Talk:Dodge Omni

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dodge Omni article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

redirect

I'm not sure I agree with redirecting the Horizon to the Omni. Although they were very similar, some differences did emerge during the history of the two vehicles. There was no performance Horizon sedan like the Omni GLH, and the Omni was not involved in the Horizon unsafe handling controversy. The article as it now stands indicates that only Plymouth had a pickup, but Dodge did have a version called the Rampage. Conflating the two together seems to me to yield less precision, not more, which is surely not what Wikipedia ought to be aiming at. RivGuySC 19:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tata nonsense

A bit about this car being built by Tata was added by a troublesome public ip in January 2009 - I just removed it now, over eight years later. There is no support for this; depressing that it lasted here so long. Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, actually I think this may be accurate, at least according to Hemmings [1]. Search that linked article for Tata and you'll see. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EnPassant: That is yet another case of people perpetuating Wikipedia hoaxes... Tata Motors Cars contains a chronological list of their products. I am a bit of an Indian car nerd (see my heavy involvement at Sipani and Standard (Indian automobile)) and trust me, the Omni/Horizon was not assembled there in any way, shape, or form. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for explaining. It sounded weird to me too, but figured I'd search first. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings of all people, too! Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Main"" template

The Main template linking to the GLHS article does not belong where people keep inserting it. Per the template documentation

When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often written in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized. For Category namespace, please use Cat main instead.
Use of this template should be restricted to the purposes described above. It is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or Furthertemplate. The latter is used when the section expounds a specific aspect of the topic instead of summarizing its article. For example, in phthalate, the template under the "Endocrine disruptor" section should not be Main|Endocrine disruptor, because the section specifically deals with phthalate as an endocrine disruptor and not endocrine disruptors in general.
This template should also not be used in lead sections. A lead section is always a summary of its own article, not any other; as such, the only appropriate target for a Main link in the lead section would be the article itself, which is not useful. Broader may be appropriate in this case.

The GLHS is already briefly covered in a paragraph under the GLH section and the article about that car is wikilinked. Furthermore the GLH-S article is NOT the main article covering the GLH. Please stop inserting it as it's both redundant and being used incorrectly. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EnPassant: Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted your edit summary ("That isn't the main article, it's for a different variant of this car") as signifying you thought Shelby GLH-S was specifically about the Charger-based GLH-S. I went ahead and swapped the template for the Further template. I agree with whoever originally added template:main to the page that providing a visible link to the GLH-S is appropriate, as one would not naturally expect there to be a separate article for the GLH-S. Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem now is that 'Further' is redundant as the GLH-S is already wikilinked in the paragraph that mentions it (Shelby Automobiles purchased the final 500 1986 GLH-T (all in black) and used them as the basis for the 1986 Shelby GLHS ("Goes Like Hell S'more")). So either the wikilink or Further should be removed. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure. Agreed. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge deathtrap

From someone who has seen a number of these cars after significant accidents, It's mind-boggling that nothing is mentioned in this article about how dangerous this model is/was. Depending upon the speed before collision, it would take rescue crews from 30 minutes to over an hour's worth of work, literally having to cut the body of the car completely apart down to the undercarriage, in order to free the occupants! 97.107.37.1 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]