Talk:Duesenberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chrysler category[edit]

I'm just wondering how Duesenberg gets a "Chrysler category" nod user: stude62 user talk:stude62 01:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have the anwser. The aborted Duesenberg revival attempted in 1966 was built with a 1966 Imperial chassis and it had a 440 cid Chrysler engine. SD October 21 2005.

I wonder if there could be a reference to the SSJ, which I think was a special version of the SJ, of which only two were built, one for Clarke Gable and one for Cary Grant JRJW 12 December 2005

THE 2 IMAGES IN "COMPATIBLE" 3D[edit]

This is a popular new technique that is used on several on line college credit classes, and at least 5000 images are on line at sites like the USGS National Park 3D site. (Google for it) The images are in color and have very little artifacting from the 3D. Kids love 3D, and millions of them own the glasses. Old folks like Duesenbergs, but I'd like to see kids and teens have some awareness of their grace and beauty. Compare these three shots below: One is from "commons", the 1932 J, which looks rather muddy, and the other two, in "compatible 3D", illustrate the cool look of the headers and trunk on the j models. The color and shadow detail is superior to the commons image. For the millions of "progressive kids and students", who have the glasses, the effect is stunning! Wikipedia is a 21st century encylopedia. Perhaps you'd prefer black & white Duesenberg images! 69.226.189.210 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1931 Duesenberg J in "compatible" 3D.
Trunk detail of a 1931 model J in "compatible" 3D.
1932 Duesenberg J Murphy


[Since 2000, original Duesenbergs have typically sold at auction for around two million dollars, US.]


There's already coverage of auction prices.

A.J. Hoe[edit]

Shouldn't A.J. "Jim" Hoe of Old Westbury, L.I. and then of Westport, Connecticut, be mentioned in an article on Duesenburgs? He kept a card file of all Duesenburgs and parts around the U.S. and restored many. --Wetman 07:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Revival[edit]

Wasn't there a revival attempt with a blocky modern car in the seventies ? Hektor 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Graphic Layouts...[edit]

The current way of laying out the pics in the article falls horribly on wide displays, because the paragraphs end up shorter than the pics, so they end up appearing to be ridiculously wide in their spacing. Someone might wish to fix that. --Kaz 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed it. This should look better on all display sizes. --Kaz 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I clicked the link to this car from the Altimeter page. Does anyone have any info on the altimeter on this vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwfish (talk • contribs) 04:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the grey "1931 Duesenberg J"[edit]

I'm pretty familiar with the Duesenberg line. I'm familiar enough with Duesenbergs to point out that it was the "SJ" version which was equipped with side pipes, not the "J" version - the "S" designation meaning "supercharged". The first photo to appear in the Duesenberg article is of a grey model "SJ" - not the "J" that the caption claims it to be.

I am currently searching the 'net for specific sites which will back up this claim and will add them here (not in the article itself) when I find them. While I know how to edit article text, I do not know how to edit photo captions and would appreciate it if somebody would make the correction I'm asking for.

An additional note: The Duesenberg "Straight 8" engine had its intake manifold on the driver's side and its exhaust manifold on the passenger side. All Duesenberg side pipes appear on the passenger side only. Any photo showing side pipes on the driver's side has been reversed.

Most Sincerely, Gallion620 71.60.132.201 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited and not credible[edit]

Currently, there is another attempt to revive the Duesenberg name with the "Duesenberg Torpedo Coupe" slated for market introduction in mid 2008. This vehicle will have a Mercedes-Benz CL500 as a chassis donor, and offer an air-cooled, self-lubricating, supercharged, 12-cylinder rotating engine with an estimated fuel efficiency of 70 MPG and 300 horsepower (called the Cylindrical Energy Module).

