Talk:Chevrolet Silverado

Automobiles High‑importance

	Cars portal 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trucks Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks 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.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Bed Lengths

Silverado/ Sierra has 3 bed lengths. Short Bed= 69.3"/5.775', Standard Bed= 78.7"/6.5583', and Long Bed= 97.6"/ 8.1333' 1500 models Reg Cab 2wd has Standard Bed and Long Bed models Ext Cab 2wd has Short, Standard, and Long Bed Models Crew Cab 2wd (1500hd) has short and standard bed models

Reg Cab 4wd has Standard and Long Bed models Reg cab has short bed/step side the wheel base is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.81.32 (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Ext Cab 4wd has all three Crew Cab 4wd has short and standard bed models[reply]

Wheel Bases 1500 models 119" Reg cab Standard Box 133" Reg cab Long Box 133.9 Ext Cab Short Box 143.5 Ext cab standard box and crew cab Short Box 157.5 Ext Cab Long box

I know this will help out with specs. All this infromation was researched and measured myself for a company that uses specs for collision repair. I know most editors will want a link for this info. I mainly used www.chevy.com and used the "build your own truck link" 70.184.211.68 (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See #4: Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. This article isn't meant to be a repair/reference manual. Specifications of a detail not valuable to the average reader should be put elsewhere, and referenced in the External links section. --Vossanova ^o< 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a list of stats would be confusing. I do think how ever mentioning for the 3 bed styles and their lengths would be work out better. 70.184.211.68 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think that is bad check out the Toyota Corolla wiki site. All the engine specs and everything else. I know now what color of the of toliet paper used to put it together70.184.211.68 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

It would be of interest if all tables also had the empty weight, max gross weight and max towing weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbrowne (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bed lengths

Can anybody add the lengths of the beds of the various Silverado models?

Merge or split

There has been a suggestion to split the GMC Sierra content from this Chevrolet Silverado page. I suggest leaving them merged in this article for the following reasons:

There are virtually no differences in specification or equipment between the two models. Compare GMC.com with Chevrolet.com and see for yourself. Or ask Edmunds.
There are no differences in introduction schedules or other facts which would cause confusion.
The Chevrolet handily outsells the GMC, so this is clearly the "master" vehicle for the other to be redirected into.
This same argument has been made repeatedly for other car models. See the Chevrolet Lumina APV et al for a family that (barely) had enough differences to be split.

Since the suggestion has been made, let's discuss it here before proceeding. --SFoskett 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for split

The GMC Sierra has existed for quite a few years as its own vehicle, called the GMC Sierra. Formerly, the Silverado was just a trim package on the GMC Sierra. However, in 1999, Chevrolet decided to start manufacturing its own vehicle, called the Chevrolet Silverado. Now, I know these cars pretty well, I've ridden in both and have looked at the cars, both online and in person. I know that, for all intents and purposes, they are the same truck. However, this similarity has only come about recently (1999-present) and is still only a similarity. The fact of the matter is, the GMC Sierra has been in production for years before the Chevrolet Silverado has been in production, and they are still separate vehicles. Having them listed the way it is listed now is misleading to someone looking up the car and might lead them to believe that the Sierra is just another name for the Silverado.
Also, how can the history of the Sierra be listed in the Silverado article if they are in the same article? Furthermore, what if any future discrepancies between the cars come about. It would not be beyond GM to do that.
There needs to be separate articles for the GMC Sierra and the Chevrolet Silverado. Any questions, feel free to message me.
-Mtz1031

I may be misinformed, but I believe that "Sierra" was a common trim line on the GMC version of the General Motors C/K Trucks, just as "Silverado" was a common line for the Chevrolet model. Both vehicles were officially called "Chevrolet C/K" and "GMC C/K" for many years until GMC adopted the Sierra name across their whole line in 1988. But these vehicles were still mostly identical, and still used the C/K nomenclature. The 1999 trucks officially dumped C and K for conventional Silverado and Sierra names, but the similarities continue.

Sure, GM might add some differences in the future, but they haven't yet. What specifically would you write about the Sierra? What difference is worth more than a few words? --SFoskett 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're point. Althought the GMC is not still a trim models after 1988 it still shares its similarity. I knew about the Chevy C/K and GMC C/K, but I also knew that there was the "GMC Sierra" before there was a "Chevy Silverado" (hence the history debate). I agree that they should remain together because of their similarities, though. There is still some differences in the equipment of the early release dates in the earlier models of the Silverado and Sierra as well as some that still exist (e.g. grill, luxury items, new features, etc.). I understand your point about listing these articles on the same page, but there needs to be at least two things done if they are to remain merged: 1.) Fix the name (I'm not sure what would be best, but even though Chevrolet produces the "master" car, there still needs to be a better name). 2.) Specify that there are differences between the two vehicles at some point or another. I can understand listing it under the same article, but it needs to be very apparent that two companies produce these cars and that they aren't truly identical cars. So, if these things are addressed, I see no problem with keeping these articles together. --Mtz1031 18:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC-5)

I agree there are some differences. Could someone cite some differences below to see if a split is nessary.

