Talk:AMC Matador

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cars Portal This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Who keeps removing all the stuff that gets entered? Toys and stock car racing were just ripped out. (This unsigned comment was left by 131.107.0.73)

I didn't see the stuff about NASCAR and toys get removed, but I removed the stuff about the Matador leading to the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger, as I have explained on your talk page. --ApolloBoy 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

ApolloBoy, will you quit removing other people's stuff that is true! No one appointed you to be the determiner of truth. The AMC intermediate line ends at the Premier, and no one disputes that the Premier was the basis for the LH, and the LH is the forerunner of the LX. The 300C has a closer actual lineage to the Matador / Ambassador than to the original 60's 300 or 70s 300 cars. (This unsigned comment was left by 71.112.5.20)

Where are you getting this stuff from? You have not shown me why you think the Matador leads to the LH-cars and LX-cars, and you have yet to show me any references to explain this. If you cannot do so, then I will keep removing it because it is considered original research, which as I have said before, does not belong at Wikipedia. Also, please stop calling me a "nuisance", or you will be warned for making personal attacks. --ApolloBoy 06:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not good form to remove the work of others and call it vandalism. I'd call THAT vandalism. --Wiarthurhu 06:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) We can all get along if we respect each other's work and build up information that others will find useful. The Matador is one obscure car that is essentially documented on only a few web pages and maybe 2 books. It is simply rude and hostile to go around deleting everything that differs from your own point of view.--Wiarthurhu 06:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm only deleting your info because you did not provide sources or references to back up your observations. If you can add adequate sources and references to the page in order to back up your claims, I will keep them. I'm quite sure the Premier was AMC's next mid-size, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Premier was meant to replace the Matador. If AMC had intended to replace the Matador, I'm quite sure they would have done so shortly after the discontinuation of the Matador, not 9 to 10 years later. Plus, the Matador and Premier were marketed in totally different ways; the Matador went up against other American intermediates of the day, while the Premier competed with the likes of Audi and Volvo. --ApolloBoy 07:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor". Please feel free to re-add it if reliable sources can be cited. --Interiot 11:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You should then remove the entire article, which contains no references. I'm sure the community will appreciate that.--Wiarthurhu 16:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this article needs references - but so do most articles. But at least if the information is undisputed by the vast majority of editors then we can leave it there while suitable references can be found - if we didn't do that, we'd have a pretty pathetic encyclopedia. But: when two people dispute the facts in they way that you guys are, the only recourse is to references. If the information is disputed and you have good references then let's see them - let's have someone go check out the book from the library - or look at the referenced web site - maybe we just trust that your references are good - whatever. But if you can't tell us where you found this information - why should we be convinced by it? If the information is disputed and NO references can be found then I think the information should be removed from the article because the people disputing the truth of these facts can't possibly come up with a reference that says "Such and such is not true" - so it is incumbent on the person that believes it to be true to come up with a reference that says "Such and such IS true". So I guess I side with ApolloBoy here - let's take this information out of the article and give Wiarthurhu time to dig up some references. Meanwhile, what ApolloBoy is doing isn't vandalism - that's a terrible thing to accuse someone of doing. Wiarthurhu: please go and read WP:VANDAL - then apologise to the poor guy and go find some references for us to look at. SteveBaker 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

--Wiarthurhu 07:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)== Deleting useful information ==

Is somebody still confused as to what constitues a sucessor? It doesn't have to be contiguous (ie Ford Thunderbird) It doesn't have to have the same nameplate (Aerostar, Windstar, Freestar), it does need to occupy the same market niche. Whoever keep simply removing new information to simply make it look like what somebody else had a month ago simply isn't good for this page. We need a community that works together, not simply tear down what other people contribute. I'm happy to edit for style and verbosity, but please do not discard useful information.--Wiarthurhu 17:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because the Matador and Premier were both mid-sized doesn't mean they occupied the same market. As I said before, the Matador competed with other American mid-sizes of the day, like the Chevrolet Malibu and the Dodge Coronet. The Premier, on the other hand, mainly competed against European near-luxury cars like the Volvo 760 and the Audi 4000. --ApolloBoy 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wiarthurhu comprehends the meaning of the word "Successor". For his (her?) benefit, here is the definition from Wiktionary:

