Talk:Chrysler Neon

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review Chrysler Neon has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Previously unsectioned comments

The Dodge and Plymouth Neon were introduced in 1994 as 1995 models. They replaced the Dodge Shadow and Plymouth Sundance which were last produced as 1993 model year vehicles.

The last year for the Shadow/Sundance was 1994, not 1993. --ApolloBoy 04:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

The text is "wrapped" around the small square Table of Context box in order to avoid ugly gaping holes of blank space. Try alternatives yourself and see the effect . There is currently an editor going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles to satisfy some obscure personal agenda. --Wetman 21:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not obscure or personal, it was the overwhelming feeling of the VfD discussion for this template. The whitespace generated by a four item Table of Contents is is no way a problem for the layout of any article, let alone this one. There is a reason for the default TOC being as it is, if most people found it ugly it certainly wouldn't be the default. There is no way TOCright or TOCleft are justified for a four item TOC. Saying "every sensible adult" would support its use on these pages is certainly not the case, most sensible adults were and are against its use except as a last resort for long TOCs, and the majority of sensible adults continue using the default TOC in their articles. If you wish to go on abusing this template by using it where it is not remotely neccesary, you may be turning those who voted to keep it as a last resort off it altogether. Joe D (t) 21:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SRT4

Shouldn't the SRT4 have its own article, even if it's a distinctive Neon? I mean because it is technically recognized as a different vehicle? The Helper S

Yes it should, since DaimlerChrysler sells the SRT-4 as a separate model from the Neon. --ApolloBoy 02:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weak suprelatives... almost too NPOV for NPOV

"Better than average", "moderately poorly". This article really reeks of design-by-committee and feels like a lame compromise between two extremes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.113.46 (talk • contribs)

I agree, but this sort of thing is endemic to Wikipedia automotive articles, especially cars that certain segments of the enthusiast community love to hate (this car, the S2000, the Skyline GT-R, etc). Just stating a car's specs, history, and commendations isn't enough for these people, hence the articles get polluted with weak backhanded praise and POV-magnet "Criticism" sections. — AKADriver ☎ 14:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PT Cruiser - not a replacement

User:Bavaria and others are intent on pushing this into the article, but it's obviously false - the PT Cruiser was sold concurrently with the second-generation Neon from 2000 on. While production continues, it occupies a different market segment as a crossover utility vehicle. It's not a replacement, it's not a successor, it's only somewhat related. — AKADriver ☎ 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Chrysler Neon?

It seems most appropriate, since it was promoted equally as a Dodge and Plymouth here in the US, and sold as a Chrysler abroad. All the various names fall under the "Chrysler" umbrella. — AKADriver ☎ 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather split all three up, as all three have different histories and in the case of the Chrysler Neon, have some significant mechanical differences. If this was moved to "Chrysler Neon", I think it would cause some confusion.--ApolloBoy 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That just seems excessive.. there weren't any significant differences between Dodges and Plymouths except for special editions like the R/T and Style, and the mechanical differences of the Chrysler amount to an available 1.8L engine and different strut valving. Eight generations and hundreds of different country-specific variants of Honda Civic all fit into one article. — AKADriver ☎ 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

What is wrong with Image:1997Plymouth-Neon.jpg? There is a proper source and tagging. Plus the free image is of poorer quality. Bavaria 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If the free image is of decent quality, then it must replace the fair use image. Besides, it's generally considered better to upload free images rather than fair use images; in fact I've stopped uploading fair use images in favor of free images. I suggest you do what me and SteveBaker do, go on eBay auctions for a car and ask the seller if it's alright to use under the public domain. It works... --ApolloBoy 21:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Model years

Remember before editing that under US law, a model year may begin as early as January 2 of the previous year. The Neon is one such example of a car introduced very early in 1994 as a 1995 - all the sales literature, as well as the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin and subsequent titles describe these models as 1995s.

However, subsequent model years of the Neon began in the fall (starting in the fall of 1995 for 1996 models), and the last model year was 2005, concluding in September of that year.

You will find no Neons titled in North America as 1994 or 2006 models. — AKADriver ☎ 19:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good fix on the article. There was a user awhile back whose name I don't recall at the moment who went around changing a bunch of vehicle articles to calendar years, rather than model years. Cleaning up his mess has been a protracted effort...thanks for your help. --Scheinwerfermann 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That user was me (My user number was 71.62.244.59 at the time, and was changed to 71.63.42.172 in August 2007 for unknown reasons). What he means is that I tried to put in both calendar years and model years. For example: 1989-1994
1989-1995 (model years). Model years seem kind of hard to follow, because they don't align perfectly with calendar years.-71.63.42.172 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neon Confusion

I took the big step and removed the "2006" section, replacing it with one dubbed "Final year". I thought among all this speculation, it would be best to take it out, until a final solution is made. I looked through my old personal Chrysler Fleet files and found that it shows a very limited amount of cars selling under the 2006 model designation (and registered as 2006s) in select areas of Canada (as SX 2.0s). These would have more than likely been sold as fleet, (to customers such as governmental branches).This was probably only limited to these few areas. I realize if you google "2006 Neon", you get nothing and if you google "2006 2.0" you still get not very much. I have combed the far ends of the internet, along with other resources, and have found onezies and twozies in terms of examples. However, I've seen this before with a vehicle back in the 1980s, being sold as a 90, despite all commonly known documentation stating otherwise, much like this case. Even the owners manual said otherwise... So there is some evidence in regards to this. Any thoughts?...should a brief inclusion about the possibility of these 2006s made, with some form of reference or link to back it up or course? I'll leave it at that. Solid article otherwise! Jon the dodgeboy 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ....another edit...this time about the Caliber

I made a quick edit that claimed the srt-4 neon's replacement, the Calibre srt, would make around 300hp. Current power claims now rate is at between 280-285 (with Chrysler's updated pre-release info putting it at 283hp). It wasn't a major or absolutely needed edit, but I thought I would save someone else the trouble. Jon the dodgeboy 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] alright people....

I think it is would be helpful (and in good manners) that if somebody contributed a major edit...or tags this article as being...good, bad..whatever, that they mention something about it here. This is just what I think Jon the dodgeboy (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock terms

Where are these peacock terms?? how do we deal with this here?? --Solumeiras (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to edit out the opinions of the writer, and cite statements. Unreferenced statements should be deleted. peacock terms: "merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information. Examples include describing people as "important" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article."

[edit] Its too much

This article has become so cluttered with "citations needed" and "peacock terms" notes that it has become difficult to read. Quit adding these and do something about it! Mike