Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SteveBaker (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 23 June 2006 (→Dukes of Hazzard?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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". 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.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, they have always been happy (even 'honored') to have their car/plane/whatever featured here. SteveBaker 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)