![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
For example, here are some non-"Classic" Caprices that recently went through eBay:
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)
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)
@ 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)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
For example, here are some non-"Classic" Caprices that recently went through eBay:
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)
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)
@ 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)