Template talk:Chevrolet vehicles

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business This template is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Automobiles This template 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

Was the Caprice Classic ever considered a standalone model? That is, was the Caprice Classic ever offered in a year when the Caprice was not? My recollection is that the Caprice Classic was just an upscale package for the Caprice and that there was never a year when the Caprice Classic was offered but a Caprice was not. If this is the case, I humbly suggest that the Caprice Classic be removed from this template. --BRossow 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cars built from 1977 until the retirement of the first downsized body in the late 1980s were marketed and badged as "Caprice Classic" but if you notice the link it takes you back to Caprice. Added it because I tried to think like someone who was looking for information on "Caprice Classic" because that what it said on the side of an old car. Stude62 02:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty sure that it was possible to get a non-"Classic" Caprice after 1977. I'm not arguing, but do you happen to have a link that would prove my memory faulty? :-) --BRossow 02:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not on me. I'll have to dig - I have sale literature, but like I said, I have to dig through my files. But the Caprice article does a pretty good job at discussing the rise of Caprice Classic. Stude62 02:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here are some non-"Classic" Caprices that recently went through eBay:

• 1986 Caprice
• 1987 Caprice
• 1988 Caprice
• 1988 Caprice (another)
• 1988 Caprice (yet another)
• 1989 Caprice
• 1989 Caprice (another)

If you check out the deck lid emblem on all of these, you can see they are not Classics and that it's not just a case of the "Classic" portion of the emblem being removed. --BRossow 02:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I offer the following:

On example 1 (1986) the car is listed as a 1986 Caprice Classic... by the person selling the vehicle.

Caprice Classic Web Ring

Yahoo! Search Return on "Chevrolet Caprice Classic"

Chilton also publishes a Chevrolet Impala, Caprice and Caprice Classic repair manual. Stude62 14:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first example, I'm not surprised that the seller listed it as a Caprice Classic even though it's not. A week or two ago I saw someone selling a "1970 Chevy Malibu" that looked an awful lot like a 1970 Chevy Nova instead (because, of course, it was a Nova.) It's amazing how often people on eBay either (1) simply don't know what they have or (2) embellish to make their offering seem better than it really is.

I'm not sure what to make of the Chilton manual. What years does it cover?

What I'm now convinced of is that the Caprice Classic was not a separate, distinct model in the 1977-1990 body style. I don't know about 1991-96, however. On the one hand it's not a big deal, but on the other hand this is supposed to be a reference site and we need to do everything possible to make the information as accurate as possible. For the moment I'm out of energy to investigate further. --BRossow 15:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template could probably use a Latin American section, if someone out there is knowledgeable about Chevy in those markets. Atarivideomusic (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I added the models currently available in Brazil (based on their website). I categorized it under Brazil rather than Latin America as a whole because they have more unique Chevy models than the other Latin American countries, plus the largest market. --Vossanova ^o< 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chevy's Brazil line sure is interesting! Added Chevrolet Agile.Atarivideomusic (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Fma12: @Andra Febrian: I wanted to get consensus here before I did a full revert and potentially spark another edit war. It's my opinion that adding superscript notes to items in a navbox is distracting, potentially confusing, and beyond its scope. Any new categorization should be done by creating new rows in the navbox. If it would result in too many new rows, it probably shouldn't be done. The best place to group car models by manufacturer or related make would be, I believe, in a new column or new sections in a list of vehicles (i.e. List of Chevrolet vehicles) or a new list (e.g. List of Chevrolet vehicles by manufacturer - I would advise against it though). We should keep this navbox as clean and readable as possible, and adding superscript notes to the models just suggests they shouldn't be fully considered Chevrolet vehicles. Let the reader click on the model articles to learn more about their origins. --Vossanova ^o< 17:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vossanova: thanks for avoiding an edit war. To be sincere, I don't see what's wrong with the addition of those notes so the rebadged models are not "pure" Chevrolet and this is a eay to distinguish them.

In my opinon, those footnotes do not make the table less readable. On the other hand, I have noted that the current version is too more detailed than my first edits, which only limited to say "rebadged models" with no such specific information, unlike the latest revisions.

Nevertheless the idea of adding a new row for rebadged models exclusively does not sound bad for me. Just a new now that contains all of them, as brief and simple as possible. This would be a good change. I'd like to hear your opinions, @Andra Febrian: Fma12 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally against mentioning any type of rebadging in the vehicles navbox. What value does it add? When browsing for a particular model, what does it matter to the reader that a particular model is a rebadge or not? They can easily get that information by clicking on the article, just like years produced, body style, or any other property of the vehicle. If you really want to distinguish rebadged models from non-rebadged, I would suggest putting it in a list of vehicles instead. --Vossanova ^o< 15:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent - I just noticed the mistakes and corrected it, then doubled down by specifying the original brand because I don't see much value otherwise. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I differ with Vossanova but two opinons have more value than one so majority wins. Remove the rebadging notes from the navbox then. Fma12 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this discussion "majority wins", I just wanted to share my reasoning before doing a revert. If you didn't change your mind, I would probably ask some more WP:CAR editors for their thoughts. Anyway, I appreciate all the edits both of you make! --Vossanova ^o< 15:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]