Talk:AMC Machine

Old material
(originally posted at WP autos discussion page, now moved to more appropriate place) Regards, -- DeLarge 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The opening sentence is very ambivalent - I think, to a non-auto enthusiast, it could be inferred that the article author doesn't know what the AMC Machine is (i.e. "it's either a submodel of the Rebel or an option on the Matador, I don't know which"). I figured out that this wasn't the intended message, but maybe a slight change of wording?
 * 2) I also found the use of the word "submodels" to be a bit woolly, probably because the first time I looked at this page there were photos of models (i.e. toys) on it. I initially read it as being either an option on the Matador, or a toy Rebel. Took a couple of reads to clarify that.
 * 3) If it's one of two different things, why is there only one paragraph?
 * 4) Neither the AMC Rebel nor the AMC Matador articles are that large. I'm all for giving a separate page to niche versions of a model when it cuts back on bloat - I've done it myself for a couple of variations of the Mitsubishi Galant - but in this case I think User:93JC is right that the info could be incorporated into the parent articles without difficulty.

Image of toy vs car
The image of the AMC Machine is almost certainly not promotional, (although two of the other photos at the same source taken from the rear look like they might be). It's a photo of a car in a street. The background is not typical of a promo photo, and it was sourced from a 3rd party website. It can't be demonstrated to be promotional unless you can link to its usage in a promotional context.

I've put a request for a public domain/GFDL image of a Machine at WikiProject Automobiles/Requested images in the meantime, but I'd go with User:Wiarthurhu's image as the more appropriate choice until then, as per WP's strict policies regarding fair use. Giving him his dues, it's a decent photo of the model, unlike the Matador efforts; plain, undistracting background, front 3/4 view, in focus, etc. Could do a lot worse.

However, I don't think an article this short needs two images of the same model, and I think we should explicitly state that the photo is of "a model of the 1970 AMC Machine" in the caption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeLarge (talk • contribs) 08:07, August 4.

The other image
Is of the model in the context of a notable Johnny Lightning special reproduction. It is also notable because that edition includes a reproduction of an original ad (see back of picture). On request, I would be happy to scan the ad, but it would be a scan of a toy reproduction of an ad, and that might produce another firestorm of controversy since so many people object to pictures of toys on these articles. I'm still waiting for an explanation from Apolloboy as to how removing a decent primary picture could possibly improve the quality of the article, since editing an article knowing that it will degrade the quality is not consistent with WP rules, and could be part of an attack on the content of one editor. I've got plenty of other models I can provide good pictures of, but I don't know if I will if I continued to be pummeled for doing so. It is very difficult to get good pictures of old cars to put into the public domain, it is often much easier to purchase models, and get pictures of those. I don't think I'm the first person to attempt to put pictures and descriptions of models on articles, and I don't think I'll be the last,

I think there is a much more rational approach than simply the current, undocumented (until to try to do it) ban all mentions and all pictures of all models and reproductions on all articles patrolled by the Automobile Project, including ads. If there is a list of all instantly revertable categories of material that will cause bar room brawl, it should be put into a document accesible from the project page, and noted on every page that it will be enforced on, otherwise it's my consensus vs. yours and any similar hapless editor will be similarly be reverted until senseless or forced to yield.

Apolloboy maintains you can remove any picture of a model if you think no picture is better than a model picture. Karmann, whom I do not dispute his claim is more knowledgeable as a 14 year old and more mature than myself, a 48 yr old MIT Master degree graduate in computer science who has not yet has had his edits marked as, believes in replacing a good quality model picture with one of unknown source, and posting a stack of Hot Wheels caravans on his living room on automobile pages. I do believe this issue deserves further qualification. Another user says you cannot post a picture of a model you made yourself, though such a picture has generated no such controversy on the cub scout Derby page where I have provided the ONLY pictures of completed models. I intend to provide pictures of the famous Chaparral sports cars in the form of promotional pictures of models, since it is nearly impossible to personally get pictures of these cars, or get permission of the professional photographers who took most of the photos used in books or magazines. Any objections, please raise them now before we ignite another Israeli/Hezbollah skirmish here.--matador300 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Machine information is now here
The material about AMC Machine has been moved to its own article ("The Machine" is already taken) here as of March 2008 because there is more than enough information to justify separate treatment of this special model rather than in the AMC Rebel article. — CZmarlin (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
What the HELL is up with the review "paragraph"? 90 percent of that needs to go. –Kloth (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved to AMC Rebel
Per WP guidelines, "The Machine" was a special performance model of the 1970 AMC Rebel. Moreover, this article was like a personal essay. Information was merged into the appropriate section in that article. CZmarlin (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Because the "Machine" was also an option package on the 1971 AMC Matador, this is now a disambiguation page. CZmarlin (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)