Talk:Chrysler Hemi engine/Archive 3

Displacement headers
66.158.45.4, I have (yet again) reverted your tendentious, repeated deletion of the 392 designation from the relevant subsection header (here, here, here, here, and here). In your edit summaries, you have stated that you believe the header should read only 6.4 because the headings need to be consistent. This does not appear to be based in any actual Wikipedia policy or protocol, but rather just your personal preference. You're certainly entitled to your opinions and preferences, but that is all they are unless and until you can show us which part of Wikipedia protocol you are following in your repeated insistence that the subsection headers have to be consistent.

Fact—well documented and supported with reliable citations in the text of this article—is that Chrysler is marketing this one particular engine as both the "6.4 HEMI" and as the "392 HEMI". That is why the dual notation in this particular subhead is warranted; we're writing an encyclopædia here, so our job is to describe the world as it is (and one very applicable adjective for the world we live in is "inconsistent"!). You have also stated you believe a 3rd opinion is called for. That third opinion has already been provided (here), and it's really not very coöperative of you to disregard it simply because you don't agree with it. We work by consensus here, and sometimes the consensus won't go the way a particular editor wants it to go. That's life on Wikipedia. Moreover, your recent edit summary "need a 3rd opinion from a real editor" is both borderline uncivil and quite ironic; if you are insinuating that the 3rd opinion linked here in doesn't count because it was provided by an IP-only editor, then you, as another IP-only editor, had better register and get yourself a screen name -- otherwise you will make yourself look hypocritical.

Now: Please provide your Wikipedia policy-based rationale for heading a subsection about an engine with two equally-valid, equally-used designations with only one of those designations. If you cannot, please have the maturity to accept that the consensus basis of this project means you won't always get your way. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 03:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

392?
Absolute need for an explanation, description, history...within THIS article, of what a "392" was, why it was important, and why Chrysler is harking back to it in some current advertising. Discuss, better yet, write the missing section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.220.77 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

 * You are quite correct. We need more material on the significance of the original 1950s 392, and we've got a decent start on that over at Chrysler FirePower engine, something of an orphan article. I propose merging that article into this one, which will give us a solid base on which to expand and deepen the coverage of the first-generation Chrysler Hemi engines. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 17:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)