Talk:Dodge Durango

'Rumors' section removed from main article

The following appeared as a top-level section — see permalink for version prior to removal. My feeling is that a 'rumors' section really doesn't belong in Wikipedia, at least not without a reference to support it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumors

In 2008, DaimlerChrysler is expected to introduce a hybrid version of the Durango which uses the shared GM/DaimlerChrysler Advanced Hybrid System 2. It is expected to use the 5.7 L Hemi V8.

The 2005 Update

I think there needs to me more clarification on the 2005 Update. When I first came to this page, I was confused out of my mind why there was a third version showing up on the side bar. So, I tried to put a side by side comparison on the 2004 subsection. I think the way it is now is way too confusing because there's this red herring/outlier of an image at the top, with no explanatory text for the images at all. My attempt to revise was reverted, perhaps someone can suggest a better way to show this?-146.115.115.184 (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

redundant pictures

Why are Image:2004-06 Dodge Durango.jpg and Image:07-Dodge-Durango.jpg used both in the body and side-bars? ataricom (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why put two cars on the same image per Wikipedia standards? -- Bull-Doser (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi BullDoser, it took a while, and a few reversions. But you're finally here. I'll catch you up to speed: [1], [2], [3]. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk to IFCAR about the Dodge Durango image. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont' understand. You've addressed none of the issues I've raised in the three links I've provided, and you've given me a non sequitur about IFCAR. IFCAR has nothing to do with anything. I am puzzled. Please elaborate beyond one sentence. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to read edit summaries in the future before calling edits "unexplained." I should think they were very well explained, while yours have not been. Please stop inserting photos of multiple vehicles into one infobox, and please stop putting a lower-quality image in the head infobox. IFCAR (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiple pages in one infobox are the norm. Consult: Russian_American, Usa, China, Jewish_American, African_american, Russia. Low quality info box images are the norm. consult: Aston_Martin_DB9, Aston_Martin_V8_Vantage_(2005), Ford Taurus. Moreover, you continue to revert without addressing a single concern I've listed above. Please do so and let's work out a comprimise! I'm more than happy to comprimise. I'm more than willing to make this a cooperative effort instead of a reversion war. I have attempted to modify this page over a course of four months and dozens of reversions. No one has addressed a single issue I've raised in the past 4 months. The page remains flawed with the issues I've raised in Nov 2007. Again: I am very willing to comprimise, but we cannot comprimise and collaborate if you do not address my concerns as I have done to yours. Please, let's neogtiate and comprimise instead of revert. Thanx. You are welcome to come to the talk page to discuss instead of using edit summaries which I cannot reply to and which are not easily archived.-72.93.80.5 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I've seen a coherent explanation for why, unlike every other auto article, Dodge Durango should have two photos in the second-generation infobox rather than the exact same images elsewhere in the article in an arrangement more consistent with other auto articles that also puts a higher-quality image at the top (also consistent with WikiProject Autos precedent). I've laid out many reasons why the image placement should not be the way you seem to prefer. Every single auto article has an image representing the line at the head infobox when an image is available. If you disagree, the place to do that would be on the project talk page where broad standards are discussed, not on the Dodge Durango talk page. Stop reverting. IFCAR (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you've ignored every single one of my points and ignored my pleas for cooperation and collaboration. I am more than happy to compromise. Please, let's compromise!. It would serve you well to read what I've written above. [4], [5], [6]. [7]-72.93.80.5 —Preceding comment was added at 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept the new image. Now, for my other concerns: [8], [9], [10]. [11] -72.93.80.5 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept this revision: [12]. This addresses all my current concerns. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are going against the standard of every other auto article in insisting that there be two images in one infobox. This is something you should be debating at the policy level, not at the level of the individual article. Here is the link to WikiProject Autos talk. I will be reverting this page to the standard of every other article unless/until you find users willing to implement a widespread policy shift towards dual-image infoboxes. Do not revert without getting feedback from other users on that page. IFCAR (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed a single concern of mine. Please do so: [13], [14], [15]. [16] I am more than happy to place only one image on the infobox: only if the differences between the 2nd generation Durango models are recognized. You are welcome to reedit the page so that one image remains, but the difference between the pre 2007 and post 2007 models is evident. I await your image rearrangement proposal in accordance with the policy, but will accept only if the pre 2007 and post 2007 differences are plain and evident. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept this version: [17] -72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered the fundamental question of why Dodge Durango is different from every other article. I offered you the medium to do so. This is not it. IFCAR (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Again, I am very willing to compromise. Please see here: [18] I look forward to working with you, not against you.-72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Take your suggestion to the appropriate location. Put up a message at WikiProject Autos, and I won't revert the edits I strongly disagree with for going against obvious precedent until a consensus is reached there. None of your "compromises" have addressed my fundamental objection to two images in one infobox. IFCAR (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about the info box. I do not. DO NOT. DO NOT. DO NOT. wish to change policy. Also, I do not believe you that it is "policy" that info boxes should be one way or another . The only policy that is citable is this one: [19]. Unless you can cite the Wikipedia page that states auto info boxes may only have one image, I will not assume that there is any such policy. However, I do acknowledge that there is a sensible custom to have only one image per info box because it is easier to understand. Therefore I will not object to that. I can see where you're coming from. I wish to merely display the difference between pre 2007 and post 2007 differences. I stacked the images because it was the best way I could see how to do it. Perhaps you can offer a solution that complies with the policy, yet also makes explicit the difference between pre 07 and post 07 models. I look forward to collaborating and cooperating with you in the future. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)