Talk:Chevrolet Beauville

I am the writer of the article, and I believe that it should not be deleted because it describes what a Beauville is. There are only facts on this page, no opinions, and all of the information is true to my knowledge. I have posted this page because of the interest in Beauvilles, especially in the Stevenson High School district. The security vans are Beauvilles, and they are very noticeable. I found the name "Beauville' to be rather interesting, so I did some research on it. The information that I found I posted on Wikipedia. This information will be useful to the many people that I talk to about Beauvilles, because now they will know what it is. I think that this article contains some interesting information, and I do not believe it should be deleted. The Beauville has become an inside joke to Stevenson students, and to some, it represents the High School itself (kind of like a mascot). Since there are more than 4000 students in this High School, many that have heard others say Beauville may not know what it means. This Beauville article would explain to them exactly what the Beauville is. If I need to make any changes to keep this article online, please notify me, and I will make the necessary corrections. I do not understand why any admin would see this article as an advertisment. This car has not been in production for over 11 years, this article's sole purpose is to describe a car and give the reader a short background about it. These kinds of articles broaden the reach of Wikipedia, and that is what makes it diffrent from any other encyclopedia. Here you can find almost any kind of information, and it is becoming a reference point for thousands of people. The majority of my research comes from automallusa.net, which is a very respectable website. http://www.automallusa.net/1995/chevrolet/g20/reviews.html

In conclusion, if you are in the market for a dependable and reasonably priced hauler/workhorse, the Beauville delivers on all counts. But remember, production of the G series, and unfortunately the Beauville, stopped in 1995. The replacement van for the Beauville is the Chevrolet Express Van. If you see a 1996 Chevrolet Beauville, do not be fooled. If you see a 1995 Chevrolet Beauville, look for power windows.

This is an encyclopedia, not a used car sales site. Michaelbusch 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Someone keeps posting that this article needs cleanup, I have editited many paragraphs, and this still comes up. If there is something that needs to be changed, please write it in the discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.72.77 (talk • contribs)

It has too many options and too few facts. Examples:

"This article will focus mainly on the 1995 Beauville, the last production year." Why?
"Chevrolet made a superior product with bullet proof reliability." Says who?
"Because the vehicle changed so little and yet was reliable" Source?
"very popular in the high demand workplace" Source?
"The Beauville is their security vehicle of choice due to its reliable powertrain and size." Source?
"The engines were the selling points of the Beauvilles when they rolled off the line." Source?
"The most respected" Why was it respected and who respected it? Source?

And so on. The entire article reads in the same way with things like "This engine is recommended for those that require extreme towing" and such argumentative writing. // Liftarn 13:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'll do about those citations

About the citations. The information about the drivetrains of the Chevrolet G series BEAUVILLE was found at the credible website automotive.com. I am going to delete the citation messages in the engine area because I made a footnote. If you disagree tell me why.

Stevenson security said that they loved the Beauville because of its reliability when asked, so no citation should be needed

"Because the vehicle changed so little..." that sentence should not need a citation because that is common knowledge. If you visit the Chevrolet Van article on wikipedia you will see how little the vehicle changed. And because the Beauville is a G-Series option it also changed very little.

About the vehicle being very popular in high demand workplaces also is common knowledge because the option is for a Chevrolet Van, a well-known work vehicle. If you visit construction job sites you are very likely to see a late-eighties to mid-nineties Chevrolet Van, possibly with the Beauville option. So common knowledge should not need a citation.

The bullet proof reliability is proved by the fact that the vehicle had survived for so long with only minimal changes to the vehicle, and is yet again common knowledge, so I do not believe that a citation is necessary.

Also, how is it argumentative to say that the engines are recommended for those that require extreme towing when the Torque to Horsepower ratio is shown in the article and the vehicle has a more lb/ft of torque than horsepower? It is not argumentative. It is factual. Isn't it also common knowledge that a big engine, like the 7.4 liter Chevrolet V8, with more torque than horsepower is better in towing situations than a Honda Civic four cylinder engine with less than 2 liters displacement with more horsepower than torque, so it should not need a citation.Platz 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all of it should require sources. The Trabant was also made for a very long time so it would be OK to call it "bulletproof" too? I don't think so. Notice the way I added a reference. You can't just wave your hand at a website and say "it's in there somewhere". // Liftarn

To be honest, the Trabants were pretty bullet proof. I am from Eastern Europe, and these old cars are still driving around. The plastic bodies truely make them stand the test of time, and the simple 2 cycle two cylinder engine is reliable and very easy to work on. The trabant example isn't very good because I know from personal expereince that they were great cars for what they were. This comes from the link that you sent me "The lifespan of an average Trabant was 28 years," if a car lasts 28 years, its pretty close to bulletproof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by New Trier Student (talk • contribs)

Ok, the Trabant wasn't a very good example, but my point is that simply because something is made for a long time doesn't make it bulletproof.

