Talk:Dodge Dart

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

Archives of old discussions

Archive 1

Picture Quality

Below is a portion of the present discussion originally located on User Talk:Scheinwerfermann.

There are several Dodge Dart pictures on the metioned page that I would consider low-quality, like the sickly-yellow '69 pic for example, before I would dismiss and delete the '63 funny car pic for that reason. - Dyno Tested (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2009 (EST)

I agree with you there are more poor-quality pictures in the article, that need replaced with better-quality images. But some of them are presently the only images illustrating their particular aspect of Dodge Dart, so for now they should probably stay until better replacements can be found or made. The '63 funny car pic was superfluous and of poor quality and not in accord with project image standards, and it did not illustrate anything since it was a head-on shot. That's why I took it out back and "shot" it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above is a portion of the present discussion originally located on User Talk:Scheinwerfermann.

Dyno-Tested, please take another look at the image conventions we try to adhere to in the auto project — see in particular #6. The image you reinserted really is not suitable. The head-on image of somebody's hacked '63 Dart really is so far out of line with those conventions (wrong angle, non-stock vehicle, not illustrative of anything encyclopædic) that it just does not belong in this encyclopædia article. In Wikimedia Commons, perhaps, but not here. We already have a much better pic of a '63 Dart in the article. I agree with you that we could use better-quality images of Dodge Darts, but the cut-up '63 head-on image does not fit that description. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but why now have you decided to do something about it? - Dyno Tested (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2009 (EST)

Because I just noticed it as something that needed addressing. Remember, the most common status of a Wikipedia article is "unfinished"; sometimes problems languish for a very long time before they are fixed. The endurance of some problems does not make them any less problematic. I might well ask you in response why you seem so intent on having this particular image in the article. It was of poor quality and utility for our purposes before you cropped it, and of still poorer quality and less utility after you cropped it. Please, let's work together to find (or make) and add good images rather than mess around with bad ones. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just replaced the '63-'66 infobox head pic with a much better one from Commons. It's got (more or less) the prescribed 3/4-view angle, gives a good clear view of the front end styling detail you were trying to show with the cropped pic of the cut-up white Dart, gives some sense of the side styling, and in general is considerably more illustrative than either the old infobox head pic or the pic of the white Dart. There aren't many good pics of Darts at Commons; I'll see if I can find some to photograph this weekend at the car show. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun with the picture taking, see if you can find a better shot of a '69 Swinger. That yellow-tinged current pic makes me want to vomit!- Dyno Tested (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.146.59 (talk)

Slant-6 engine?

More should be written about the available engines per model year, specifically the slant-6 engine. There is a separate slant-6 engine page for details on the engine itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.136.61 (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo error

The photo of the Demon in the 1971 section of the article is in error. The side profile of the car and the stripe package pictured was the same in both 71 and 72. The car, however, is pictured with the 1972 model grille. 2Darts (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I owned two 1971 Dodge Demons. The photo depicts a 1972 model. Move the photo to the "1972" section.

inclusion as a "muscle car"

Some variations of this car are historically significant as a muscle car, especially among 1970s racing enthusiasts.

Here is included as a muscle car on a popular site for images: http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/dodge-dart/dodge-dart.shtml

Here it is included as a muscle car on HowStuffWorks, and includes brief history for those unfamiliar with the car's history. http://musclecars.howstuffworks.com/classic-muscle-cars/1962-dodge-dart-413.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banzairun (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Dodge Dart's

Someone have to make the article of the two Spanish Dodge Darts, the Dodge Dart (Barreiros) and the Dodge 3700.

--83.52.212.198 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fifth generation"

I have removed the spurious "fifth generation" infobox and merged the relevant content into the Fourth Generation infobox. The "fifth generation" was arbitrarily declared to cover 1970-'76 models. These are in fact substantially identical to the 1967-'69 models, except for relatively minor front and rear styling changes. The article text itself, right at the start of the 1967 section, correctly states The Dart would keep this basic form, with a facelift consisting of revised front and rear end styling and interior trim, until the end of A-body production in 1976(…). There are cars that could legitimately be called 5th- and 6th-generation Darts, but they are not the 1970-'76 domestic models. Rather, they are the 1981-'89 M-body and K-body Darts sold in Mexico. Better coverage of those models would enhance this article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge dodge dart (2013) with this

can we please merge the new dodge dart into this article as another generation? i think it would be good to show that due to the grand return of it, and its the same dodge dart, just a fifth generation, and we can put "main article: dodge dart 2013" Monsterpose43 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger. It is not "the same Dodge Dart". It shares absolutely nothing but the name with the previous Dart. Separate cars, separate articles. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is return of the dodge dart, new generations of anything never share the same features, the new version of Dodge Durango wasn't made until one year after its previous generation, and you can tell in the photo it is COMPLETELY different. REVISE, REVISE, REVISE! Next time please provide sources, thank you and have a nice day.

