Talk:Dodge Spirit

Archives of old discussions
Archive 1

R/T image caption
71.121.133.179, I have again reverted your incorrect change to the Spirit R/T image caption, just as I did when you made the same incorrect change last July. It is not a 1992 model with 1991 wheels, it is a 1991 model with 1991 wheels and 1991 grille and 1991 SBEC and 1991 (120 mph) speedometer and 1991 (plain plastic) dash trim and 1991 everything else. I know because it was mine at the time the photo was taken, and I not only held the title and registration, but also the factory build sheet and window sticker. I'm not sure why you keep making this change but please stop doing it now. Perhaps your guess is based on the colourless rather than amber front turn signal and sidemarker lenses; keep in mind that application of these was not entirely consistent. If you look closer, you may also discern other factory equipment on this car that wasn't on most other Spirit R/Ts. But even so, it is a 1991, and that's what the caption will need to carry on saying. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much R/T
This article focuses way too much on the Spirit R/T and not enough on the regular versions of the car. There are 8 photos of the R/T, and only 1 photo of the Base/LE/ES Spirit. Also, do we really need all that information about the Mexican and South American market Dodge Spirit? --Reelcheeper (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC-5)


 * In the first place, new topics on discussion pages always go below old topics, not above. I've moved your new topic down here to the bottom where it belongs. Secondly, by what standard do you declare there is "way too much" coverage of the Spirit R/T? What do you propose, arbitrarily deleting some of it to satisfy your notion of what constitutes just enough coverage of the R/T? If you feel there are aspects of the ordinary Spirit that aren't adequately covered, y'don't go chopping out existing coverage, you go ahead and make your contributions. Do it in accord with Wikipedia protocol and it'll stay put. And yes, we really do "need" all that information about the Mexican and South American market Spirit…I'm not sure what you think you meant by that question. It's topical, relevant, and properly written, so what exactly is your beef with it? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 04:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry about posting at the top of the page (I'm not a very experienced user). Also, it wasn't very smart of me to think that relevant information should be deleted from any article; I see your point. No need to get mad at me, I realize my mistake (and I was being serious when I posted this comment). —Reelcheeper (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This article lacks a very important reference: The website "Allpar.com, which has relevant information on the R/T's and less developed standard models of the Spirit, Acclaim (very similar) and other Dosge and Chrysler products, and is NOT an official page, but one made by Dodge and Chrysler enthusiasts and is extremely helful souce. amclaussen, Mexico City.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.216.31 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal with Plymouth Acclaim
The Plymouth Acclaim is nothing more than a badge-engineered Dodge Spirit. Based on the precedent of merging other Plymouth vehicles into Dodge articles and Dodge Aries being merged into Plymouth Reliant, I think that Plymouth Acclaim should be merged into Dodge Spirit. Who supports and who opposes the merge? Explain.--Kevjgav (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the merge. I realize that there's no need to merge Plymouth Acclaim into the Dodge Spirit article and there's also no need to merge Chrysler E-Class and Plymouth Caravelle into the Dodge 600 article because they've been fine on their own without any problems. Not to mention that starting with the Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare, Chrysler did nothing but badge engineering. So if we're going to merge these articles, we might as well just merge every Chrysler product since 1976. I think we should retain the split.--Kevjgav (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodge Spirit. 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/20121203113329/http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1990-to-1995-dodge-spirit-6.htm to http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1990-to-1995-dodge-spirit-6.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge Plymouth Acclaim into this article
As I covered on the Acclaim talk page, the only difference between the Acclaim and Spirit are the grille, taillights and trim, not notable enough for the Acclaim to warrant it's own article. A lot of the information in it's article is not specific to the Acclaim itself, but an overview of the three cars in general and how the Acclaim differs from the Spirit, a number of itscontent even seems to be forked from the Spirit article. There also appears to be an emerging consensus that the non-notable Plymouth clones are having their articles Merged with the Dodges: Plymouth Sundance redirects to Dodge Shadow, Plymouth Horizon redirects to Dodge Omni, Plymouth Trailduster redirects to Dodge Ramcharger, etc. In the case of the Acclaim specifically, it and the Spirit were so interchangeable that Chrysler even marketed it together with the Spirit in the same commercials. If they're interchangeable enough to share a commercial, they're interchangeable enough to share a Wikipedia article. Reattacollector (talk) (via public computer). 64.85.150.114 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Going through both articles, I'm more of an opinion that both articles are in need of updating (in terms of bringing them in line with better-written auto articles). While I'm not going try and disagree on these models being interchangeable, two separate articles is better than one poorly-done article. I also agree with the answer presented for a similar merger proposal on this talk page. Using this logic, do we merge every article about Chrysler product lines over the past 40 years? every Ford article since 1941? every GM auto article since 1936? --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)