Talk:Chevrolet Avalanche

This needs the gas mileage.

"The Chevrolet Avalanche is Chevrolet's top-of-the-line pickup"

This sentence should be changed since the Avalanche is not technically a pickup.

No, it is not. Sneakernets 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the avalanche is actually an SUV that looks like a truck. True pickups have a seperate cab and bed on the chassis. The Avalanche has a unified cab/bed design.

Cladding Problems?

The entire section is in the wrong spot, isn't it? It should be with the GMT800 section, not the GMT900 section, because it says the later models didn't have the problem. It also sounds like it was quoted from a GM excecutive when the problem first arose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.23.39 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done --MarioV (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the article should mention that the plastic cladding doesn't respond well to wax products. Car wax looks nasty when it gets on the plastic cladding. The best product I've used to circumvent this is Turtle Wax's Black Chrome. But after Turtle Wax stopped making Black Chrome, I've found that Mother's Back To Black is almost as good.

Edit Location

The [Edit] 'button's for the first three sections (firstgeneration, secondgeneration, and thirdgeneration) all are showing up in the wrong location under cladding problems. Anyway to fix this? --$user log (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

removed the forum links

I removed both forum links under WP:EL. Do not re-add the links, as you are aware of WP:EL and WP:3RR, which will apply if you add them.

Instead, talk it out. Come to this discussion to meet Wikipedia's standards. If you can't reach consensus, consider WP:DR. If not, a block for WP:3RR will be coming your way. tedder (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Chevy Avalanche Fan Club of North America (CAFCNA) was started in December of 2001. It was the first Chevy Avalanche forum website and is also the largest. It currently boasts 38,000+ members.

We were only trying to add a discription to our link. And members from the other site were removing it so we would add it back. I created an account here so I could try to find out who was doing it.

I looked in the history for this page and found the user BlueDevil (owner of the other avalanche site) was one of those removing our link. He is also registered on our site with ip 166.137.133.185 = BlueDevil.

Reference pages:

Brief History

Site Statistics

Forum Page

I am registered on CAFCNA as amd1900mp.

Thank you for looking into this matter and your consideration in resolving it.

Todd

GrowUpAlready (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm. The list of allowable and not-allowable links are under WP:EL. No matter who was removing your link and what their intent is, WP:EL clearly states what links should and should not be allowed. Forums are hardly ever an allowable link. Instead, they should be at DMOZ. tedder (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since both those sites offer technical information beyond the scope of the article they ARE allowed.

However, trying to talk up one or the other ("My site's better than yours!") has no place here. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your forum battles. As you can see, all it does is call attention to yourselves which has ended up with both links being deleted. If you want someone to come to your site, let them click on the link and see just how good it is. Having just a link is simply that, an external resource. "Mine's better!" is advertising (spam). --Sable232 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points of view Sable232 and apologize for violating the site policies. Based on what I read above I am allowed to add our link to the page and will do just that.

Thanks for your time,

Todd GrowUpAlready (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Todd, including a link directly to the forum is certainly against WP:EL. The only "technical information" that is at chevyavalanchefanclub.com is the resources section, which may be a copyvio (PDFs are copied from elsewhere) and is hardly a wealth of information. Certainly it isn't a link that would be considered if the article became a featured article (guideline #1 on WP:ELNO). tedder (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tedder, I thought this was resolved since there were no replies to Sable232’s post on 10/16. I added the link back to the article (four days later) based on Sable232’s statement: “Actually, since both those sites offer technical information beyond the scope of the article they ARE allowed.” I added the link to the Chevy Avalanche Fan Club of North America's offical site based on What to link

Todd amd1900mp 02:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrowUpAlready (talk • contribs)

That's fine, I hadn't seen the talk page and article until now. So you are adding it back based on what part of WP:EL#What to link? It would possibly qualify for the fourth guideline under WP:ELMAYBE, but (as I said above) it's hardly a wealth of information. It'd be much better linked through DMOZ. tedder (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, Based on the "What to link" opening statement which reads;
There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.
·Is the site content accessible to the reader? (Yes, no registration required)
·Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? (Yes)
·Is the link functional and likely to remain functional? (Yes, since 2001)

What Should Be Linked #1, 2 & 3.

And also as you mentioned the fourth guideline under WP:ELMAYBE

There is a wealth of information in this section of CAFCNA: Avalanche Owners Zone. I feel this alone is technical information beyond the scope of the article.

I appreciate the oppertunity of this discussion with you,

Todd amd1900mp 03:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrowUpAlready (talk • contribs)

Having met ELYES just means it is capable of being met. I could link to a blog post about the Avalanche and it would meet those criteria. So saying 'yes' to all three just gets you in the door. The rest goes down to ELMAYBE, since I don't see ELNO concerns.

The only thing under ELMAYBE that you might fit into is #4, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The link you gave is simply a link to the forums. which is clearly in WP:ELNO#10.

Finally, as I've already said above, the 'resources' area, if not a copyvio, is the only section that might be worth linking to. tedder (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, the long-standing practice on automotive articles has been to allow forums/clubs/etc. as long as the site includes (separate from the forum) technical resources, specifications, or anything else that really doesn't belong in an article. This serves to give a definite yes/no when a member or owner of one of those sites adds the link, and it also keeps that information from being added to the article and turning it into an illegible list of every option, color, and minute detail that can be found. There was a discussion on this a few weeks ago and those who replied agreed with this system. --Sable232 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay Sable, thanks for the information. I didn't know there was consensus for that, and I couldn't find article guidelines that dealt with it, so I was going back to the general guideline. Apologies, and I'll step aside. tedder (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sable, I understand the link can be added as just that, an external link without spam comments. Is that the end of our discussion on this matter? If so, I would like to add the link back. If not, I would like to know what I need to do to be able to add the link properly.

Thank you both for your time, Todd - amd1900mp 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrowUpAlready (talk • contribs)

We're done, I undid my edit to the page so the link was added back. tedder (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You - amd1900mp (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good reading here. It leads to one question, We also qualify to add the link but if the page was reverted,why we're left out? We have the same accurate technical information to user-owner as the other website regardless of age. I had our name on here without a spamming tagline. It was just simple. Bluez71 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The link has been put back. --Sable232 (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

6.1 liter engine???

I'm pretty sure that the option is for an 8.1 engine, not a 6.1. Unless of course my Chevy Avalanche owners manual is lying to me...