1. The next heir in order or succession.
2. A person or thing that immediately replaces another
3. A person who inherits a title or office

The first definition relates to 'heirs' in the formal sense of royalty or something and the third relates only to people - so the second definition is the only relevent one here - and the word "immediately" is what matters. So - if there is anything much of a gap between the thing and the thing that replaces it (like 10 years) then they ARE NOT successors. The Matador had no successor - The End. SteveBaker 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was browsing the EPA's page recently, and I decided to take a look at their page for the Premier, and it turns out that they classified it as a "large car". [1] I guess we can safely say that the Matador truely had no successor... --ApolloBoy 22:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. The car the follow in the same niche at a later time is a succesor. The matador was also a large car, they were as roomy as full sized Fords or Chevies inside. The LX and LH have nothing mechanically in common, but are succesors, and the premier->Monaco->Intrepid->Charger line is solid, it's just a few short years joining to the Ambassador->Rebel->Matador line which is also solid.

The Matador was still classified as an intermediate, though. Sure, the LH-cars and LX-cars have nothing in common, but the latter replaced the former because they were only a few months apart and filled the same markets as the LH-cars did. The Matador->Premier link is NOT solid because they are 10 years apart (far too long to be considered successors), were created for different purposes (the Matador was made to replace the Rebel while the Premier was solely created to increase AMC's lineup of Renaults along with the Medallion), and were classified differently (the Matador was an intermediate/mid-size, while the Premier was full-size). Your observations do not belong at Wikipedia, we've been through this before. --ApolloBoy 22:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Dukes of Hazzard? 2 Better Photo 3 History of merged content 4 Rewrite 5 Is there a government ruling board now on all Wikipedia automobile pages?? 6 User:Wiarthurhu (aka matador300) and Toy cars. 7 Who objects to Scale Models? 8 The dictionary definition of consensus 9 Deleting, not Fixing 10 Plymouth Satellite in popular culture 11 Famous Belvederes 12 Trivia 13 If a link already exists in the other article, it's ok to put on in here 14 Dukes of Hazzard Police Matador!!! 15 Barcelona

[edit] Dukes of Hazzard?

The article says that Matadors were used in the TV version of The Dukes of Hazzard - however, the comprehensive list of cars in that article doesn't mention the Matador. In fact, the only cars not listed explicitly in that article is the police cruisers. Were those Matadors? SteveBaker 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Only police cars I saw were the downsized Satellite Furies. I'd notice if it was a Matador, is there a DOH expert who can confirm?--Wiarthurhu 07:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - then let's rip that line out of the article - we can put it back if we find solid evidence. Meanwhile it's not looking right and it's better to have missing information than wrong information - even if it's only in a 'trivia' section. SteveBaker 14:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Photo

