IFCAR, it's well established protocol that the image of best overall quality goes in the infobox. That is why I made the switch; the red truck is in better condition, photographed at an angle closer to that prescribed in the auto project's image conventions, and has a less cluttered background. That makes it the higher-quality image, and that means it's the better pick for the infobox. Please explain your reason for wanting the truck in poorer condition, photographed at a less optimal angle and with a busier background, in the infobox. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
As we discussed previously, the image of the red truck is overcropped and is of very low resolution. Nothing about the background of the other vehicle distracts from the photo, and my understanding is that there is even a slight preference towards natural backgrounds. The angle is within the loose range of 3/4 front, and I see nothing poor in the condition of the truck.
Furthermore, the facelift information in the article is lower on the page, making the gallery of the two images of the later years of the truck a better fit further down. IFCAR (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Please point at the previous discussion. "Overcropped" would suggest that parts of the truck are cut off, which is not the case. There's no need to show vast expanses of background, sky, pavement, passersby, other cars, etc., so please explain exactly what you mean by "overcropped". As for its resolution, it's plenty high enough for illustrative purposes. Those who wish to print out a picture of a Dodge truck will, I admit, need to look elsewhere...but that is not the intended purpose of the images in Wikipedia articles.
The tarps and backyard miscellany visible in the pic of the grey truck hardly qualify as "neutral" background, and the truck's faults you don't see include a bent bumper, chalky and missing paint, a rusty windshield reveal moulding, a bent wiper arm, and a bent grille surround — none of which, nor equivalent faults, are present on the red truck. If it weren't for your solid track record of providing images on Wikipedia, I'd be tempted to think you favour the grey truck because it's a photo you took, but since I'd obviously be standing on thin ground making that accusation in this case (since I took the photo of the red truck) I'll refrain from making it. ;-) —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The previous discussion was done in edit summaries in December. You made an edit without explanation that I reverted with explanation, and then that was the end of it so I assumed the dispute was settled.
The resolution is insufficient for illustrative purposes except in the infobox. There IS a reason for showing more than just the outline of the vehicle, for aesthetic reasons, particularly in the infobox.
The issues you note with the first image are only visible in high resolutions -- resolutions greater than the other image offers. If such a view is unnecessary for anything but printing, then it is a non-issue "for illustrative purposes."
I'm not an expert on WP policy, but my understanding is that in a dispute a consensus is needed to change the status quo, so I should think it would be appropriate to revert to the original image layout until one is reached.
One other note, a pet peeve of mine: please don't mark edits as minor if they are actually disputable. This is clearly laid out: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." IFCAR (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
You're really going to have to do much better than vague "aesthetic reasons" (i.e., "I like it") for a thorough explanation of your contention the red-truck photo is "overcropped". It shows the truck, the whole truck, and almost nothing but the truck, and since that is what needs showing, it cannot legitimately be called "overcropped". There is nothing in this project's image conventions to support your assertion of "aesthetic reasons" for including a bunch of distracting, irrelevant background detritus. As for its resolution, it is 72 dpi, which is the appropriate resolution for an image displayed on screen, and there is no pixellation, so what makes you say its resolution is insufficient? You said you "didn't see" any flaws in the grey truck. I enumerated some of them for you, and they're plainly visible even at infobox size. Do you still deny their existence? As for the minor-edit flag, I set it because I honestly didn't think there could possibly be any good-faith dispute about the relative merits of the two images. Are you quite sure you're not simply arguing for placement of one of your own images in the infobox...? How about moving both of these images to the gallery and finding a better one in Commons, or making a better one altogether? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I could very easily give you the same charge: that you're favoring an image to go away from relevant text and away from its sister image in a gallery so that yours can be in the infobox. For the notion that an image should be cropped right to the edge of the car, I suggest you look at the images selected as models. Not only are they of sufficient resolution to see details of the car if one so desires, but neither the ones on the conventions page nor any of the ones even CONSIDERED for the conventions page are closely cropped. Rather, their natural backgrounds were seen as a benefit. Again, pending consensus for a change, the article should be left in its original form. IFCAR (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
If I were favouring my own image per se, I would not have made the sensible, consensus-promoting suggestion — which you seem to have wholly ignored — for us to find or make an image that satisfies your beefs with the red truck and mine with the grey truck. Let us also please not project our own interpretations, preferences, and opinions into image convention provisions that don't actually exist. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Creating new images is something I've done from time to time, so that possibility certainly crossed my mind. I'm never hesitant to replace my own images, as I'm sure you've noticed. However, creating an image of a stock good condition 20+-year-old Dodge Ram parked where there is no distracting background is entirely contingent upon coming across such a vehicle. And let me tell you, they aren't too common.
There are no other suitable images of this generation on the Commons, either.
I think at this point we've both made our arguments. Neither image is perfect, but the two seem to be the best we have at the moment. So now we just need someone to weigh in with their preference. IFCAR (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you (both) consider using both pictures? I think that there's a valid case to be made for both pictures - the images illustrate a vehicle that's at least 15 years old, so I believe showing a vehicle in "typical" condition and also a vehicle in "good" condition is fair enough.
