Talk:Cadillac DeVille

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Automobiles	(Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)	AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Cars portal v • d • e 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.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This Cadillac DeVille picture is a selected picture at Portal:Cars.

Contents 1 Commentary 2 Name 3 Table 4 DeVille or Deville 5 Generations 6 Please expand 7 Page is confusing 8 Prose 9 Pop Culture 10 For anyone watching this page

[edit] Commentary

I was under the impression that the Cadillac Fleetwood was converted to actual limosuine use as well. --Thomas Veil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.107.253.41 (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2004

To my knowledge it was; but the Fleetwood is no longer part of the current Cadillac range. —Morven 09:08, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Who or what was the DeVille named after? 205.188.116.68 23:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

DeVille is not the name of a person but is french for "of the town". The original name of the car was Sedan DeVille, french for "car of the town" or town car. Gerdbrendel 08:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Please make sure the table with Deville Info is the same as on other pages picture on the top w/ same categories. Thank you very much Gerdbrendel 02:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DeVille or Deville

I'm Sorry, when I wrote DeVille I was thinking of the past De Ville (two words). Gerdbrendel 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generations

I see little validity in separating some of the 'generations' of deVille; such as '71-73 from '74-76, or '77-79 from '80-84. Differences are not great enough to warrant it, IMO. --WQ59B —Preceding unsigned comment added by WQ59B (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 November 2006

I removed the alleged break from '79 to '80, as this was only a facelift on all GM fullsize lines. I don't know about from '73 to '74. They changed the front end quite a bit, that much I can tell from the pictures. --Sable232 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. The rectangular headlights came in '75 anyway. '74 and '69 were not new generations from what I find. --Olds 403 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping these de Ville Generations in synch with those on the Cadillac Coupe de Ville page. Also note there are some attempts at Generations on the Cadillac Fleetwood page and the Cadillac Sixty Special and the Cadillac Series 70 page and even the Cadillac Eldorado page (unfortunately, this one combines 2 Generations across the years 1959 to 1966 into one Generation!!). Also note there is a Cadillac Brougham page which focuses on the modern Brougham but has sadly little about the very exclusive and special Brougham from the 1950s. Ideally, all these pages should be consistent.

It can be a dilemma as to what constitutes a new "generation", but usually it has to do with the platform--i.e. the underpinnings of the car. Based on my knowledge of Cadillac over the years, I would suggest the following

Generation 1=1949 to 1953
Generation 2=1954 to 1958
Generation 3=1959 to 1964
Generation 4=1965 to 1970
Generation 5=1971 to 1976
Generation 6=1977 to 1984
Generation 7=1985 to 1988;
Generation 8=1989 to 1993
Generation 9=1994 to 1999;
Generation 10=2000 to 2005.
In all honesty, I think a strong argument could be made to combine Generation 7 and 8 as I believe these are basically the same platform. Likewise I believe that Generation 9 and 10 are also very similar platforms and are candidates to be combined. But I will defer to others, particularly on these newer platforms as I haven't kept up as well on these. Are there any Cadillac employees or retirees who have thoughts on any of this? Given Cadillac's history, these pages deserve our best! --70.23.80.194 (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please expand

This article really needs to be expanded. Considering that over half the infoboxes only correspond to a three-paragraph section, we are in dire need of more information. I especially would like to know if there really are as many generations as the article suggests, and then be able to put in a heading for each one. --Sable232 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page is confusing

The boxes on this page are all over and kind of confusing the page needs to be cleaned up.Camryluvr 16:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prose

The excessive wordiness and POV is one of the things that made this article one of the more frustrating auto-related articles here.

Things like "With bigger changes coming in '80" and "A technological marvel developed by the Eaton Corporation" make this look like some review out of Edmunds, and most other editors here shred that kind of writing with extreme prejudice.

It is also unnecessary to have all kinds of pricing information here, in my opinion (and, no doubt, that of the rest of WP:CARS).

Fortunately for the IP editor(s) involved I long ago quit caring. I don't argue with the enthusiasts anymore, it's not worth the time or the harassment. I don't care about making the article a GA or FA - it's been shown to be a useless endeavor in most cases anyway.

Anyone else wants to fix this, go ahead and try. --Sable232 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture

This is the type of page that desperately needs an "In Popular Culture" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.242.211 (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions for information on "Popular culture" or trivia sections. --Leivick (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For anyone watching this page

I was patroling this morning and did a revert to an IP for POV, OR and other issues with the edit. You can see that and another editor who reverted the prose here in the history section. I got a note on my talk page from the IP who reverted my edited with comments to me. I don't really know too much about cars in the manner needed for this article so I would appreciate it if any active editors would look at this matter and maybe get a consensus one way or the other about this. Also, there are so many info boxds and white spaces. Do all those boxes need to be in the article? Why not take the information and put it into the article instead of all the white spaces it is causing? Just a suggestion, thanks to anyone who can help in this matter. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)