Talk:Ford F-Series

There is a request, submitted by Lionsdude148 (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.
The rationale behind the request is: Important.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ford F-Series article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Automobiles Top‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trucks High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1

One Heading for all Truck Generations

On all other pages on wikipedia with a history section, different eras are subheadings under the history heading. I propose making all generations under one unifying "generation history" heading, or a heading with a similar name. I don't see any need to have such a massive amount of primary headings for what are essentially small tweaks to a body design. SortaScience (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Split Genertions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

FORD IS A SICK ASS TRUCK! WOOOOOH GO FORD!!!! this article is extremely long, too long. I suggest each generation should be split into it's own article and a brief summary added instead of a huge long section for each generation. It would make the article much easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlechem (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree This is an article where that would work fairly well. Splitting it up allows for further development without worrying about length constraints. Although the content on the oldest trucks is a bit thin, I think it would still work if done correctly. At this point, however, it's nearly impossible to edit the whole article at once. --SteveCof00 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree and plan to create these articles as I can myself but would reccomend keeping but shortening the main article to keep major information, whole series information, some pictures, and limited/special versions in the one place.Keserman (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also agree, and there's so much detail that could be added to each generation, such as the inclusion of the variations of medium-duty models, B-Series school bus chassis, special trim packages, etcetera. I didn't like the idea of merging many of the foreign variations into this article such as the Ford Lobo. ----DanTD (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Split complete. I have retained short summaries in the main article. I trust that this is ok. Op47 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

Merger proposal

I propose that we merge Ford Lightning and Ford F-150 SVT Raptor into this article. They are merely performance/appearance-configured versions of the F-150, and I'm finding it difficult to see a rationale for them to have their own separate articles. There is also a more or less perpetual suggestion on the table, which has never reached consensus, to split this article somehow or another. If that were to be done, I would propose merging the Lightning and SVT Raptor into the resulting F-150 (or F-100/F-150) article. There is a reasonable chance that "repatriating" the Lightning and SVT Raptor into this present F-series article would move it to the tipping point of warranting a rational split in enough editors' minds to reach consensus on that point. So, I propose we go ahead and merge the Lightning and SVT Raptor articles into this one as a reasonable first step in reconsidering the distribution of our coverage of F-series trucks. Moreover, the present SVT Raptor and Lightning articles are extremely poorly written and improperly supported with non-RS sources. Moving their content to this article will bring it onto the radar (and into the field of view) of a wider array of editors; the quality of coverage will be improved much more rapidly than if it remains in separate articles generally receiving the attention of only a few enthusiasts of those particular models. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree just because of how badly the Raptor needs coverage. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, considering all the conflicting views, and information. I believe that the masses will shape the best definition, edits, and top unbiased information.- CL122294

Support merger. If the main page gets too bulky, then split by generation. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So what happened to this pipe dream?--Dana60Cummins (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a pipe dream, but it's also not an urgent emergency. Most editors also have responsibilities IRL, and edit Wikipedia on a time-available basis. Clearly there's consensus to do the merger, so if you want to see it done right away…go ahead and do it! Otherwise you will have to wait until I or someone else will have the time. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C13:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, the method of a merger is to incorporate the relevant content and refs from the source article into the destination article, delete the "main article: (source article title)" link from the relevant section in the destination article, and then convert the source article into a redirect to the destination article. Please see here for instructions. It is important if you take on the task to do the whole task, otherwise we'll run into problems. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about slacking off, and thanks for the help. Let me know what else I can do if anything. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, care to take a crack at incorporating and redirecting the Lightning article as well? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to do some studying up on it first. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If time lets me I will tackle this next week.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Some things split up too much