A few random thoughts: I don't believe that discounting the "red" image because of the resolution is valid; the resolution (432 × 206 px) is large enough, although larger would of course be nice (note too that both images are likely to be scaled down for most readers). I do believe that the cropping on the "red" image is very tight, but I don't feel that that is a reason to exclude the image. I feel that the "grey" image is fine - the background is relatively neutral, and the "distressed" look of the vehicle is (a) relatively minor and (b) reasonable given the vehicle's age.
I realise using two images in an infobox may make the infobox crowded (and I'm mindful that past editors have stated that the article is already too long) but I feel this represents a good compromise that should satisfy both you two and other readers/editors.
Thanks for the opinion, but this what you propose is probably not a good solution — image conventions for this project are to use one image in the infobox; we don't use two. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough (though you might want to consider ignoring convention). In that case you may want to consider which image represents the more typical configuration? It seems to my untutored eye that that might be the grey vehicle (the red one seemed to be modified with chrome accessories, etc) but you two will be better placed to address that than me.
Another alternative might be to simply alternate the images? During the US Presential election the two major candidates' articles were featured on the front page simultaneously; a script was used to randomly determine which candidate's image appeared on the left. This is probably overkill, but you could swap the images periodically? (I'd personally prefer it if you could reach a stable agreement, but I offer this suggestion as an "out of the box" idea for compromise).
Cheers, and good luck. Shout if you need any further input (I'll keep this article watch-listed for a while, anyway).
Thanks again for your input, but no, both trucks are stock; neither is equipped with non-factory accessories. Swapping the images back and forth is not a solution to the problem and is not a good compromise because of the endless makework it creates, and this debate is hardly big or significant enough to warrant ignoring conventions. I don't think it'll be impossibly hard to find one of these trucks in good condition to make another image — in fact, I see that red one pretty frequently in the car park where I originally shot it; I'll carry around my camera and see if I can spot it soon. Ifcar, let's say I find it and create a good-quality, larger image that is less-tightly cropped. Would that satisfy your objections to the present photo of the red truck being used in the infobox? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Butting in again, my suggestions above were based on the incorrect assumption that it would be extremely difficult to create or obtain a new image; it now sounds like to do so would be easier that I thought. Assuming one or either of you could take a new photo, I think that would be ideal - not least because you can both (indeed already have, to some extent) discuss in advance what form the photo should take.
Could I therefore suggest the following: use the grey image for the time being, Scheinwerfermann will attempt to obtain a new image of the red vehicle which addresses some/all of the concerns expressed above - specifically with regard to cropping and background (though I feel background may be difficult, and we should be flexible) - and you replace the "grey" image with the new "red" image once it's available?
That would certainly work for me. IFCAR (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Same here. I'll see if I can chase down the red truck again (or find another). —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hokay, done and done. Found the same truck in the same car park, with the owner busily snapping pictures of it! He was getting ready to sell it, had washed and cleaned it, was taking pictures for an advertisement, and didn't mind my taking pics. I am pretty sure this new image satisfies all the image conventions, and all of IFCAR's stated objections to the previous red-truck photo, and I think it is a much better quality image than either of the two we were quarrelling over. —ScheinwerfermannT·C05:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Most definitely. Very good photo.
Incidentally, I also saw the gray truck recently. It has shed some parts since I photographed it. IFCAR (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I just want to know who in the world changed the manufacturer to General Motors...I mean, seriously?! Only a medically-certified retard would think the Ram is made by GM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I suggest the article stay at Dodge Ram, since the vast majority of the article discusses trucks under that name, and it is still the best known name of the truck throughout history. Ram and Ram (automobile) can have disambiguation links to Dodge Ram. --Vossanovao< 22:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem I see with it is the official name of the truck. Since it is not part of Dodge anymore, it would be unproper for Wikipedia to have an article of a car with unofficial name. It's as if you would have "Win 7" instead of "Microsoft Windows 7" for article name, for example.
I have nothing against keeping the phrase "previously known as Dodge Ram" and allude to it in the article, but for accuracy, I think it would be better to rename the article and keep the name Ram as much as possible. A person typing in "dodge ram" would simply be redirected here too. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Changing everything this soon will just create more confusion. You're welcome to point out whatever official information there is about the brand change, but realize that even Dodge dealers are slowly transitioning. When we learn more about the Ram brand, and it has been official for at least several months, then we can consider renaming and moving information here. Bear in mind that recent events aren't inherently more important than historical ones, see Wikipedia:Recentism. --Vossanovao< 16:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Sorry guys, I didn't see this before, but the current name is just Ram, not Dodge Ram. Yes, Dodge Ram is its legacy name. But what about other legacy items that were later renamed, such as the call sign at a popular TV or radio station? Just bringing up a point. Jgera5 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Propose adding a section on the transmission changes for the late 2007 model year. the 6 speed G56 was changed in gear ratios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 14:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Add it. Find the gear ratios and source. Post here or there. If you post here though, it'll allow someone to make a nice table.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
With the Ford Super Duty flagship being a fully loaded MD pick up. It's only appropriate to put a fully loaded Ram. Not a light duty half ton. This truck is also the most interesting being you can add the most wiki links for options: Alcoa rims. American Axle axles. Eaton rear dif. Alpine Electronics sound system CumminsB I can go on but this Ram seems to do a good job of acquiring parts from various companies. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Anybody else notice that "Dodge" and "Ram" contradict each other? If you dodge something, you're not ramming it. Personally, I'd rather have a vehicle that dodges than one that rams, but that's just me. Listmeister (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)