Talk:Chrysler Valiant

Gallons

The article mentions gallons a couple of times. Which gallon do we mean, the US or the imperial? JЇѦρ 01:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that 'gallons' are imperial. During the 60s Australian motor manufacturers wouldn't have used anything else.(Terrybebb (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

"...Chrysler deserved to win..."

From "Wheels" Magazine, October 1996, p83:

"...Ferodo also wanted them [the brake pads] to be available to the Chryslers and Toranas. They boxed up several sets, so they were indeed available. Fortunately, as we'd agreed, Ferodo neglected to tell Chrysler and Holden about them...    ...Really, Chrysler [E38 Chargers] deserved to win that year." (Howard Marsden)

Captions

This article is not just about Chrysler Valiant. It also covers Chrysler Valiant Regal, Chrysler Regal, Chrysler Valiant Charger, Chrysler Charger, Dodge Utility, Chrysler VIP and Chrysler by Chrysler. For that reason alone full captions are preferable over partial captions. I have reverted the recent changes to the captions accordingly. GTHO (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Erm…yes, this article also covers the submodels of the Chrysler Valiant, which is why the submodels were left in place in the caption cleanup I did. Please don't just reflexively revert an edit you suspect you might not like. Give it a careful, thoughtful look and a fair go. It is redundant to include "Chrysler Valiant" in every caption. The article is about the Chrysler Valiant and its many submodels, a fact presented by the article title and constantly reinforced by the text. It's highly unlikely the reader will forget that's what he's reading about, so for full identification a picture of a Chrysler Valiant AP6 Safari station wagon need be captioned only AP6 Safari station wagon, a picture of a Chrysler Valiant VG Regal 770 hardtop need be captioned only VG Regal 770 hardtop, a picture of a Chrysler Valiant VK Charger need be captioned only VK Charger, a picture of a Chrysler Valiant VC Wayfarer utility need be captioned only VC Wayfarer utility, and so on. Captions like these positively, fully, and unambiguously identify the vehicle pictured without unnecessary redundant verbiage.

As long as no relevant information is omitted, tighter captions make for a cleaner, higher-quality article, while redundant information in a caption just bloats it unnecessarily and with no benefit. It's bad form to attempt to squeeze article text into image captions. Let the text be the text, and the captions be the captions. Moreover, your reversion seemed overly zealous; it undid additional text cleanup within the article body. I see you attempted to remedy that overstep with a subsequent intro edit, which I have incorporated into my most recent edit. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for any constructive changes that I missed outside of the intro. However I do not feel that the changes made to the captions were in accord with the relevant Manual of Style. We are told that a caption should be written so that it "clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious". If all the images were of Chrysler Valiants the changes may have been acceptable but they are not all Chrysler Valiants. Images include Chrysler Valiant Regal, Chrysler Regal and Chrysler Valiant Charger and Chrysler Charger. These images now have incomplete and therefore ambiguous captions which fail to inform the reader as to the correct name of the vehicle and therefore fail to meet the "Clear identification" requirement. The simplification of the captions has also removed points of interest (such as the status of the Dodge Utility and the introduction of the utility body style in the AP6 series) which were in accord with the "Providing context for the picture" section of the Manual of Style. I propose a return to the clear unambiguous captions which were present prior to the mass change. GTHO (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I definitely see your point, and I think the MoS caption guidelines you're pointing to support my caption revisions. I think what we have here is a difference in interpretation of the "clearly identifies the subject" guideline. You seem to be interpreting it to mean that a viewer of the captioned image alone, by itself, not in any article or other context, ought to be able to completely identify the subject of the picture. In that case, yes, "Chrysler Valiant" would need to be included in each and every caption. Me, I am interpreting it to mean that a viewer of the captioned image ought to be able to completely identify the subject of the picture in context of the article where it is found. I don't know that either of us is necessarily right or wrong here; we have to keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a system of laws and that the guidelines are open to some philosophical interpretation. It's not a life-or-death matter of article quality, but I'm hoping some additional voices will pipe up here and we can maybe see if there's anything like a tendency towards consensus one way or t'other.