Useful tip for the future: It seems like there was no photo of an actual, for real, not NASCAR-ized Matador on the page - so I found someone selling their car on eBay and asked really nicely if I could feature their car in the Wikipedia article - and (no suprise) they were very happy to hand over the rights to their photo. This trick has worked for me half a dozen times - and it's a LOT better than relying on 'fair use' images. SteveBaker 02:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the old photo back. There's a reason they used retouched photos in glossy literature, it looks better, plus it's got the wood grain top-of-the-line model. Somewhere in the middle, cropped and larger might work, but we need pictures of the 2 and 4 door, and the ugly 78 4 door, why don't you try that trick with another body style. There was also a terrific Matador wagon drag racer that might still be on ebay. PS, the truth will come out. The Premier is the follow on, just you wait........ Yeah, I might be a little odd for thinking that the Matador and Premier are some of the most important cars in American history instead of 2 most obscure cars.... --Wiarthurhu 07:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'old photo' wasn't a photo at all - it's artwork (I do photogrammetry as part of my job - trust me, I know an airbrushed image from a photo). But in any case, the person who contributed that photo admits to not knowing its history - and what vague hints there are as to its history suggest that it's maybe kinda justifiable under 'fair use'. But one of the requirements of fair use in Wikipedia is that you can't find a substitute - and I just did - so we can't use it anymore - and frankly, we don't want to because the idea is to have free and original content here. Let's just find someone with a photo of a wood-sided Matador on their web site and ask nicely if we can use it. I have asked DOZENS of people to rights to use their photos - and as soon as you say it's for Wikipedia, they have always been happy (even 'honored') to have their car/plane/whatever featured here. SteveBaker 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that picture when it first came out, you can still get the AMC product brocure for 1972 from ebay. All of the pictures looked like that. I think photography has advanced a bit since then. Believe me, nobody was more enthusiastic about Matadors at the time than I was in high school (yes, that's pretty sad). It must be a scan from the brocure. I asked another guy for the 1977 4 door, and will put it up when I get an OK. Anyways, I would like to ask you to put the original picture back, and put the photo into a gallery at the bottom where we can pile all the other pictures that will be coming up I don't want to surprise you by doing it myself, or forcing a vote on the issue. The picture should be re-annoted to read "witness can verify that it appeard in AMC brocure in 1972" BTW, how DO they make pictures that look like retouched photos? --71.112.5.20 15:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Scans from brochures are dubious (at best) fair-use claims. It's definitely illegal to use them if other sources exist - and they clearly do exist. The only way we could use the photo from the brochure would be if we were discussing the brochure itself - and we aren't. So please don't put the brochure scan back - in a gallery or whatever - because I'll be forced to revert it. Re-annotating the image doesn't really help - it only confirms the suspicion that we can't use it. The photo of the NASCAR Matador is also on the edge of being illegal (although we do talk about the NASCAR thing specifically - so it's not quite so problematic from a 'fair-use' perspective). What we REALLY need is a photo someone took of that car that they are willing to put into the public domain. Incidentally, the way they made hand-painted images look like photos between about the 1950's up to maybe the mid 1980's was to employ very good artists and to make copious use of airbrushing to create subtle highlights and faux reflections - those guys were incredibly skilled yet badly paid. But in an age when computerised 'paint' programs didn't exist, that was really the only way. These days they are more likely to take the existing CAD model of the car and render it in a 3D graphics package. SteveBaker 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of merged content

I've merged content from List of 1971 American Motors automobiles, but since it's a list of specifications sourced from Oct. 1970 Popular Mechanics, I think it's safe to delete the article as long as I provide proper attribution. So here is the article history before I deleted it:

• (cur) (last) 14:38, 26 June 2006 Wiarthurhu (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved List of 1971 American Motors Automobiles to List of 1971 American Motors automobiles: caps title)
• (cur) (last) 14:30, 26 June 2006 Wiarthurhu (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved 1971 American Motors Specifications to List of 1971 American Motors Automobiles: OK, no rule against lists of cars, right?)
• (cur) (last) 04:44, 26 June 2006 ApolloBoy (Talk | contribs | block) (This does not qualify for an article)
• (cur) (last) 02:21, 26 June 2006 Wiarthurhu (Talk | contribs | block) (Well, excel table is here, u r welcome to clean up html.)
• (cur) (last) 02:02, 26 June 2006 Wiarthurhu (Talk | contribs | block) (Table has data that can be placed in other AMC wiki pages. Pleeeez don't delete it. If you know how to do a table, please do it.)

--Deathphoenix ʕ 23:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Looks ok, but toys and reference to next big AMC car deleted again. Please leave stuff in that's verifiable as long as it's not demonstrably wrong or ugly. Matador pinewood derby is cute and should stay, the Mark Donahue and pinewood derby don't mind and there is no other picture of that hardtop style --matador300 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit this article (well, I will remove the daft tautological opening sentence - see #1 below), but...

