Talk:Jensen Motors

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trucks Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Automobiles Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Should this not be a disambiguation-page in itself with a disambig-link to the car manufacturer?

I came on here to say the same exact thing. Someone fix this. Mrcolj 17:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right! --Profero 21:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bromwich is spelled incorrectly as 'Bromich' on the Jensen logo, can this be altered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simbini (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what this is, please? It has Jensen badges, albeit ones that are rather hard to read. Thank you in hopeful anticipation and regards Charles01 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence under the heading "Sports cars" read "The fastback was by far the most popular with its large, curving wrap-around rear window that doubled as a rear door." This is nonsensical; a "door" is used as a portal for humans to enter or exit, whereas the rear window in question is used to gain access to the cargo area. I changed the sentence to correctly refer to it as a "liftback" and changed the link to Hatchback. Bricology (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not nonsensical. It was the description of the car at the time. In time your lift back / hatch back will be replaced with the then current generation's preferred speak. Humans may pass through doors as you describe but there are an awful lot of doors providing access that they won't fit through so your's is a "nonsensical" description. Check with the online OED. "4. transf. Anything resembling a door in its motion or use; a lid, valve; an opening, a passage." Eddaido (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is nonsensical for the simple reason that WP exists to be able to convey information intelligibly, to the audience of its readers' time. If you happened to be explicitly quoting Jensen's advertising copy from c. 1960, you would have a point, but we're neither there nor then. To describe it now as a "door" is impossible to justify and just leads to confusion, which dictionaries and encyclopedias are trying to prevent. If you're going to claim that the fourth definition from the OED should take precedence over the first in a 2015 article, then we may as well call the glovebox lid/hatch, the boot/hood and the bonnet/convertible top of a car "doors" as well, as they fit the fourth's tortured definition. By far, the most commonly used and understood meaning of "door" today is the same: an openable structure through which humans pass. And that is precisely what the hatchback of the Jensen is not. "Hatches" were well-known when the Jensen was being built. Just because someone in the '60s used the term "door" to mean "hatch" is not a compelling reason to continue that novel and confusing use. Bricology (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now here I find a great deal more nonsense on the very same subject. Eddaido (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and I find yet more critique without any actual substance; certainly without a refutation of any of my points. So be it. Thanks for playing. Bricology (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you think that if your little corner of the world uses a particular word in a particular way then everyone else must do it too. And now you rave on about it even though your wish has always been fulfilled in regards to this article. So the only sensible response is "nonsense". Eddaido (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bricology: We need a new name for a cupboard door that is too small for an adult human to enter. Any useful suggestions? Eddaido (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jensen Motors. 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/20090105215228/http://www.austinmemories.co.uk/page8/page106/page106.html to http://www.austinmemories.co.uk/page8/page106/page106.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two images of visually near identical cars? The more interesting car has the same appearance and the V8 engine. The image of the earlier car is superfluous. Eddaido (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're significantly different looking cars, although this would need clearer images, showing the front grille, in order to show it.

Also, simply as two major, and very different, models, we do need to illustrate them - if only to show that they're similar bodyshells. After all, we have an Interceptor and an FF and they're even closer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind about the two images since the re-arrangement you made with the white space though I don't agree there is anything more than the grille to it. The FF is substantially longer aside from the major mechanical differences. This from memory, I didn't ever drive an FF. and we had only the tiny pic of the Interceptor. Why is it we have suddenly lost the Healey 100, I should think a money maker for Jensen like no other car?

Have you noticed — as usually a very particular editor — that you now have images with after-market wheels etc which gives readers all sorts of funny ideas believe me, they (until I sorted them out) refused to believe all American made cars once rode around on wire wheels.Eddaido (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels are often an issue (we just don't have a good image of an early series Range Rover with the right wheels), so if you can improve the current selection, then go for it. I've no idea what an Interceptor ought to have as original wheels. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will work on it. Eddaido (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think of it, aren't the 'correct' wheels for an FF those Dunlop Avon bead-locking runflats (along with the Dunlop Maxaret brakes), with the matched wheels and tyres ? As they haven't made the tyres in decades, the wheels won't be in use any more. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solved with an early photo though they are usually fuzzy in closeup. If I find a pair of equivalent images and one of them shows original equipment that's the one I put on display but thats just my usual practice and not really a big thing for me. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]