Talk:Dodge Dart

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slant-6 engine? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  inclusion as a "muscle car" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Spanish Dodge Dart's

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Fifth generation" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: This is ridiculous to even talk about. Oppose.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No personal attacks please. It's not that hard. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, of course. —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  merge dodge dart (2013) with this 

message: Shouldn't the 2012 Dodge Dart be moved to this page? Heymister14 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Asked, discussed, and answered (no) just above your question. And it's a 2013 model. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodge Dart (2013) 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ill-conceived edits on April 13, 2017