1. The word "American" appeared twice in the opening sentence. I'm at a loss to explain why you felt the need to do that.
2. There's several grammatical errors in "AMC would not introduce another large car the 1988 french designed Eagle Premier until after being purchased by Chrysler."
3. You've missed out several Wikilinks (French, Chargers, Superbirds, etc)
4. The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not cuteness (a subjective opinion that I for one would dispute - I think the toy looks hideous). And now I've just noticed you've inserted the photo into the Mark Donohue article as well, even though your own caption explains the number on it is wrong?
5. I'm guessing the 'Toys' section keeps getting deleted as it's unencyclopedic and not notable. Almost every car has had toys/models made of them.
6. Using the "Show preview" button might help you avoid having to make four edits in 14 minutes.

Regards, -- DeLarge 23:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'm guessing the 'Toys' section keeps getting deleted as it's unencyclopedic and not notable. Almost every car has had toys/models made of them." - Exactly. Also, I've noticed that people keep adding "In pop culture" sections for some cars, including this one. I don't think sections like that are notable (except for some obvious ones like the Yugo or AMC Gremlin), so should I bring this up at the WikiProject talk page? --ApolloBoy 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I havn't yet personally deleted the toys section - but I would have no compunction in doing so. It was truly worthless. Every car on the planet has had toys made for it - we don't go on about that in all the other car articles on WP because it's not notable. I don't see why this one needs to be different. You can argue that the pinewood racer is 'cute' (I don't) - but regardless, this is an article about the actual car and the pinewood car gave us absolutely ZERO additional information about that - so it doesn't belong here. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't "not demonstrably wrong or ugly" - the criteria is "verifiably true, notable and relevent". So a photo of a crappily made model of the car doesn't belong in the article - we don't have to demonstrate that it's ugly - we merely have to ask whether it's notable and relevent - IMHO, it's neither. SteveBaker 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK now I've deleted the toys section. SteveBaker 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a government ruling board now on all Wikipedia automobile pages??

I thought the WP pages were free for anybody to edit. Now there's a governmental body that dictates which content will be summarily removed without warning? If so where is the complete list of content that will be tossed out, and where is the rule that any mention of an Eagle Premier in the context of being a link between AMC and Chrysler is to be banned while we're at it?? Why not put a complete list of all banned topics at the top of every article, so new editors don't waste their time. So far anybody that mentions flush door handles, flush headrests, or Machine option gets erased, let alone any connection to Eagle or Chrysler.

It took me 3 hours to find and capture the screen with Michael Jackson on top of a Matador, not to mention 6 months of working on a list of toys and collectibles, and now we have a fashion police that dictates what data will be kicked out whether or not it destroys useful information? WP dictates you can remove information if it is a good faith attempt to improve WP, but if it detracts, it is vandalism.

This is what I hate about WP, it will only permit whatever bunch of jokers wants to control into it.

I placed a link from the Michael Jackson video to this content, and then Apolloboy goes and erases it again. What gives? Can't we just let content sit in piece instead of tossing everything they didn't write out the window?? --matador300 05:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• AMC Matadors were used in the first Police Academy movie.
• LAPD Matadors appear in Pink Floyd's movie The Wall.

• In the controversial music video Black or White, Michael Jackson takes a sledgehammer to a Matador in a long dance sequence in which Jackson shouted, grabbed his crotch, and smashed car windows in a bizarre display that seemed at odds with the song's harmonious messages. | view video]

matador300: I strongly recommend that you look at some other Wikipedia car pages. Check particularly the ones that reached Featured article status - those are the ones that come closest to meeting the communities idea of the ideal, perfect article - they have been through 'Good Article' reviews, 'Peer Review', 'Featured Article Nomination' review and 'Article of the Day' review. If an article makes it past all of that, then you can be sure it meets Wikipedia standards. There is a list of the eleven car articles that are considered the best car articles on Wikipedia: Portal:Cars/Selected_article - I think about half of those have passed all stages of review. Now - ask yourself - do ANY of them have this kind of material in them? I am the principal author of two of those articles - so I do know what I'm talking about. So - I'm going to delete this stuff one more time - just so you know it's not just ApolloBoy who feels this way - and remember that I can prove that I know my stuff when it comes to notability within Wikipedia car articles. SteveBaker 05:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"This is what I hate about WP, it will only permit whatever bunch of jokers wants to control into it."