I have no intent to plagarise or post false information, and I will try to clean up these citations. However, it seems as if every sentence I write needs a citation. Check out the Dodge B Series Van article, there are NO citations, and it doesnt appear to be a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by New Trier Student (talk • contribs)

well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You could just remove the sentences. They aren't really that necessary. The Dodge B-series van article makes no grand claims like saying it's "a superior product with bullet proof reliability", not even the Saab 900 article makes that claim even if they did say it (several times and played "Solid As a Rock" at the same time) when it was reviewed on Top Gear [1]. // Liftarn

Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. Yet in the Dodge B-series article, which you said was perfect, the sentence "Dodge first pioneered the extended-rear 15-passenger van favored by school and church groups and dominated it until overtaken by Ford in the 1990s" is found. Where did he get this information regarding the purchasing habits of Schools and churches, OR, is this just common sense? CITATION NEEDED!!!!!!!! platz76.16.78.28 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not believe that the sentences should be removed. How can you feel that the sentences that are inquestion be unneccessary? They discuss the engines performance, which is, I think, important when describing the engines that the vehicle is equipped. The sentences describing how the school uses and abuses these vehicles is important to demonstrate the reliability and quality of this Chevrolet product, which is built "like a rock". I am not sure how to cite something not written down, only seen by the students and faculty. The pictures alone show the abuse the vehicles endure everyday, the pictures show the one that is used the least. I could incorporate a picture of the Red Beauville owned by the school to show the fact that the body will fall apart before the engine and transmission. The vehicle still drives around yet a portion of the passenger side rear quarter panel has rusted off, not through. So while the paint and body are not bullet proof, the engine and transmission are. The fact that a citation is needed when saying "this vehicle built for the sole purpose of towing around large amounts of stuff is good at hauling around a lot of stuff" seems a tad odd. But, OK, when I get the time, probably this weekend, I'll fix it, but I do not believe the sentences will be deleted. Platz 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences about the engines are not necessary. Just state the performance figures (hard facts) and let people draw their own conclusions. The scool use is utterly irrelevant. There are probably many schools that use old rusty wrecks, but that does not belong in an encyclopedia. You still need a reliable source saying it's bulletproof. If not it has to go. // Liftarn

The school use is a good example beacuse it shows what these vans are used for, and that even with that much abuse they continue to run on a daily basis. This shows that they are reliable, and the website I have listed will verfify my statement that they are very reliable (http://www.automallusa.net/1995/chevrolet/g20/reviews.html). I will fix up the rest of the citations, but I can honestly say that you are making it very difficult for anyone to post anything on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.38.8 (talk • contribs)

Please do not stamp out the improvements to the article I have made. The school use is utterly irrelevant and anecdotal. It does not belong in the article. // Liftarn

So now that everything thats interesting about the article is gone. Fine. But why is it still marked for clean up if there is nothing wrong with it now!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.38.8 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) The school use is a terrible example; it's basically an anecdote/heresay, and fails many policies/guidelines controlling content on Wikipedia: WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:No original research, and even WP:Notability. The welcome message posted on your talk page today includes several links which hopefully will explain these criteria in greater detail. Hope this clarifies things, --DeLarge 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added information about the original Beauville

I finally added the information about the 1950s station wagon Chevrolet Beauville. While I hope I cited enough, I sourced where it seemed neccessary and provided links for words some may not understand. I included the sites used to help in the process of acquiring the information for the Beauville before the G Series Beauville. If you see something that needs to be cited better can you please tell me what it is, why it should be cited, and just real quick an idea of how, instead of just deleting.

With regard to the school, if I were to figure out a way to cite this example and provide evidence of how durable the vehicle must be to work there could it be entered into the article? Is photographic evidence enough? Would I have to quote a security guard? Can I quote a Security guard who drives one for a living?

I do not feel the article should be merged to the Chevrolet Van article because it has more to do with the actual Beauville than with the 210, Bel Air, or Chevrolet G. It is about the option, not the vehicle it is an option of.76.16.78.28 01:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the school goes, no, I can't think of any way to "cite" this. A security guard who drives the van is not a notable or reliable secondary source. And anything you do yourself to create sources would constitute original research. --DeLarge 09:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprawling list

The list is important. It is what the Beauville was. That was what you got when you purchased a 1995 Chevrolet Beauville and if someone was unsure of the year of their Beauville they could check the list and say "Oh, 1995, I have power windows." And what happened to the Picture of the picture of the 1956 Bel Air Beauville? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.72.77 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WHO PUT IN A VANDURA PICTURE!?!

THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE BEAUVILLE NOT THE VANDURA. IF THIS IS NOT FIXED OR IS RETURNED AFTER IT IS FIXED I WILL PUT A BEAUVILLE PICTURE ON THE VANDURA PAGE(if there is one because it quite frankly is not as awesome of a vehicle). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.248.13 (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Discussion

Shouldn't the picture be of the Beauville rather than the Vandura? I have a picture that shows the entire front of the vehicle and the entire side as well. I believe that meets wikipedia's criteria. 131.156.248.76 (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]