Talk:Dodge Ram/Archive 1

This page has got a lot of problems and vandalism as it sits right now, especially considering the fact that the Cummins engine is not mentioned by name even once. The first link/source has quite a bit of information which would make sense to use. (The Edmunds link to the history of the Ram [1]).

Why does the first section of Generation 2 look like it was written by a four year old?

'The option of leather seats taken away'? Who made that discision?

Dodge Ram R/T...

I felt the need to mention a relatively unknown, but somewhat significant (arguably) option package offered on Ram. From later 89 (as a 90) until the intro of the newer body style trucks, Ram was offered with an R/T appearance package. This pkg was grouped with a 5.9 V8 among other options (or, should I say you could only get this decor pkg on 5.9 equipped trucks), and was little more than alloys and an "R/T" badge on the box (later years said R/T by Dodge. One could argue its significance because the very early '90s saw the broad return of the R/T name, in vehicles such as the Spirit R/T & Stealth R/T in 91, making this among the earliest. Much like the relatively unknown "gold wheel package" that came on the Viper, or the factory "street pkg" (among its other names), that was available on the 03-04 Dakota, which included a mild body kit, the Ram R/T has not been well documented. I will, however, try to get a pic of the one I sold, if and when I see it around again. I have only come across 4 others. This number is higher, because the little local Dodge Dealer here stocked more odd-ball rarities than any other on this side of the nation. Hope this info ads to the article 01:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of fact requests

The amount of {{fact}}, WP:CITE request and other editor-specific wiki-babble have left this article in horrendous shape. It is virtually unreadable in its present form and any non-editing wikipedia reader, (and yes, there are some people who come to wikipedia to just read information), would find this an extremely poor example of what WP has to offer. While citation requests for specific facts (sales figures, vehicle specifications, etc) are totally legitimate, this article has become the poster child for "What not to do with WP:CITE." I hesitate to begin removing them, however WP:BOLD that may seem, as it may degenerate to a WP:EDITWAR. Ideas for improvement are requested, and I have also posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles for the group's assistance. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it seems to have overuse of those fact templates, just remove those, which has section tag need not those.."This section does not cite any references or sources. (February 2008)" is enough is Special Rams section --— Typ932^{T | C}  15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely overused. If you click through one of the tags you'll end up at Template:Fact, which explicitly states that "This template is intended for specific passages which need citation. For articles or sections which have significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{unreferenced}}." --DeLarge (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no help, no hope. Your plethora of fact tags were placed there (go through the history pages) by the same user who did :::::the same thing to the Ford FE engine page. And then 'archived' all the complaints about his high-handed dictatorial takeover of :::::the article. 4 months later this 'editor' then went through and deleted anything he didn't like (even though he admitted he :::::wasn't an expert on the subject matter...in one of the archived discussion pages). Meanwhile, the 1st Generation Camaro article :::::sits with absolutely ZERO references or citations for years (to give one example).

When a vandalism complaint was lodged it was dismissed out of hand by one of you folk, because he's one of you?

Why isn't there an official policy against abusive editing?

Why should anyone help you with your article when you all ignore requests for arbitration for others' articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)