Looks like you forgot to read this...

"If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --ApolloBoy 05:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This was bloody awful, but it was not vandalism, I'll keep it here in case there's something that can be salvaged later. --matador300 22:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

- The AMC Matador is an intermediate size car manufactured by American Motors Corporation from 1971 to '78. The name Matador replaced Rebel, as AMC continued to shed the Rambler image that had become tainted with jeers for having dull styling and sluggish performance, and verifies AMC's intention to race the car in stock car racing circuits where certain of those tracks are known as "bullrings". From '71 to '73, three models were made, all sharing the same drivetrain options and recognizable styling features; a 2dr, 4dr and station wagon. The 2dr Rebel Machine became an encoded high performance option for the Matador without the exterior telling cues. This option included AMC's new 401 version of the former 390 V8 with a 4spd manual transmission and a police car type suspension package (heavy duty springs and shocks, front and rear sway bars). The police car package on the sedan type (mostly 4dr) Matadors are well favored in history, having the Adam-12 TV show for verification. Matador station wagons featured a dual action, changeable rear door that swung from it's side or bottom hinges. The full selection of all AMC drivetrains and interior options could be had from spartan base model to powerful and/or luxurious versions as AMC attempted to match their competition's offerings. True to it's mission, AMC launched a version of this Matador into sanctioned stock car racing donning the obligatory sectioned red, white and blue AMC racing team paint scheme. While the hired Penske Racing crew complained of the Matador's aerodynamic qualities, this car's moderate racing success was more probably due to engine failures, judging by what the sanctioning body record charts say in racing history; the DNF (did not finish) with engine failure for reason is prevalent. A hired racing engine builder company named Traco was criticized for this problem. A strikingly different styled new 2dr became available in late '73, as a '74 model, known as the Matador coupe; AMC's AMX image arrived in a larger intermediate model, the styling obviously transferred from the limited production mid-engined '70 AMX/3. Arguably more handsome, a 4dr and station wagon model were planned to follow the initial splash of the 2dr but the gas crisis of '73 crushed AMC's dream to evolve their large intermediate class models into this unconventional body style. Tragic timing. Frankly, it seemed the Matador Coupe and it's the gas monster 4bbl AMC V8 engine options existed only to serve AMC's addiction to racing in spite of the gas crisis. AMC adamantly served the radical 2dr to the public with a healthy spectrum of optional trim levels; base model, Brougham, Matador X, the plush Oleg Cassini and Barcelona, and of course, an aerodynamic designed body to serve it's own racing mission to outdo the competition. Then it was Bobby Allison who earned respect for AMC with a Matador Coupe on the raceways of USA. With respect for US history, the gas crisis caused consumers had turned away to embrace imported cars for their foreign frugality. AMC reacted only to continue the pre-'74 model 4dr and station wagon, with minor revisions, for it's loyal followers, along with the racy 2dr version, making those three models until 1978. Most memorable, the Matador Coupe properly prepared to race on a sanctioned raceway, and the Matador police car both earned their honorable mention in US auto history. Currently active AMC enthusiast clubs are excellent sources for information and parts for any interested autophile

It is vandalism. The user who keeps adding stuff like that in has been told several times to stop and never responded. Also, that version is filled with POV, grammatical errors, needs to be extensively wikified and is practically redundant since it says pretty much everything the current article says. --ApolloBoy 01:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wiarthurhu (aka matador300) and Toy cars.