This passage is not cited and sounds like MBEP (Male Bovine Eliminatory Product). I shall delete it. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

infobox[edit]

Should use template:Infobox Company or template:Infobox Defunct Company to make similar look than other car company articles --Typ932 T·C 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duesenberg Coupe Simone[edit]

As far as I can tell, the Duesenberg Coupe Simone never actually existed. It was a design exercise commissioned by The Franklin Mint. Removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.110.6.227 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC) The creators were Roger Hardnock and Raffi Minasian. Can be verfied at Mr. Miasian's web site here: http://www.raffim.com/Portfolio_AutDes3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.54.169 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.4, 1.7 million are not "multi-millions"[edit]

In this section: "The Duesenberg name still lives on as an object of opulence and luxury... It is not uncommon today for a Duesenberg in good condition to sell for over one million dollars, and a few sell for multimillion-dollar figures, including a Duesenberg J that was sold at the Barrett-Jackson auction in January 2008 for well over 1 million dollars."

Well over a million dollars is not "multimillion" unless it's $2M or greater.

And "....Some of the World's most expensive Duesenbergs have been sold at auction by Dean Kruse including Greta Garbo's J for $1,400,000 and a 1932 Duesenberg Murphy Disappearing Top for $1,700,000...."

In other words, according to this, the most expensive "Duesey" at auction to date went for $1.7M - that is not "multimillions of dollars" . I'm an interested amateur, not a hard-core collector - but I do not know of a single Duesenberg that has sold anywhere on the planet for $2M or over, which it would have to in order to be "multi-millions" of dollars. Moucon (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://autoshow.autos.msn.com/autoshow/pebblebeach2007/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=5257881. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duesenberg. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duesenberg. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

hyperbole and a half[edit]

by 37 the body and gear box were "ancient"? The source says they were outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:21A0:31B0:FCCF:700C:7B5C:6608 (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for article[edit]

this article should be renamed, to Duesenberg Motor Company. Please feel free to comment if you wish. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle shop[edit]

My home town is Garner Iowa. Their history included that the Deusenberg brothers ran a bicycle shop in Garner before they built racing cars in Des Moines. The shop became Jay Stoles barber shop in the 50s.

I’ll check this and add that detail to Wikipedia soon. UIowagrad (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelbase[edit]

134 in (3,404 mm.)?? Isn't that wrong? Shouldn't it be 340,4 instead?--Ricce (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

Mentioned by Daddy Warbucks in the musical Annie? ELSchissel (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Duesenberg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 09:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The logo has an adequate FUR and the images are all appropriately licensed.

  • I have no concerns about the prose, which is clear and direct. However, I'm concerned about comprehensiveness. This is a famous car company, with multiple book-length sources that cover its history, but the corporate history from 1905 to 1937 is told in only 500 words. Surely there is much more that could be said?

That's my only complaint. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for taking the time to review! I hear what you're saying about the shortness of the history section. As car companies go, it really wasn't around long (realistically, about 20 production years, though officially it existed for about 25 years in its original run) so there is limited encyclopedic history on its original form. There is some information about famous figures like Al Capone liking the cars but that didn't feel encyclopedic to me, more like random trivia. As for the book length sources, the tricky part with those is many of them are just coffee table picture books, but I will do some more digging and see if I can find a history book that I can cite to add more content! Thanks again for taking a look! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Let me know what you've had a chance to dig out more sources and I'll revisit. In the meantime I'll post a note at WT:CAR asking if anyone is aware of more sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. No response at WT:CAR so I'll take it on faith that this is comprehensive. If you do find more sources, that would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike! I'll work on finding some more soon. It's been a busy time but hopefully next week I can do some more digging. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by M4V3R1CK32 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Starting this review now. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria - Recently promoted to GA. Meets length expectations and I do not see issues with sourcing. Tone is neutral. Earwig shows no issues. Sourcing looks good and I was able to see using the Google Books preview feature. Hook is used in the article. QPQ is pending. Please add one and this is good to go. Ktin (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktin: The nominator hasn't edited since August 29th, but for what it's worth this appears to be their first DYK nomination, meaning they are still exempt from the QPQ requirement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks. Marking this one as approved. Ktin (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology/doozy[edit]

