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
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
PhilOSophocle, links to car ads posted on the internet are not citations. Please read WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS to get up to speed on the article standards you're having trouble understanding. In the meantime, please stop making this edit to the Barracuda article; your behaviour is verging on vandalism. Until an acceptable source can be provided for the assertion, the tag needs to stay. —ScheinwerfermannT·C04:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what's funny, Scheinwerfermann --- the ONLY reason I removed the "citation needed" was because it was just plain ridiculous to ask for a citation for such a small and obvious statement, like asking for a citation that the Plymouth is a brand owned by Chrysler. Then I only went back and added a citation (that I had no problem with, after all, how what better way to show value than an ad; after all, it wasn't MY ad) only because I knew it was getting under your skin, so you are your own undoing. I can't believe there's somebody like you out there (actually, yes, i can) that spends a great deal of their life worrying about things like this. I assume it's the control & self-esteem factors in action as I've seen that quite a bit here on WP. When a muscle car such as the rare 1968 Plymouth Super Stock is called highly-collectible and valuable, that's a given considering it's a rare (only 50 made) `60's muscle car --- duh! But you're wearing me out about a citation for this obviously because you think you're either "in-control" of this page or because you must have placed the original "citation needed' comment and got mad that I removed it, which I did because I felt that it was being anal and too picky to request that citation. So how this --- 3 citations --- 1 from Barrett-Jackson's 2008 auction results, 1 from a respected magazine site, and 1 from an obvious expert saying the rare `68 Super Stock is highly-valuable. If you still have a problem with this, then you just plain have a problem. Let's also not start pointing fingers and called someone's edits "vandalism" just because you don't agree with them. I'm sure I could pull some obscure WP rule about adding too many citation requests to an article as they destroy the flow and character, like reading a medical encyclopedia.PhilOSophocle (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing a good ref. I've archived the ref so it'll remain viewable in perpetuity, and scrubbed the two extra links. Please remember to keep your comments civil, avoid personal attacks, and try to move toward a less combative, less confrontational, more coöperative approach, attitude, and tone. Calling other editors "picky" and "anal" for adherence to Wikipedia policy is not productive or helpful, and neither is defying other editors to find something the matter with your edits. —ScheinwerfermannT·C18:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to want to control the tone and the words I use. You also seem to quote WP policy in virtually every post you make, and you tend to wield it to try to get your way. The fact is, to request a citation for that small detail in the article was way too picayune to waste valuable time with, and it indeed was picky & anal, which was my original point, as most anyone who would view this page surely either knows or can infer from common sense that the Super Stock, being a low-production car of 50 units, is certainly valuable to collectors, so asking for a citation for it was ridiculous, but it was all quite fun indeed. This was nothing more than an exercise in control and a futile one at that as it didn't truly advance the article at all. See you around, Schieny!PhilOSophocle (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's regrettable you feel put upon, but you could've avoided that perceived experience by taking just a short time to understand how Wikipedia works. I hope you'll still choose to do so; obviously you're passionate about subjects on which you have knowledge, and that kind of passion often spurs really good contributions…when they're made according to Wikipedia's policies and protocols. —ScheinwerfermannT·C02:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is really funny - now you're bringing in help! OK, I've had enough of this, so I'll let you win this little one - leave the personal comments about me which have nothing to do with the article, but that's ironic for a person who quotes WP policy in virtually every post. - PhilOSophocle (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both the 106-inch and 108-inch wheelbases are described as "2700 mm". This is obviously not correct. However, since even 106 inches are not exactly 2700 mm (but rather 2692.4) I don't know what the correct metric length for the 108 inches is. Or should there simply be direct conversions (2692.4 and 2743.2, respectively)? Maribert (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems, there exist a number of late 1969 A-body Barracudas that have already a split grille instead of the clearly divided front, and thus resemble far more the 1970 E-body models. Could someone who knows more about that subject please add an explanation?213.166.53.176 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be any reliable support for the idea that late '69 Barracudas have a different grille or other trim differences than early '69 Barracudas. Nothing in the 1969 Chrysler Corporation Master Parts Catalogue, no Technical Service Bulletins...nothing, in fact, except this claim you are making. Please direct us to what you are looking at and I'm sure somebody can give you a sound explanation for what you think you are seeing. —ScheinwerfermannT·C18:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go to arl.lu and look at my reference in the guestbook (9th july) about a photograph posted on the same page. The administrator refers to the car shown on this picture as an end of line Barracuda from 1969. Up to that moment, I thought it was customized. I would load up my shot from the picture if I knew how.213.166.53.122 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find the photo you describe. If you have a picture you want us to look at, you're going to have to do better than telling me it's somewhere on a website that contains hundreds if not thousands of photos. Please give an explicit link to the photo. Whatever the photo shows,
I see the photo you're asking about, located here. The car shown is not a Plymouth Barracuda at all. It is a 1971 Dodge Demon, a submodel of the Dodge Dart. In addition to the photo at left, please see here for more pictures of 1971 Dodge Demons. Please keep in mind this is an encyclopædia. Assertions must be factual, verifiable, and supported by reference to reliable sources. Some guy who likes American cars and has a website and thinks he knows why a particular car has a particular appearance doesn't count as a reliable source, particularly when his guess is completely wrong because he doesn't know what he's talking about and would rather make up a story than admit he doesn't know. —ScheinwerfermannT·C18:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx for the information. My intent was not to spread false information but to have the one I got confirmed or, as is the case, corrected. Therefore also the question mark in the title. The car on your picture is definitely of the same type as the car on that website. I´ll accept it is NOT a Barracuda and will start learning about the Dodge Demon ...213.166.53.120 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Plymouth Barracuda. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
The sentence about the TorqueFlite shift bushbuttons being phased out for 1965 contains a link to the TorqueFlite article, which says in one of the first few paragraphs: "The buttons were replaced by conventional steering column- or floor-mounted shift levers in all automatic Chrysler-built vehicles for the 1965 model year, though floor levers were available in certain sporty 1964 models." Funnily enough, in that article this tidbit isn't separately cited; at least it has no "[1]" footnote marker. Surely if it needed to be cited anywhere, it would be there?
At the risk of starting another Scheinwerferguy vs PhiloSophocle-type flamewar, it does feel rather "anal" to have "[citation needed]" here. --CRConrad (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