As to the longer text in some of the captions, all of it was redundant with better-written, more complete article text content. Its placement in the captions made them overly long (seemingly not in line with the spirit of the "succinctness" guideline of the MoS section on captions). From my perspective, each of the images' thoughtful placement within or near the relevant section of text does a better, tidier overall job of providing context for the picture than trying to squeeze redundant text into the image caption. Here again, it seems we're both striving to improve the article on the whole, and all we disagree about is how best to do it. Shall we give it a little time and see what other opinions might arise? Revisit it in a couple days? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets see what develops. GTHO (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm here in response to a request for a 3rd Opinion. Based on the information I've seen, I would say you are both right. It *is* redundant to include "Chrysler Valiant" in every single caption image. However, I also think that Scheinwerfermann's position is weakened by a level of familiarity with the subject that is not common - that is, it is common for insiders to use jargon in situations where an outsider might not be completely comfortable, even if the jargon can be deciphered with a little bit of effort. I definitely agree that including "Chrysler" in every caption is superfluous, because I think there is a strong enough association between "Chrysler" and "Valiant" that the reader can make the connection without constantly being reminded of it. I think that what is less clear is that the sub-types are strongly associated with the model - particularly when the contextual information (in this case, images) doesn't do a lot to help readers (that is - the cars are very diverse in colors, body style. If it was a uniform set of factory shots that were shown in similar angles to highlight differences I would agree - the hodge-podge of images how ever could leave the users with a reasonable doubt). I think that "Valiant" should be included in the captions, but "Chrysler" is a redundant inclusion. This may seem redundant as well, but I tend to agree with GTHO's position that the information in the captions is not sufficient to communicate to the user *what* they are actually seeing. With some other contextual information (perhaps dates, times, places, market segments, popularity comments - something else to link it to the text) you might be able to get around the use of the word "Valiant" in every caption. Sahrin (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sahrin, your assessment makes a lot of sense to me—more so than my earlier position or GTHO's. I think it's just about perfect. GTHO, whaddya say, shall we add "Valiant" but not "Chrysler" back to every caption except the one of the Dodge ute? This leaves unresolved the question of whether to duplicate article text in the captions. I'm still against it; I wonder if we might compromise by adding a smaller bit of text to photos of models that bear special mention. For example, there's fairly good detail in the article body on the Dodge ute being a lower-price version of the VE-VF Valiant ute, but how about if we had a brief note to that effect in the caption, something like VE Dodge utility: lower-price version of Valiant ute and let the details be told in the body text? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposal to return the Valiant name to the captions (where applicable) as this will go some way to removing the ambiguity which currently exists. Of course it means that readers and editors will still need to assess each caption against the text to determine which names have been omitted and why. This will be particularly so with the VK Charger & CL Charger captions where the Chrysler name is omitted because it’s use is considered redundant, but the Valiant name is omitted because its use would be erroneous. GTHO (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted the captions to include "Valiant" (where applicable) and to annotate the VE Dodge ute image. I made the somewhat arbitrary but uniform choice to format the captions as series (AP5, VE, CL, etc.), make (Valiant), model and submodel (Regal, Safari, Wayfarer, etc.); my logic here is that the series is a crucial identifier but isn't part of the model name — nowhere on the car does "SV1" or "AP6" appear, for example, so I avoided formatting the captions to make it seem like "VE" (for instance) was part of the model name. What do you think? And, what do you propose we do about the Chargers? The article text includes the phrase "Valiant Charger". You seem to favour "Chrysler Charger". Is there good support for either phrase, or for another? My copies of The Valiant Book, Hey Charger, etc. are thousands of KMs away from me right now. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The most commonly used Wikipedia format for Australian vehicles is Make / Series / Model / Submodel e.g. an AP5 series Chrysler Valiant Regal is referred to as a Chrysler AP5 Valiant Regal. If the Chrysler name is to be left out, it would logically become AP5 Valiant Regal. In the case of the Dodge VE Utility, the make name (Dodge) stays, so it’s still Dodge VE Utility. Re the Charger naming issue, the VH & VJ models were Valiants, hence the names would read VH Valiant Charger & VJ Valiant Charger. The VK and CL Chargers did not use the Valiant name, hence VK Charger & CL Charger. The Regal lost its Valiant nametag for the CL series and onwards , hence e.g. VK Valiant Regal for the older models and CL Regal & CM Regal for the last two. The Charger and Regal name changes are outlined, with references, in the article text and the captions accurately reflected these differences prior to the “cleanup”. GTHO (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Okeh, it looks to me as though the captions, as they presently stand, accord with all of what you've just laid out. Do you agree? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much so. I've made a couple of minor improvements. GTHO (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rear drum brakes were outdated in 1978? I think not

The article states that by the time the CM arrived in 1978, it was outdated, partly because it still had rear drums. Four wheel disc brakes didn't become popular until the 80s, and even today in 2011, plenty of cars still use rear drum brakes. Perhaps the article could be reworded to say something like - "the lack of an option of 4 wheel disc brakes..." or something along those lines. Also, the article hardly contains any information about specification and features of each model. For example, when was air conditioning made available, which models had power windows, and so forth. Davez621 (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Right you are. The comments about rear drum brakes and torsion bars(!) were obviously some schlemiel's personal opinion, not supported and — especially with regard to the torsion bars — not supportable by reliable sources. I've deleted them. You're also right that a great deal more detail is needed on the equipment available on the various models. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The VC Series was built both for its major market, Australia, but also in left-hand drive for export to the United Kingdom, Why would they build left-hand drive versions for export to the UK when they are a right-hand drive country?Piglos (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chrysler Valiant. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060113151103/http://www.fastlane.com.au/Features/Valiant_Australia.htm to http://www.fastlane.com.au/Features/Valiant_Australia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)