Talk:Ferrari Luce

incorrect reversions

not sure why someone is reverting my changes. The motor trend reference already present in the article says: "The two e-motors at the rear axle each develop a maximum of 416 hp and 243 lb-ft of torque, while the two front e-motors, which disconnect while cruising to increase range, each develop 141 hp and 89 lb-ft." ~2025-32961-92 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Ferrari Luce | "Centro Stile Ferrari" --> "Ferrari Design Studio"

@Interactive-wikinfo: Changing (or correcting, as the case may be) the name of Ferrari's design studio would need to be corroborated by WP:RS references. When I reverted your edits, I did so because I didn't see the addition of any sources in the first edit, and the reference used for the second gives a 404 error. I also had a quick look (i.e., searching for the term "Ferrari Design Studio"—which does not yield an obvious "yes, that's a fact", but rather things like Italian: Centro Stile Ferrari a Maranello è il sanctuario in cui nascono le vetture del Cavallino sotto la guida di Flavio Manzoni, etc. If you feel strongly that a translation of the term is needed, we could add one using {{langx}} and {{gloss}} templates, however, in the absence of solid sources, it's unlikely that an outright change like the one you propose would remain in place for very long (especially in an article that concerns something as high-profile as Ferrari). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Introduction reverts/additions

Hello, User:Rapidfirreee, I noticed that you keep attempting to add back a couple sentences in the introduction. In my opinion, those sentences are in violation of WP:NPOV. The language is pretty loaded and one-sided, and there's already a Reception section discussing reception of the car - not to mention the source being unreliable (a news article comments section does not constitute a reliable source).

I believe any further reverts/readditions would start to constitute edit warring as per WP:3RR. - Ersonpay (talk page) 03:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

That the car was badly digested and is ugly, hideous, and unworthy of the brand is an objective fact. Not an opinion! There are terrible statements from many, many people in Italy and abroad, and then there are some inaccuracies. The interior and exterior design was created entirely by Californian design....Not Flavio Manzoni!! Rapidfirreee (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

the fucking LoveFrom!! a bunch of imbeciles!!! Rapidfirreee (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the car's design either, but making statements like that is Wikipedia 101 on how not to write an article. Calm down. Llamevia (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

bad reference removed again, clarification needed

I have again removed a reference that goes to a comment section on a news story. User comments are not viable references, and neither the story nor the comments mention the 360 Modena anyway. The comparison now has another reference, which also mentions neither so I've marked it {{fv}}. The comparison isn't particularly clear and needs to be expanded in this article. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

In fact you continue to remove credible and reliable sources. You haven't read the statements of Montezemolo, or Calenda, and hundreds and thousands of others... you want me to include them all, not to mention the financial analysts who are already saying that this epic fail is already a waste of money with very low percentages of expected sales and a huge damage to the brand's credibility. Rapidfirreee (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

What needs to be included are reliable references that actually support the prose. Of course I haven't read thousands of statements--all I need to read is what is here in the article. And that does not support the statements in the article itself. The references don't mention the 360 Modena, and aren't from notable critics. Here, you've provided a stock quote and the same article which I've already marked {{fv}}. That is not helping. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've agian reverted your edit. The agi.it article mentions neither Hyundai nor the 360 Modena. Maybe your best path is to remove this comparison, which you apparently can't reference, and instead write up what the articles actually say about the car. Please try to move this in a productive direction. -- mikeblas (talk)! mikeblas (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Ferrari 360 Modena inside a Hyundai car, because this is what many people thought, others described it as much worse. There are even worse comments, citing other models of ugly cars... I have to make a list, I've included one among the thousands there are!!! It's the one I thought was most relevant, given that the rear lights on this abomination are inspired by those of the Ferrari 360 Modena. Rapidfirreee (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Again: none of the references you've provided mention the 360 or any Hyundai. Please either rewrite the article's prose to be accurate and verifiable, or provide a source that does document the comparison. Until then, the references you've provided fail verification and both the material and the references should be removed. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

What I find strange is that you don't understand that there are cars that go down in history and become icons, and others that are and will remain crappy, and they're on everyone's lips, they're established examples like the prototype that inaugurated Jaguar's redesign. There are hundreds and hundreds of sources who found it crappy and called the redesign a humiliation for the brand.

