Maverick and https://www.carsguide.com.au/ford/maverick/price/1988 . Stepho talk 23:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support don't think mention of year is that important anymore. AnM2002 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I technically disagree with the consensus as it is clear that this either should be relisted or marked as "no consensus". ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard me saying it should be relisted since it was relisted once. However, the result should be marked as "no consensus" and not "not moved". ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs attention from someone with knowledge of North American motoring press

Currently large parts of this article are unreferenced and read to me more like a sales brochure than an encyclopaedia article. I'm not sure where to look to improve this article, but rather than uncritically repeating the options sheet it would be much better if the focus was on reliable independent sources have talked about in reviews of the product, noting what they may have praised or criticised along the way. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is going to delve into the details of what trim levels and options are offered, the primary concern is that it should do so accurately. The original /*Trim levels*/ section apparently was derived in part from press articles and independent sources, but it was full of inaccuracies. These have been corrected by careful study of the primary source (Ford's spec sheets and marketing materials). Invariably, then, there is reliance on Ford's specs and terminology for the correct facts about the various options with which the various models can be equipped, but not, I hope, on any of Ford's advertising claims for the product. These trim levels and options are an important part of the article precisely because it is not always easy to tease their details out of Ford's web site, and many press reviewers have gotten them wrong. For example, the fact that you cannot equip the base model with cruise control, period, is not explicitly advertised anywhere in Ford's materials, and many press reviewers who describe the base model's features omit that fact or get it wrong -- but it is perhaps significant to the reader. The /*Trim levels*/ section exists solely to correctly and concisely summarize the details about how the various models differ and how they can be equipped with optional features, so that the reader can understand what Maverick configurations are possible -- not to advertise or evaluate any of the models or options. In the case of an article describing what is after all a new product for sale, there is unfortunately really no other way to accomplish this accurately except by relying chiefly on the primary source. Dc.samizdat (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:INDEPENDENT sources aren't reporting on the trim levels and options in their reviews of this vehicle then we shouldn't comment upon them. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All independent reviewers do report on the trim levels and options, because it is very important to most readers, but no reviewer provides complete details and as I indicated many report some of the most important facts about options incorrectly. The only authoritative source is Ford. I could cite the independent reviewers with respect to trim levels, but it hardly seems appropriate. Does anyone doubt Ford is the most authoritative source for this configuration information? Again, I'm not parroting Ford's advertising, in fact I'm not even evaluating or comparing the various options (as the reviewers often do), I'm just stating which models can be configured with which major options. These are precisely the kind of encyclopedic facts it is legitimate to acquire from a primary source.Dc.samizdat (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NIS says "Non-independent sources should never be used to support claims of notability, but can with caution be used to fill in noncontroversial details." In other words, if Ford says it is the most fuel efficient vehicle on Earth then we don't take their word for it but if Ford says it has 3 cup holders then that's fine. Common sense. Having said that, it's not vital to report on every option of every trim level. It's not even vital to mention every trim level - some of them might just be "base level" and "one tiny step up from base level", so personally I just lump them together as poverty packs and move on. We only need to mention the major deviations - ie mention that a certain interesting piece of equipment/engine/cupholder is on or not on certain trim levels. At the end of the day, we are not a brochure - see WP:NOTCATALOG. Stepho talk 04:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial?

Ford lariat considered a commerciss as l truck 2600:1011:B18C:BC8C:6D00:445C:BBFA:A5CC (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]