I just removed a section that's been added a couple of times; I think it's undue weight given that the conclusion is "it's unrelated". Perhaps a footnote saying "The term "doozy" has been thought to derive from "Duesenberg" but this is known to be incorrect"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the only source for the entire section actively debunks any link between Duesenberg and the term "doozy", I agree that it's not only undue weight, but the first paragraph may actually come under WP:PLAGARISM or WP:COPY as it appears to be an almost complete C&P from the Miriam Webster article. I don't think a mention is warranted for a term that is not descended from the article topic - notability is just not there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not suggesting we reinstate the copied text. I think a footnote would be OK, though, since given that there clearly is an incorrect etymology floating around, a reader might come here to check it out. What I removed is much more than would be justified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would first submit that deleting a whole section like this - when users do look to this article with the genuine question 'Does Doozy come from Duesenberg?' - is doing Wikipedia and its users a disservice. If the answer to that question is 'no' or 'doubtful', well then let the answer be found here. I agree that the referencing and sourcing could be improved (or actually provided!) and I have sought to trim the article to a reasonable weight. Can we first agree to leave this shortened version in place and then discuss its development. Deleting entirely effectively deletes the discussion. The discussion is not whether such a section should exist at all (it clearly should) but rather how much should be in it. Wikifiveoh (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just ask you, in follow up, whether there is some merit in adding back in the core element of the Merriam-Webster text. Considered opinion indicates that a Duesenberg origin is doubtful, but that content is valuable in explaining this. Perhaps we could just say 'it appeared in eastern Ohio in 1916, four years before the production of the first Duesenberg vehicles'. What do you think? Wikifiveoh (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's now even worse than it was before. The section now is an excellent example of weasel wording to suggest that the term may still have derived from Duesenberg. Given that you've also removed the only reference from the section - that thoroughly debunked any link between the term and the vehicle - I've removed it again on that basis alone. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better or worse, you should work to improve it - not delete it entirely. If weight of argument says that Duesenberg is not the origin of the term, then the page should have a section stating that. I am reinstating it again. If you just remove it again, I will simply flag your behaviour to Wikipedia as inappropriate. You can discuss with them. Wikifiveoh (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’ll end up blocking for edit warring if you do that. You should try to get consensus here on the talk page first. I agree that a sentence might be warranted, but your text is not a good solution. Propose wording here and it can be debated without an edit war. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section was wrongly deleted in the first place without consensus. Add to Wikipedia by editing rather than deleting. You 'agree that a sentence might be warranted' but are content to leave Wikipedia without it. Wikifiveoh (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you take a look at WP:BRD, which says that if an addition is reverted it should be discussed, not just re-added, and at WP:3RR, which makes it clear that an editor who repeatedly removes or re-adds text is likely to be blocked. The right approach here is to agree text on the talk page that can then be added. I agree with the criticisms that have been made of the added text. I suggested alternative text above but have not added it as I don’t see consensus to do so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the section has been reverted and added back in again, I feel there's no alternative but to take this to AN/E. It's not just that the addition has been flip-flopped, but that the current proposal - and existing text - is a clear breach of unsourced supposition and weasel-wording. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AN/E has been resolved with a warning. I have - again - taken out the section. Two different editors have seen fit to remove the text, citing policy for doing so each time. There may be a case for having a single sentence stating that it's not related to the term, but I don't think so - although if you case to provide examples below I may be convinced - then you'd have full support, as Mike Christie doesn't seem against that either. However the current text cannot stay as it breaches policy, and you can't just keep throwing text and hoping some will stick. Use the talk page here to propose alternatives. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The OED says that the origin of "doozy" is uncertain, but suggests that it is "perhaps" a variant of "daisy", which was US slang for a "first-rate person or thing", with citations from 1757 to 1889. It does not mention Duesenberg. The OED's first citation for "doozy" is from 1903, and obviously cannot be derived from Duesenberg if the company was founded in 1920. I don't think there needs to be any mention of the erroneous etymology related to Duesenberg in this article, especially without a source, and most especially the last version which contains the unsourced weaselly implication that Duesenberg may be the origin even though sources dispute it. CodeTalker (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duesenberg&oldid=1200438178"