This user put his favorite pinewood derby car back into AMC Matador again - I rv'ed it...again...<sigh>. This is a photo he took of a car he built (at least according to the image description) - this is definitely 'original research'. If you make a model of a car take a photo of it and attach it to an article about that car - you did original research - and it's flat out not allowed - no matter how relevent it might be to the article. It's also 'WP:Vanity' - which is also not allowed. Also, we do not put material about toy cars into articles about real cars - just about every real car ever made has one or more toys made of it - so this fact is quite utterly non-notable. If we're going to document the toys made for real cars then I'm going to have to start photographing my 300 toy MINIs! This has to be the fifth or sixth time we've been through this - and I'm getting pretty sick of it. SteveBaker 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu has now added WP:3RR to WP:NOR, WP:Vanity and WP:NPA - so I've taken it to mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03 AMC Matador - this is just ridiculous. SteveBaker 01:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with User:SteveBaker (edit - and User:ApolloBoy) here. The excision of the 'Models' section and the accompanying photos does not reduce the amount of information about the car itself, especially with a photo of an actual Penske Matador already in place. Its addition, by contrast, seems to be adding only some skewy formatting (WP:MOS#Pictures recommends against justifying two photos opposite each other and letting the text run between them). Removal of it has been discussed here, agreed by consensus, and is not therefore (a) "careless", (b) "unnecessary destruction", (c) "vandalism", etc etc. --DeLarge 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All the usual suspects....--matador300 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who objects to Scale Models?

For a car that advertised its obscurity, it was the subject of not a small number of scale models and toys, compared to the higher volume but rarely modeled Hornet. Aurora AFX HO-scale slot cars made police and taxi versions of the 1972 hardtop, including one painted like the Penske / Mark Donahue "flying brick". The overstyled 1974 coupe was also produced as an HO slot car, but not the better selling Ford Torino. The coupe was the subject of 1/24 scale plastic models by AMT. Cox, maker of gas powered models, produced a 4 door Matador sedan, and a larger slot car of the 1974 coupe. While the Plymouth Superbird is a common Pinewood Derby muscle car subject, its boxy shape makes the 1972 Penske Matador a relatively simple project.

Does this rule apply to all auto and toy pages? Airplane pages? Ship pages? Are all model and replicas banned on all WP pages? All auto pages? Certain auto pages? Toy pages? Who makes the rules? Why can you post a picture of a Matador on a pinewood derby or matchbox page, but not on the car it represents? What if no picture of the actual car is available, and no promo picture is available? Who made up these rules? Which pages do they govern? Can you use a model of the Boeing 787 on that page if the airplane hasn't been built yet? What if after it has been built? Are digital models allowed? Are links to movies of digital models allowed (see SA-6)? Are drawings allowed? If so by whom? What about a stack of Hot Wheels Dodge Caravans? What if you have a sourced reference to a notable toy? Can a toy have an entry (such as GI Joe?) Can a single scene from a movie have an article (Killer rabbit?) Can a single character from a movie have an article? Can a single model of a car (The Machine) have its own article? Is an automotive reference book an unreliable source? Is an article with many references and links unsourced? And what is the meaning of life anyway??? --matador300 02:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along? -- Rodney King

[edit] The dictionary definition of consensus

I took your advice and "Looked up the definition of consensus. That's EVERYBODY agrees."

From Merriam Webster Online: "1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports...from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>".

That's me citing a reliable source. I'll add your 5th revert to the list now. Regards, --DeLarge 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a sham definition that's used to push nonsense like mandatory graduation testing and stuff like that. If one guy is right, he gets overruled. So what is the group? I'd like to see the decision, since I wasn't part of it. Consenus means agreement and harmony, and we certainly don't have that here.