Clarify this if I'm wrong, but don't the 1987-1991 and 1992-1996/1997 fall under the category of facelifted versions of the same truck instead of an all-new generation? Although the front ends and interiors may look different, the cab and basic chassis are shared, as well as much of the powertrain (aside from the adoption of fuel injection and the change in diesel engines). In other words, a 1996 is as similar to a 1981 as a 1979 is to a 1973.--SteveCof00 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but there have been sharing of powertrain amonst the two completely different interior/exteriors of the 2 generations from 1997-2008, some sharing from 2 generations from 2004-2010 when powertrains were updated mid-generation, amonst several antique generations. sorry, but the same powertrain does not mean same generation. some noticable change in the sides, fenders, hood, and grille and new interiors at the time of these changes should be enought to call it a new generation. you might as well call the 2004-2008 and 2009-present one generation as they had even less or the same amount of change from 2008-2009 as 1986-1987 and 1991-1992. 1973-1979 saw change in grille, round to square headlights. no change in the mentioned fenders, hood, sides, or interiors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keserman (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

European version?

At the bottom of the section on the 12th generation, a subsection mentions that a European version of the F150 will be introduced, but it is unsourced. I checked the article history and found that it was added by a Malaysian IP address, again, without a citation.

Is there any verifiable source for this? If not, I'm removing it. Seems like an odd place to sell a full-size pickup anyway.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I tagged that statement with a ^{[citation needed]} tag in case someone out there actually has the source information to back it up. On the other hand, after reading the article information for the new Ranger, I am a little bit skeptical on the statements here. The Ranger article goes into length on why it is not exported to North America and why the F-Series is not exported to certain markets. As it is sold in "180 countries", that would almost have to include Europe by default. And yes, an American-sized pickup would be a hard sell in Europe, to say the least.--SteveCof00 (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss the notion out of hand, though. GM has, at various times, officially sold their full-size American Chevrolet pickups and Suburbans in Continental European and Scandinavian markets. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Raptor frame section

this is far from notable. A few guys who have modified vehicles and make unsubstantiated claims arent going to fly. Unless there was significant media coverage (more than a couple blogs) this should stay out. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As the refs show, it was notable enough for Ford to investigate and their engineers to comment extensively on. That makes it notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it offends some anonymous IP editor. If you feel this is in error, per BRD by all means work to attain consensus to remove the material in question. Til then, in it stays. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

transmissions

I believe its generations 3 to 7 that are missing full listing of available transmissions which would help the article if present. I'd like to try to get some info on this myself, but would be thankful if others could do some part on it. thanksKeserman (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Seat belts

When did 2- and 3-point seat belts become standard? --Badger151 (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No pictures

Why the hell were the pictures removed from each of the generations. THE CATEGORIES SHOULD HAVE A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ALL THE TRUCKS, IN ADDITION TO THE LINK TO THE INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swingcar (talk • contribs) 01:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted. Generations got their own pages now. Check it out. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually pictures WERE deleted, and replaced by others. I know that they were given separate articles.Swingcar (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Separating the F150 article is a disaster

Separating the F150 section makes this page utterly useless. The entire point of showing multiple generations is to be able to compare changes. Now the reader needs to wade through multiple articles and waste time instead of simply referencing the same page. Was it long? Perhaps, but instead of divorcing the models it could have been streamlined and one can simply use the reference list if the reader wanted more in-depth information. Separating this is a disaster, but I'm open for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloppy123 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on assisted power steering

Please discuss the nature of the edit war over this statement:

This EPAS is an advanced system which increases efficiency and driver control; however, these benefits are outweighed by the fact that this system provides a ride that "pops and clunks" over small imperfections on driving surfaces.

Badger151 (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much the content (although it does have major original-research issues), but it's that we've had this being added by an anonymous unregistered IP user multiple times after this content has been edited out or changed to not be so opinionated. I've made a request for page protection so this will possibly go away in the future. --SteveCof00 (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The edit was originally referenced by an internet forum. The Duramax V8 engine has the same type of issue, but with a little more attention. Just between those two pages I've undone the same edit dozens of times now. The majority of my editing seems to be reverting far out edits. Dana60Cummins

I blocked the latest offending IP. I'd rather block the IP(s) that are doing this. Enigma^msg 19:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

69.60.33.197 This one needs to be blocked too (I'm not familiar with the procedure how to do it, otherwise it'd be done) -SteveCof00 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Enigma^msg 03:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The original IP I blocked returned after block and is now gone for a week. Enigma^msg 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Part 2

It now reads:

This EPAS is an advanced system which increases efficiency and driver control; however, these benefits are outweighed by the fact that this system provides a ride that "pops and clunks" over small imperfections on driving surfaces. In some cases, steering has become unresponsive to driver.

