Talk:Dodge Tomahawk

Detroit Auto Show debut

Dennis Bratland, I fully agree that there is value in context of "... expensive concept vehicles were made was to make a statement, show up rivals, gain attention in media", and kept the flavor of that in the tightened edit. Also kept the images of the other three vehicles that beat the Tomahawk for the major awards that year, as they are integral to the context of what it took to beat such an amazing concept vehicle. The text was still 320 words long, with coverage of the Auto Show's history to provide context for 2003, detail of the other big concepts of 2003, and the decline in the following years. The revised text uses the Tomahawk name a couple more times, further emphasizing that this section is in an article about the Tomahawk, with this section showing the Tomahawk's context relative to, and contributing to, the overall events of 2003. If 320 words are not enough, and there is more that needs saying about the 2003 North American International Auto Show, perhaps it should have an article of its own? All four of the major concept cars from that year would then link to the new article, rather than trying to use this Tomahawk article to tell all the associated stories? Jmg38 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are we even counting words here? This article is 20kb, about 3,400 words. It would have to be more than two and a half times larger to even begin discussing splitting it due to length, according to WP:SIZERULE. If you want to go ahead and expand North American International Auto Show or discuss expanding it at Talk:North American International Auto Show, that's not relevant to this article. Nobody is "using" the Tomahawk article for anything except explaining the Tomahawk. Even if full, separate articles existed on all those topics, we'd still want the same content here. See WP:Summary style. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Undue Weight-fest 2021

Is there some reason for the brutal hatchet job? 136.158.59.173 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't close to being substantive enough to merit the removal that much sourced material. There should at least be an explanation devoted to each section you propose be removed. And we could do without "slapped your girlfriend's ass" bit, if you don't mind. El_C 10:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems quite simple to me, to devote such a huge portion of the article to speed claims that were never really pushed by the manufacturer seems somewhat vindictive and unencyclopedic. Looking at the article's long history, it's quite apparent that it has been used by various editors to prove a point, at the expense of the article. I don't think anyone is denying that the fantasy topspeed claim was inaccurate and that deserves to be mentioned, just not paragraph after paragraph of this crap. 136.158.59.173 (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That is absolutely false. The article cites multiple official press releases where they did in fact push the absurd speed claims, which invites journalists to investigate whether these extraordinary claims are remotely plausible. This sock puppet IP previously insisted on this same false argument that Chrysler and Daimler never made these claims, which is apparently a troll intended to make us post and repost the same links to the same press releases and interviews. The “long history” of the article is only there because of the relentless trolling by sock puppet accounts, which are now either blocked or inactive. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: List defined references

Please comment out the unused list defined references at the bottom of the article. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)