--matador300 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the contact page for Merriam-Webster.com, if you wish to lodge a complaint with them. Unlike Wikipedia, I do not contribute to the dictionary, and cannot be held responsible for its content. I merely quote from it where appropriate. Regards, --DeLarge 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The requirement to reach utter unanimity would render all debate on Wikipedia impossible. If only one person has to object - then everyone would have the right of veto and nothing would happen. Plus, if you are arguing between 'Position A' and 'Position B' - then one vote against 'Position B' does not make 'Position A' the correct solution. Is there a consensus that the pinewood derby photo should remain? No - very far from it. Is there an utterly unanimous consensus that it should go? Sadly, not. However are we close to consensus? Yes...very close. We only have one objection - and that one objection flies in the face of any number of Wiki guidelines - which have been carefully thought out by a vast number of people. We should strive to achieve an article that everyone can agree on - that would be complete consensus. Failing that we can merely approach perfection and keep a large majority of people happy. That's the only way this can work. SteveBaker 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting, not Fixing

Please justify the removal of Adam 12 and Pink Floyd and Cox from this section:

While V-8 power was down for many sedans, AMC used a 401 cubic inch V-8 that outpowered most other police sedans. 0 to 60 times were within 7 seconds, comparable to the 2006 Charger Hemi police car. Top speed was about 125 miles an hour, which took only 43 seconds, much faster than the previous 1970 Plymouth Satellites. These cars would be seen on later episodes of Adam-12, and Pink Floyd The Wall (film). The Adam-12 police car would also be the subject of a now-rare Cox radio controlled gas powered replica.^[1]--matador300 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They aren't notable. Sure Adam-12 and The Wall featured Matadors, but so did some other 1970s and 1980s TV shows, like The A-Team for instance. Plus, the Matador was just used as a "generic cop car" in those movies/TV shows, much like the LTD Crown Vic or the Monaco. --ApolloBoy 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plymouth Satellite in popular culture

• In the television series Adam-12 one of the patrol cars used was a 1971 Plymouth Satellite.

--matador300 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with this article? --ApolloBoy 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Belvederes

• In the televison series Adam-12 1968 and 1969 Plymouth Belvederes were used as patrol cars.--matador300 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

By these counts, there are actually more famous Matadors than Satellites or Belvederes, if we count all the ones removed by ApolloBoy. --matador300 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the messed up deletion--matador300 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote from WP:Vandal

 "Talk page vandalism
   Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion. However, note that removing comments without responding may be considered unvicil or become an issue for arbitration, especially where the intention of the removal is to conceal information (e.g. previous warnings) or mislead other editors."

Way to go Wiarthurhu - are you trying for some kind of Wiki-record and become the first person to violate ALL of the rules? SteveBaker 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I messed up, what can I say? Edits made in good faith are never vandalism. Now YOU'RE being uncivil. Ease up man.--matador300 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, what's up with Matador being the only car that can't mention being on Adam-12 or TV series?? Or videos. Or movies. What do YOU think?? --matador300 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm really upset. Equal justice for Matador!! --matador300 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Monacos were popular as police cars and a 1974 police model nicknamed "The Bluesmobile" appears as the vehicle purchased by Elwood Blues in the 1980 comedy film The Blues Brothers.

Many of these police car Monacos of the 1970s (and its sister car, the Plymouth Fury) were torpedoed in the air or destroyed in Hollywood car stunt scenes in that decade and in the 1980s. The Dukes of Hazzard was infamous for the use (and destruction) of mid- to late-1970s Dodge Monacos and Plymouth Furys. A few were also used in early episodes of the 1980s show T. J. Hooker. The title character of the cop show Hunter drove a hunter-green '78 Monaco.

[edit] If a link already exists in the other article, it's ok to put on in here

How's that for a simple guideline?? --matador300 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So your theory is that if any one of the 1.2 million Enlish language articles on Wikipedia is breaking the WP guidelines - or the bounds of good taste and common sense - or the laws of several countries - then it's OK for you to go and screw up every other article in the same way? Um....let me think about that....NO!! SteveBaker 06:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dukes of Hazzard Police Matador!!!

• check it out link here

If I buy it, can I mention it in the article??

[edit] Barcelona

The Matador Coupe never had roll-down quarter windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.251.114 (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)