Talk:Jaguar E-Type

message: :Any additional comments:
The Low Drag coupe described in the article is, I suspect, the E2A concept. The actual Low Drag coupe was an evolution of the lightweight and produced (I think) in 1964. Under the sub heading 'Lightweight' the article mentions that at least 1 was fitted with fuel injection. In actual fact, all 12 'true lightweights' were fitted with Lucas mechanical fuel injection.
Lee Collins  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.178.194 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by this brochure, it was originally the Jaguar "E" Type (sic). E-Type seems more correct. Alternatively you could move it to Jaguar XKE, which is how 90% of Wikipedia editors know the car, and have done with it. I suspect you'd have people arguing whether it should be XKE or XK-E. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: From the citation this looks like his first name. I'd have thought an encyclopedia should use surnames... unless it's customary to refer to "Graham's Guide" or something, in which case this should be explained. Otherwise, being on first-name terms is for enthusiast communities, not encyclopedias. 86.143.52.18 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Changed. 86.181.118.82 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Graham"? 

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-13300357
The video talks about lots of stuff that seems important but isn't mentioned here at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.179 (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No sound here, but I assume that's the car which was involved in Peter Linder's fatal crash at Montlhéry (which also killed Abarth driver Carlo Abate and at least one marshal)? Mr Larrington (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare Jaguar E-type restored 

message: With respect to your article on the Jaguar XKE please be advised in the following respect: regarding the series 1 you claim that “the first 300 cars built had flat floors and external hood (bonnet) latches”. I had the good fortune of owning a very early Jaguar which did not have the external hood latches but did have a flat floor.  Therefore, it can be safely said that the flat floor outlasted the hood latches. Please correct your article or contact me for additional information.
75.149.81.61 (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 1: Error found 

message: Incorrect information regarding Series numbers and irrelevant information regarding Lynx continues to be added to this article by someone using multiple IP addresses.  That person needs to discuss on this talk page the reason they believe this information should be added. 72Dino (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information added by IP address 

message: It seems like this article has been gutted since the last time I was here, and recent editing and comments on the talk page indicate editing based on other than verifiable sources.  
For instance - removal of the defining characteristic of the first 300 cars based on someone's personal anecdote?
Sbs9 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article has been gutted 

message: Headings of
:Autocar:...
:Summary: ...
:Motor:...
:Summary: ...
and their associated text are hardly encyclopedic.  Without exploring the history of all the edits, I can't tell what they are all about.  Perhaps someone with some notion of the intent could restore it or clean it up.  99.245.230.104 (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned it up a bit.  Stepho  talk  10:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibberish in Series 1 section 

message: Only read the introduction so far, and not really impressed. This doesn't sound like "encyclopedic tone" to me at all, among other things. First, why are we comparing the E-Type to "most cars", when it should be compared to sports cars. Next, "unrivaled styling" is obviously an opinion. If you insist on using that exact phrase, it should be couched as "what some considered unrivaled styling". Wikipedia doesn't judge things like that. Personally, I think the E-Type is good looking, but that's it. Certainly not the most beautiful car in the world. But I also wouldn't write that as fact, because it's an opinion. Next, and in the same line, who says the race it won is "the worlds most prestigious sports car race"? Another opinion. And what race? At least you could say what you are talking about, so the reader can judge for themselves. In any case, the tone is way too enthusiastic..."the E-Type was the BEST car EVAR!!!!". Not encyclopedic tone at all. You'd swear the person who wrote it is either a blatant "fanboy", or trying to sell an E-Type. Half of this language could have been taken right out of a sales brochure. And this is just the introduction. I almost dread to read the rest..45Colt 08:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a handy illustration of one of the major problems with collaborative content generation. It's also a good example of the sunk cost fallacy. The only way to knock it into reasonable shape would be to erase it and start from scratch. The existing work is no good, the time spent on it is lost, and I'm not wasting my time unpicking it. The problem is that this policy can only be implemented if the existing editors are jettisoned, and without a mechanism to do that it's not going to improve any time soon. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF is this? 

message: Maybe the article can be improved to encyclopedic standards when the owner retires.217.248.5.111 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like 
a Commercial
 Fanboy Gibberish 

message: This car has a very interesting chassis but it is sort of buried in Series 1, which is huge. Should it be a separate section? Sammy D III (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thought.