The TSB verifies the EPAS being unresponsive. NOT "pops and clunks". Unresponsive steering would be an issue with the EPAS. "pops and clunks" whether referenced properly or not; isn't serious like a truck losing control. "pops and clunks" still needs to go.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that was re-added by one of the IPs. Enigma^msg 14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 10 days. The IP editor doesn't seem to have any interest in participating in this discussion. --Daniel 22:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I have got no response from the IP editors besides what little they have put in the edit summary.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was one IP lately. I reblocked that IP. Until it becomes a bunch of IPs, I think it makes more sense to block rather than protect. Enigma^msg 15:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP user still insists on adding "pops & clunks" on wiki.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I blocked it for two weeks. Enigma^msg 03:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Section on 2015 model

Although information is coming out about this vehicle, I still find it hard to include this in the article without this violating two things: WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:Original Research. As it stands right now, it would be very difficult to write something that is well-verified. (Right now, there are parts that are fairly subjective, contradict the source used, and others that are completely unsourced.

Should we get rid of this content? I'm not sure, but the section itself may need major improvement. --SteveCof00 10:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Recalls

How on this Planet, we can be so shameless. The whole world knows Ford has lot of recalls, but not even one is mentioned here. The whole credibility of the article if not Ford is questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniash007 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Learn how to edit Wikipedia and add the recalls you like.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi Pro

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Vandalism rates are over 50% and closer to 100% this year.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, Little Mountain 5 19:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Last year of the F-100

The F-100 series ended in 1983, not 1982 as asserted in the article. I have one that was manufactured in May of 1983. This is important because of the longevity of the model. The transition to the F-150 came about as a way for Ford to avoid some of the emissions regulations placed on trucks with a half ton capacity or less. Ford purported that the 150 was a "heavy half," with carrying capacity just over the half ton regulation threshold. 96.8.162.8 (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Kevin Fiedler, March 16, 2014.

23/30 MPG rating

The 23/30 MPG rating that keeps on showing up over the last year is being solely added by User talk:24.117.131.104 *(MPG ratings still aren't out) --Dana60Cummins (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Base price of Ford F-150s

Has anyone considered adding a chart showing the base price of F-150s by year?

I think it would be a great addition to the page but I'm not quite sure where to get the raw data.

CycloneSteve (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

F-350 redirect target

I notice that F-350F-350 redirects here, whereas Ford F-350Ford F-350 redirects to Ford Super Duty. Presumably they should both redirect to the same place. Which destination is better? —BarrelProof (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Generation setup

I'm not sure if this ever got resolved before, so I'm reviving it anew.

As far as the F-Series generations are concerned, the eighth and ninth could also be considered facelift versions of the seventh; to a large extent, they are mechanically similar. However, making a change to properly reflect this would be fairly major, as it would merge three articles and rename several additional articles. To a lesser extent, this might also apply to the 1961-1979 trucks, though there was a greater degree of change than mere cosmetics, so it possibly can stay the same.

Thoughts? --SteveCof00^{My Suggestion box is open} 07:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is the list of engines?

I came to this page looking to see if a 1975 F250 had the option of a 360 engine. I notice there is scant mention of engines for any year. WHY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAlex (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Details on engine choices and other specifics for a particular model year are better found on that model's page, not the general F-Series page. In the case on the '75 F-250, a full list of engines can be found on the sixth-gen F-Series page. 192.190.207.188 (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ford F-Series. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Kb5nju (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Hello There - The external link at the bottom of the page leading to fordvehicles.com is incorrect. There is no specific page just for F-series trucks, but the current page for Ford truck is https://www.ford.com/new-trucks/ . Since this page is semi-protected, I cannot edit it directly. If any of you could, that would be very helpful. Thanks.

"making the F-150 the lightest pickup available on the market" ?

