Talk:Chevrolet Caprice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Strange assertion

The assertion that the design of the 1991-1995 generation Caprice was influenced by the ovoid Taurus is odd, because the ovoid Taurus did not come to the market until 5 years later.Eregli bob 01:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably referring to the '86-'95 Taurus, though I must agree that the use of the term "ovoid" is a bit odd, because neither the original Taurus nor the '91-'96 Caprice are really ovoid in design. Perhaps "aerodynamic" would be a better word to use there. -- 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weight?

I have some doubts about the weight given here for the mid-70s model. 5800 lbs. is too high, I think. About 5000 would account for even a Cadillac or Lincoln of that era. RivGuySC 02:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chrysler big block?

Chrysler was phasing out their big blocks in the late 70's, but they continued producing M and R body cruisers well into the 80's with small blocks.Cheezydee 17:21, 31 December 2005 balls

[edit] Engines

We need more material on engines in the 1977-1990 section. Remember, the GM B-bodies were at the heart of the controversy that erupted when GM began installing various divisions' engines in various divisions' cars. There were class-action lawsuits and quite a bit of a kerfuffle. Scheinwerfermann 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impala

Is all the information regarding the Impala really necessary for the Caprice article? I know that the two are closely related but it just seems that there is too much information about the Impala in this article. AndreniW 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many images

The 1977-90 section has way too many images. A gallery shouldn't take up two rows. I tried reshuffling and dispersing them through the section, but apparently people don't like that. So that being the case, some of those images MUST go. --Sable232 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

H'mm. I'm not sure there's a rule that galleries shouldn't take up two rows, or even a guideline to that effect. If there is, I'm interested to read it, so please direct me to it. In either event, there was image duplication, but your picks for keeping and discarding seemed pretty random. I've reworked the mix to try and achieve some balance amongst the different body styles and variants with minimal duplication. We now have a one-row gallery but good overall representation of the early and late 3rd-generation sedans and coupes, including a close look at the wraparound backglass unique to the '77-'79 cars, and one image of the wagon, which didn't change much at all through this whole model year range. --Scheinwerfermann 02:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no rule against multi-row image galleries. (If there were, I don't see why the formatting would make it so easy to do.) Toyota Corolla has many, because there are many different versions to illustrate. But if people decide that there shouldn't be more than four gallery images, I feel they should be a different set than was just put up, and ordered to illustrate design changes. IFCAR 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No, there isn't a rule. But it is an awful lot of space to take up. It makes it look like someone just threw a bunch of pictures in as an afterthought. Do we really need two pictures to show different color turn signal lenses? Do we even need a picture for that at all? Ideally, there should be a front end shot for all three styles, and a rear shot of the early coupe to show the rear window. These images should also include the sedan, Estate, and later coupe. There is no reason why these images can't be dispersed throughout the text, at least enough to bring the galley down to one line. If someone is looking for more pictures, that's what Commons is for. --Sable232 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm...okay, "there isn't a rule, but it takes up a lot of space" means it's your personal preference, which I'm afraid I don't consider an appropriate standard of what goes and what doesn't. The photo of the red '79 and that of the black '81-'85 just happen to be particularly clear pictures of cars that just happen to be export models. They're there to show the cars, not specifically to show off the turn signals, though to my mind the unusual signals add value to the photos. I think the changes IFCAR has made are probably a good place for this issue to rest for awhile. --Scheinwerfermann 04:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Sable232 - gallaries are ugly, they accumulate cruft. If you can work an appropriate number of pictures in to illustrate the text - that's good - more than that is horrible. Galleries give you no control over the size of the image - they don't adapt to wide and narrow screen widths - in short, they are terrible. IFCAR wonders why there are galleries provided if we aren't supposed to use them - the reason is simple - the MediaWiki software which Wikipedia uses is built for a wide variety of applications beyond writing this particular encyclopedia - the gallery feature is handy for all sorts of other applications. Here it's ugly as all hell. SteveBaker 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
One guideline I see about image placement and galleries is Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images. It says:
"If an article has many images, so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself..., you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template...and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded."
The strong implication being that a gallery is a means of last resort. SteveBaker 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The 1977-1990 generation of Chevrolet Caprice has three versions (77-79, 80-85, 86-90) three bodystyles (sedan, coupe, wagon), design features (the rear windshield) and an export model to illustrate. Particularly with facelifts, when it can be difficult to see changes, it's convenient to have the photos side by side.
I also recall a guideline that says that a gallery is preferable to "flooding an article with images". These various cars ought to be illustrated, and a gallery is the best place to do it. Much better than sending people off to various different pages if they want Chevrolet Caprice information. IFCAR 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
SteveBaker, the language in the guideline you found does not constitute a "strong implication". Please read it again. It says ...the ideal solution might be.... This isn't a rule, and it doesn't even appear to be an almost-rule. It reads as the opinion of whoever wrote the guideline. Now, that individual's opinion happens to be similar in principle to your own, but that does not necessarily imbue it with force or correctness. Nowhere is there a quantification of what constitutes too many images. Certainly there's a valid concern to be mindful of if a gallery would grow large enough to overwhelm or interfere with the rest of the article, but that's not the case here, and it doesn't seem likely this gallery will grow to that point. --Scheinwerfermann 23:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)