Talk:Cadillac Coupe de Ville

This redirect 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 articles

Brands

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles

What engines?

I am positive that a Coupe de Ville never came with, for example, a Ford Cleveland or Chrysler Magnum engine as posited by several infoboxes...

You are so right. That's just vandalism. RivGuySC 04:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedan de Ville - where?

Should the Sedan de Ville be dealt with here, or in the Cadillac DeVille article, or in a new, separate article? I have a pic of a 72 in the Commons: Image:1972 Cadillac Sedan de Ville.jpg and was wondering where to put it. —Morven 05:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

The sedan belongs in Cadillac DeVille. --SFoskett 15:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Faux infoboxes

I have real doubts about where the infobox is going. "Super fins?" Can this be documented? And I don't think there's any evidence either the buyers or sellers ever considered the CdeVe a personal luxury car. RivGuySC 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sure that the terms in the generation infoboxes are made up and to say the least highly POV; thus they are not fit for an encyclopedia article. One could argue that the Coupe DeVille was a personal luxury car since it wasn't really a sports car but rather a luxurious two door variant of the Deville sedan. I think since the CDeVe was primarily a luxury car due to its size and emphasis on comfort the personal luxury car classification does not seem to be too inapropriate. Of course the Eldorado was Cadillac's primary personal luxury car. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Work

This article needs some major work. What is here is well-written, but it's just an overview. For a car of this stature there can be much, much more. Until a few minutes ago the engines weren't even linked. I have doubts about the accuracy of the generations shown in the infoboxes. Some anons were playing with them a while back, and I'm not sure which version is right. I know that the 1977-84 is one generation, so I did change that back. --Sable232 19:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I really don't think we need to have a list of songs that mention the Coupe de Ville. That can probably be removed. --Sable232 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think the songs are one of the strongest parts of the article. Probably no other car model can show such an impact on popular culture, and I think that's legitimate to demonstrate in the article. RivGuySC 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sedan de Ville and Coupe de Ville were basically the same cars across their respective lives. I would suggest keeping these Coupe de Ville Generations in synch with those on the Cadillac DeVille 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!

Note also that the engines were the same across de Ville and Coupe de Ville, yet the boxes are utterly different amongst the pages. Also, over the years, the Fleetwood/Sixty Special and 75's are on the same basic platform as the de Ville's as well. Is it possible to use this commonality to standardize the pages without a lot of manual work? I note the Cadillac page is comprehensive, but even there the breaks among years is not consistent (i.e. 1970 to 1973 are lumped together, but 1970 is a different platform from 1971 to 1973 for sure). It is enough to give one a headache. I see that the generations on the Cadillac Series 62 page is well done...perhaps because few people know that model or the Cadillac Calais so there is less meddling. --70.23.80.194 (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

I'm calling into doubt the dimensions in this article, mostly with the 1977-84 figures. Two height figures are given for 1983-84, but no explanation is given. One of these figures is basically the same as the 1981-82 figure. How did the height change? Where does this information come from to begin with? And how did the width change by 0.2 inches between '79 and '80? These measurements need to be verified. --Sable232 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convertible

I have edited the infoboxes to remove reference to a "2-door convertible" bodystyle, as the author or authors of the original article were confused on this point. The Coupe de Ville name was never applied to a convertible model. The standard (non-Eldorado) convertible wasn't even included in the De Ville line until the 1964 model season, and when it was, it was called simply "de Ville" (not Coupe de Ville, not Convertible de Ville). Prior to 1964, that model was called the Series Sixty-Two convertible. Mhrogers (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Mhrogers (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the width and the height of the 1980 Coupe de Ville is mixed up in the data box... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.120.162 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coupe de Ville songs

I disagree with the deletion of this list. I take the "no trivia" rule to prohibit appending only tangentially-related factoids to articles. IMHO, illustrating the extraordinary impact of this car in popular culture is quite different.

Full disclosure--I put in the first version when I started the article in '04. However, since then it has been expanded and polished by several other editors, so I don't think this is just my opinion.

The information is fairly easily verified by googling up any song lyric site. Footnoting the entries might be a justifiable edit, but I don't think deletion is. RivGuySC (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Mans

It's probably worth mentioning that Briggs Cunningham entered a pair of Coupes de Ville in the 1950 Le Mans 24 Hours. A pretty-much-standard model finished tenth, driven by Miles & Sam Collier; Cunningham and Phil Walters drove a custom-bodied open version (nicknamed "Le Monstre" by the locals) to eleventh place. I just can't figure out where to put it...Mr Larrington (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Urge to Merge

The Coupe de Ville and Sedan de Ville article need to be merged into a de Ville article if for no better reason than there is no room for convertible de Villes.

All changes I have made to either article have been made with this in mind. I'll be sandboxing a proposal soon and then unload it to see how it flies.

Once the organizational trauma is settled we can get to the real brass tacks of citing all of this infernal information. and expanding on the content. Sadowski (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks that there were no 2-door convertibles, maybe it would be better to mention that convertibles haven't got 'Coupe' prefix in name but were based on coupe and add convertibles back to infoboxes?

SHAMAN 23:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing would be to merge the two articles. There has never been a "Coupe de Ville convertible" nor will there ever be.

76.99.204.111 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of trying to merge the two articles it occurred to me that a major issue is the fact that the de Ville was technically a Series 62 until 1959. I've addressed this in the latest addition to both articles. Once this matter is settled a reenumeration and merging should easily be attainable.

76.99.204.111 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made substantial changes to the Sedan de Ville article that I think should be the content of a merged De Ville article. How do I merge this other than creating a new De Ville article and pasting it there?

In other words, this could get messy without some guidance.

Sadowski (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, having two articles seems extremely redundant. I would recommend merging both to a new page, but maybe bringing it up for discussion at the Automobile talkpage would be the best way to start and also to eliminate possible issues before they even arise. Cheers, Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]