"making the F-150 the lightest pickup available on the market" In 1983 the Ford Ranger was introduced. So, something needs to be reworded: perhaps "lightest full size pickup" if indeed this is true to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.141.228.200 (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be good to modify that with "full-size," but also remember the 1983-vintage Ford Ranger was only produced until 2011. 192.190.207.188 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

2018 model not a new generation, just a refresh?

Select 2007-2008 Ford F-150 Harley Davidson editions were sent by the Dearborn Ford factory to Saleen to have a supercharger performance package installed prior to delivery to the dealerships.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2017

External links modified

Dakar

External links modified

Requested move 11 August 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is some support for "Ford F-series" (with a hyphen), but there is no clear consensus for this as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Brad v 22:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ford F-Series → Ford F seriesFord F series
Ford F-Series (first generation) → Ford F series (first generation)
Ford F-Series (second generation) → Ford F series (second generation)
Ford F-Series (third generation) → Ford F series (third generation)
Ford F-Series (fourth generation) → Ford F series (fourth generation)
Ford F-Series (fifth generation) → Ford F series (fifth generation)
Ford F-Series (sixth generation) → Ford F series (sixth generation)
Ford F-Series (seventh generation) → Ford F series (seventh generation)
Ford F-Series (eighth generation) → Ford F series (eighth generation)
Ford F-Series (ninth generation) → Ford F series (ninth generation)
Ford F-Series (tenth generation) → Ford F series (tenth generation)
Ford F-Series (eleventh generation) → Ford F series (eleventh generation)
Ford F-Series (twelfth generation) → Ford F series (twelfth generation)
Ford F-Series (thirteenth generation) → Ford F series (thirteenth generation)

