Talk:Ford Puma (coupé)

message: I was an owner of Ford Puma from 2001 until 2004. To celebrate the end of production, Ford Europe has published a book call "Puma: the inside story" (ISBN: 0 86024 904 2) to every registered owner. It contains the story on the initial concept, design and also information about different models. I still have a copy of the book at home and I have put some of the information into the article. If any information in the article needs to be referenced I am happy to add references to the book as needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnychan (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puma: the inside story book 

message: I've removed the following:
"The discontinuation of the Puma seemed to herald the end of the small coupé market in Europe"
From the 'discontinuation' section as it's not only based on nothing but two similar cars ceasing production in the same year, it's also thoroughly incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.10.153 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of the small coupé 

message: "replaced by the Ford StreetKa, which is based on the Fiesta just as the Puma was."
clearly it was based on the Ford Ka, not the fiesta. -changed. and who ever said it was a replacement? a small coupe based on the fiesta, replaced by a convertible based on the smaller Ka? hm. reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.1.139.188 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the Ka and Puma are based on the same chassis, which is that of a Fiesta. Bob talk 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  streetKA = based on (shock) the KA. 

message: What conceivable reason is there to remove all the links pointing to various clubs around Europe for the Ford Puma?  Surely people looking for information about the Puma, /might/ actually want to find additional information about the car gleaned from these other resources?
Jaspinall 09:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: In yahoo's review (http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/ford-puma-2004294.html) it mentions that the handling was refined by, amongst others, Racing Driver Jackie Stewart.
Is that a credible enough source for this to be included in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.10.153 (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackie Stewart? 

message: Hi, Help
Due to the lack of a workshop manual for my puma, would a Fiesta manual with the Zetec S suppliment [engine wise]
Cheers
Alex  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.127.125 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haynes Manual 

message: Why is over half this article dedicated to specification list of a single limited edition model? Can this be deleted or substantially reduced immediately? --Falcadore (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Racing Puma has a very local following, hence the large amount of information posted. Also, unlike the other special editions (which only had the interior, wheels or colour changed), there was a large amount of work involved in their production. Would a separate page dedicated to the Racing Puma be better? --Springfire (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Local following or vocal following? The point is, the article is now extroadinarily unbalanced, and weighted towards a small volume model only available in one of the car's markets? That is an excessive amount of detail for Wikipedia. It is not Wikipedia's role to act as a digital back up for the owners manual. How many other cars in Wikipedia have this level of detail? Whether the car has a following or not, we don't cover huge spec lists for cars. --Falcadore (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was a typo, I meant to put 'loyal'. I do understand what you're saying completely. I would like someone from the owner's club to edit that section of the article, and possibly concentrate on the development of the edition by Tickford, rather than specs, and someone from elsewhere in Europe to include details of the non-UK special editions. --Springfire (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited this section now. Some of the spec details were removed by someone else, and I've tried to remove any unnecessary information, opinions etc, and corrected the numerous spelling and grammatical and some factual errors.--Springfire  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.18.206 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Racing Puma 

message: The stats in this article clash with the ones on Parkers, which reckons the two smaller-engine variants are a fair bit quicker. Now, I'm not so naïve as to say that site's gonna be right all the time, but I can't see any citations for what we have here, so does anyone know where this article's data actually came from? If not, I'll be changing it soon.
86.167.101.169 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance stats 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ford Puma. 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/20130827103933/http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/about-us/Our-History/Millennium-Products/ to http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/about-us/Our-History/Millennium-Products/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714002517/http://www.lukepinder.com/news.html to http://lukepinder.com/news.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 August 2021 

message: :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: Moved back to original titles. Between this discussion and the last one, there is basically no consensus as to whether the year disambiguators or the type of car disambiguators are best, and there doesn't seem to be a demonstrated policy reason to prefer one or the other. Therefore the longterm titles are restored.   — Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 August 2021