You want the perfect example, well, the Jaguar E-Type Convertible is an icon and a memorable car and is the emblem of the Jaguar brand, while the Jaguar Type 00 remains a dump, you want me to name you all the names they've called it.Rapidfirreee (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's an article that explains what happened to the brand. Rapidfirreee (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Here you find the reference to Hyundai!!!you see the Hyundai

https://b3666184.smushcdn.com/3666184/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Ferrarri-Luce-memes-2-20260526.jpeg Rapidfirreee (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This is just a meme, not a reliable source. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

And in the meantime, let's remove the entire piece, as if it hadn't received any criticism. That's not fair, it's censorship. I'd be the first to defend Ferrari cars, but in this case, it's inappropriate; the criticism is legitimate. And you say there are no references:"Ferrari al bivio dopo la pioggia di critiche per l’elettrica Luce: ora focus sul book ordini"

so why does the article say "rain of criticism"!

Rapidfirreee (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not good, reliable sources are constantly being removed. There are actions underway by many fans, drivers, former drivers, and enthusiasts to have the car blocked from production. Rapidfirreee (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ferrari produced what Alfa Romeo did: the Alfa Romeo Arna. They deliberately pretend nothing happened regarding the criticism; the management didn't even notice. It lives on Mars.

Furthermore, I must confirm that unfortunately the initiative to block its production will not be accepted. The owners and management are convinced of the project's merits, even from a design perspective; they presented it to the Pope and the President of the Italian Republic. They will never withdraw the car from production because they would lose face. But you don't care about these considerations, and this is not a forum. Rapidfirreee (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like it to be reported or remembered that Italians—drivers, former drivers, and fans—tried to stop this abomination, but Ferrari's owners, and with them the entire management, wanted to bring this project to production. Unfortunately, Piero Ferrari also said nothing about the project; it's unclear whether he supported it or tolerated it. His presence at the presentation clearly demonstrates his support. Rapidfirreee (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Lastly, it is not known whether there is a specific strategy and for what purpose, and whether the car is intended for a specific group of Apple people or ex-Apple employees who pre-ordered it with that specific design. The famous Apple car never produced by Apple. Rapidfirreee (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Nobody removed the entire piece; I simply removed the unsupported, original research added to the article. That material, as it was, removed per the policies of Wikipedia. This article isn't the place for you to express your opinions. -- mikeblas (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn't unsupported, original; when you don't know how to silence it, you say it's the editor's research. But we're really joking. So check out this article: https://www.alvolante.it/news/ferrari-luce-prima-elettrica-divide-il-web-e-non-solo-414197

The criticisms are well-founded, and the car is objectively ugly. Then, if we want to philosophize, we can say that beauty and ugliness are subjective. But it's like a Pyrrhic victory. However, I don't want to start editorial wars, because I've already seen that they only serve to waste time. Rapidfirreee (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

https://www.carscoops.com/2026/05/ferrari-luce-rebadged-renderings/

Perhaps the real purpose is a secret agreement with very wealthy Apple employees and former employees who pre-ordered it. But this is just a hypothesis with no basis in fact; I won't add this to the article, nor any information on the matter. Rapidfirreee (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, dear Mikeblas, you're the one in charge here. While I'm honest in reporting the criticisms made by many, we're in an encyclopedia here. Unfortunately, I have to abide by your decisions. I won't change any more sentences. Rapidfirreee (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Even today, Vigna reiterated that he doesn't care about the criticism and that there are already orders from new customers who didn't buy Ferrari before.

A high-toned interview but it really raises even more doubts. Rapidfirreee (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Removed more unreferenced material

Rapidfirreee, I have again reverted additions you've made this article which aren't substantiated by verifiable references. "Fan reaction" is useful in a small amount, if it's substantiated by a reference. The references you've given do not do that. Please stop making disruptive edits. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, you completely ignore articles that clearly mention the Apple iCar, and I attached five that clearly mentioned a distinctly Apple design. All of them were also attached from sites like Verge and Wired. But no matter what source I attach, it's never good enough. Even Ferrari, or rather the Ferrari executives, don't give a damn about the "tifosi", car fans, car enthusiasts, "popolo Ferrarista". The criticisms, while legitimate and well-documented, are not good. Anyway, I won't add anything else. I have other articles I need to finish. Rapidfirreee (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)