– A Ford F-series truck gets a hyphen in the compound noun (F series), because when used as an adjective, a two-word compound conventionally gets a hyphen to make it hang together. But as a noun, the compound should not have hyphen; if someone says they bought an "F-series", they really mean an "F-series truck", but the article is on the series, the range of trucks, not an individual truck or model. On the caps, sources are inconsistent (e.g. see these that use lowercase series: Autoweek, Digital Trends, Chron, AutoNews), so per MOS:CAPS we default to lowercase. Sources have all combinations of hyphen and case variants, including omitting the hyphen when used as an adjective, so there's no point in trying to follow them. Pretty much every other "Letter series" article follows this pattern, not treating "series" as part of a proper name, and using the hyphen in adjective form but not noun form. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Support as nom. Dicklyon (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 03:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Support—I've been watching this issue for a while. I agree with Dicklyon's grammatical point about compound noun versus compound adjective. Nor would we hyphenate "x-axis" and "y-axis" (but "x-axis numbering" might be ok). A more obvious matter concerns the sacrifice in readability: the hyphen joining up a single character or symbol is usually deprecated because the clutter is slightly harder to parse, with no benefit in other respects (e.g. 31-kilometre route, but 31 km route—see ISO rules). Tony (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
OPPOSE I find this to be needless grammatical wordsmithing where it shouldn't really apply. Ford uses the term "Ford F-Series". Journalists use the term "Ford F-Series". This is the proper way to refer to these trucks and these lines of trucks. What are we going to do? Have "Ford F Series" in the title and "Ford F-Series" throughout the article? We should use the proper name as it is referred to by the company and the press, and not try to apply language rules to names. Centerone (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what "wordsmithing" means here, but neither the company nor the press has been consistent on this. E.g. here Ford uses Ford "F" Series. I don't mind if they more often use their own non-grammatical styles, but we might as well use our own grammatical style, where caps and punctuation have an understood purpose and meaning. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
So, you have to go back to a brochure from 1963 to find Ford being inconsistent about this? Ford in more recent years seems to be relatively consistent of their use of F-Series. Infact, I'd guess they've probably fairly consistently used "F-Series" since 1972 or so. Do you have a more recent example of them being inconsistent? At most this warrants a sentence of something to the effect of "This line of vehicles have in the past sometimes been referred to both with and without the hyphen.", but not an entire move and renaming of the article. You're trying to apply grammatical language rules to a name or trademark. We shouldn't do that. We should follow rules for proper names or trademarks. Centerone (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Since almost all uses of "F-Series" are as modifications to trucks, light trucks, mediums, etc., it hard to find examples of how it would be used as a noun, from Ford or otherwise in the '70s. But lot of case variation on "series" is easy to find (from the press, not from Ford). Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Centerone, what do you mean by "needless grammatical wordsmithing"? Tony (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
INFO/Comment F-Series is a proper name for these trucks and lines of trucks, and a trademark. Use the USPTO trademark search database to see the trademark in use since 1972. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database (I'm not sure of a url to directly link to the trademark, sorry.) You also find F-Series on Ford's own site, and in their own documents. Wikipedia has policies on proper names, capitalization, and trademarks. MOS:PN MOS:TM WP:NCCPT among other pages on these subjects state clearly to capitalize proper names and trademarks, and to not correct punctuation, grammar, etc. of a trademark. The original reference to MOS:CAPS ignores where it clearly says how to handle capitalization around trademarks and proper names. Discussing whether it's an adjective or a noun, etc. should be a moot point. Centerone (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
As various sources will tell you, "Always use the trademark as a proper adjective, not a noun. Whenever possible a trademark should be followed by the common descriptive name (noun) of the product it modifies." So maybe in "F-Series truck" the "F-Series" is a trademark. But on its own as a noun, it's not sensible to interpret it as a trademark, but rather as a description of the line of trucks starting with "F", as it had been used for a decade before the trademark registration. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
You're TOTALLY misinterpreting that rule when it comes to trademarks. Yes, it's a grammatical rule that companies want you to say things like "Kleenex tissue" or "Kleenex brand tissue", and not just "kleenex" when you mean tissue, because it prevents them from having their trademarks becoming genericized. That has NOTHING to do with how these articles should be titled. Or, maybe I should rephrase that, it's EXACTLY WHY we should keep it as it is. Because, F-Series is NOT just a generic noun. It's a _proper name_ and a _trademark._ "F-Series" is a trademark of ford and has been since 1972. We don't title articles "IKEA furniture store" or "Apple iPOD music player." We don't need to title the article "Ford F-Series trucks" to properly treat F-Series like we should, keeping it's hyphen in place. You're trying to apply English language style rules to Wikipedia formatting and subsequently and intentionally ignoring the Wikipedia rules which clearly apply in this case. Centerone (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Support downcasing per WP:MOSCAPS {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose removing hyphen per Centerone, but Support downcasing per Checkingfax GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I never seen the F-Series called the F series Abote2 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Here are 4: Autoweek, Digital Trends, Chron, AutoNews. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It's still a TRADEMARK proper name so just because some people *occasionally* get it wrong, it doesn't mean that we should do the wrong thing. We have pretty clear rules about trademarks and proper names. Centerone (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

We should probably also analyze those. The first one on Autoweek goes to an article where the use of "F Series" is in a link that links back to an article on their own site. The mistake of dropping the hyphen and the uppercase may be accidental automatic parsing by how their system handles internal links, or it could be a simple error by whomever wrote or edited the article. If you actually follow the link, you see that the article it linked to gets the hyphen right repeatedly. The second article on digital trends links to an article that if you go to the first link on the site that the article links to, an article about 2018 F-150 trucks, it gets the hyphen and the case right . The third article on Chron uses BOTH F-series and F series, so it's not even an internally consistent article. The fourth article on Auto News is restricted to subscribers, so I can't follow the content; however, if you search the website you see that they frequently use F-series with the hyphen, I didn't check in depth to see if their case changes. Centerone (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
gets the hyphen right repeatedly – it also mostly uses "F series" when it isn't an adjective! it gets the hyphen and the case right – Doesn't use the phrase as a noun.

Centerone – the argument here is that it should be "F series" when used as a noun, not when it is used as an adjective. And yes, some sources are not consistent. Such is life; we don't need to emulate that, though. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
'Oppose all per common name. Red Slash 22:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Support – solid reasoning, good to be consistent with other articles. I was a little surprised that so many sources write it this way, but they do and it makes sense. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose removing hyphen per Centerone, but support downcasing per Checkingfax. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Part 2

Related Articles