Monsterpose43 (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'll gain much traction with your bizarre claim that the 2013 Dart and the '60-'76 Dart just have "different features", and I don't see how your comments about the Durango are apposite, but by all means go ahead and formally propose the merger and let's see how consensus develops. (OBTW I fixed your faulty hierarchy. You may want to spend a few minutes learning the basics about how things are done on Wikipedia.) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is big enough 65 KB (9,929 words) -->Typ932 ^T·C 12:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, get sources, plus, you are not an admin so you have no control over this, the dodge dart returned in honor of the original. Sure it also had other purposes, but just about everything happens for a reason [[1]] Monsterpose43 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. We work by consensus here. You can sit there fruitlessly bleating "Get some sources! Get some sources!" and making grand (and baseless) claims about the new Dart, or you can formally propose a merger and see if consensus develops for it. Your choice. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger. All of Dodge's concept vehicles and pre-production vehicles were named "Hornet". The plans were to market this new small car as the Dodge Hornet. If this were the case, this vehicle would have not been included as the next generation of the AMC Hornet, nor as part of the historic Hudson Hornets. The situation is similar with the car's official name - "Dodge Dart" - introduced for the 2013 model year: this new automobile has nothing to do with the precious vehicles that were similarly named. CZmarlin (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Exactly right. Oh, and Monsterpose43, you may want to actually read your, um, "source". It does not say what you appear to think it says. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger. These cars have nothing to do! They only may share the name and nothing else. -- Alfacevedoa

(My Talk) 12:31 6 aug 2012 (UTC)

CZmarlin , I like your thinking, because you provide source and explanation, well done job mate. You have therefore made a good argument against me. Scheinwerfermann, you could learn a thing or two from this guy. Monsterpose43 (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous to even talk about. Oppose. Mr.choppers | ✎ 06:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Only slightly more ridiculous than my being lectured on "learning a thing or two" about Wikipedia by a jamoke with sixty-eight whole, entire edits to his name, who can't be bothered to master simple Wiki markup, let alone basic Wikipedia protocol, and whose talk page is wall-to-wall warnings for misbehaviour, eh! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C08:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please. It's not that hard. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. While I oppose the merger on the basis of what other editors have stated, Monsterpose43 only acted in good faith and should not be attacked for having a different point of view. I could understand if the new editor came across as rude or something, but short of the slightly strange demand for sources (for what?), what did this user do wrong? OSX (talk • contributions) 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some difficulty characterising Monsterpose43's position as merely a benignly different point of view. As there's evidently strong consensus against the merger he (kinda) proposed, I'm inclined to let the matter drop rather than feed a small fire. Saright? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation: this guy 'Scheinwerfermann' seems to have a real attitude problem, completely inconsistent with the character model of being a curator of information. As a librarian, I worry about editors who feel territorial over things they have curated, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. As an archivist, I can see how bias shapes history, and it should be job #1 to be above pettiness when it comes to difference of opinion- especially when it is regards to someone else's lack of tact. Domain expertise + Comic Book Nerd from The Simpsons attitude = not taken seriously. Defeats the point of trying to curate an article to begin with. Stick to treating people with respect, even if you do not think they deserve it. It helps build a case that you are right. Coemgenv (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenv, why the hell did you reply to a year old comment with that? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is being rude and speaking down to another, it ought to be pointed out, because it is very unhelpful and unproductive. Coemgenv (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge Dart (2013)

Shouldn't the 2012 Dodge Dart be moved to this page? Heymister14 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)heymister14[reply]

Asked, discussed, and answered (no) just above your question. And it's a 2013 model. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dodge Dart. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trans-amseries.com/results/1966.pdf
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66CkbmP8A?url=http://www.foundationpc.com/stories/bomb.html to http://www.foundationpc.com/stories/bomb.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. 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) 00:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ill-conceived edits on April 13, 2017

On April 13, 2017, an anonymous user made a series of small edits to dates, years and such – they are small enough that I hesitate to call them vandalism, and perhaps the user knew what he's on about. But I somehow doubt that Dodge Darts were produced from 1900 through 2012, to name the most egregious example.

Could someone who is mor knowledgeable than I please take a look at those edits? Thanks! Felixkasza (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]