Just a note that at least for the past several years both of the vehicles are made in the same factory, on the same assembly line from identical frames and bodies. Almost all of the parts are identical. Peyna 04:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The major argument I could see that would justify a split is the difference of models offered by Chevrolet and GMC (namely the the SS and Denali models). The standard model Silverado and Sierra are similar, except for the sheet metal changes brought on in 1999 which made the visual change between the two pickups more than just an emblem. However, a GMC Sierra Denali is not offered on the Silverado platform, nor is a Chevrolet Silverado SS offered on a Sierra platform. This is a major difference in both brands, and it is not identified prominently enough on this page. If a split is not in the works, then some further explanation (and possibly some more images) are needed to differentiate these two brands. I think a possible GMC Sierra section should at the very least be added to note the difference between these two brands. --HumanZoom 08:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Auto Tag

The GMT 900 trucks have not been released yet, and as far as I know is still subject to have model changes until it is officially released (hence the future auto tag that specifies that this part of the article "is likely to contain information of a speculative nature"). Please discuss before removing the tag again. -HumanZoom 06:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for a split

With the upcoming releease of the GMT900 line of trucks, the exteriors and interiors of both trucks will look completly different. Also, some features may be diferent beteen the two vehicles. When more information is released, I suggest this be split into two seperate articles.

P.S. I don't think the Denali line is mentioned in this if this is a Silverado/Sierra article.

I can see you reasoning for a split, but the same argument could be made for the GMT800. They too had different sheet metal exteriors, but on the inside they are the same truck. If a split didn't occur for the GMT800, I doubt one will occur for the GMT900. Also, the Denali line is mentioned in article (although, not very much is said). Anyway, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Thanks, -HumanZoom 06:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Marketing

While it now has its own section, does it really need to be included at all in this article? I thought the purpose of this page was to talk about the truck itself and not how GM markets it. My other reason for removal is the potential of controversy arrising from this subject. This is the second time I've had to clean up this section and I assume it won't be the last.

I would suggest to merge it into another, more relivant article, but I can't find one. I vote to remove it completely unless there are some major objections. -HumanZoom 05:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I objected to the removal. GM have been marketed it so heavily that it is too important to dismiss. If you are going to move the Our Country, try An American Revolution. After all, the press release said it is an AAR extension. -Jacob Poon 05:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, some time has passed and considerable clean up and addition of information has been added to the advertisement section. My original reason for removal was based on the fact that GM has always spent a lot of time, money, and effort advertising their trucks (i.e. Like a Rock, etc.), but the only thing this section included was criticism towards their newest campaign. I still think a new article is needed and possibly just link to it from a condensed version of this section. Advertising Campaigns of Chevrolet or Advertising Campaigns of General Motors anyone? I guess I'll have to wait another month before someone looks at this page again. lol -HumanZoom 15:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Links

I have removed both YouTube links as references from this page. Luckly, one of the links already had another reference that supported the same information. However, the other link did not and I have therefore added a {{fact}} tag. While, it is not official Wikipedia policy to disallow the use of YouTube videos as references, it is suggested that these videos do not break copyright law. Both links were videos of obviously copyrighted material, so I had them removed. -HumanZoom 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox clutter

OK, the assortment of different lengths and heights in the infoboxes is a bit ridiculous. Either someone pick out select values or annotate them with the models they correspond to, or I'll just condense them into a range. --Vossanova ^o< 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just as annoying is the incompleteness of the GMT800 chart - why it is divided (left column) by cab size is beyond me, and there are years and engines missing. 173.57.29.212 (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to....

the picture of the white 2007 Silverado Shortbed Z71 that was here? If you dont want to post it with the article, could you please add it to Wikimedia Commons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.10.186 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truckin' magazine 2007 Truck of the Year

The Silverado did not win this award. Actually the Toyota Tundra did

http://www.truckinweb.com/features/0613tr_top_10_trucks_2006/index.html

The very first line on the page, "2007 Truck & SUV Of The Year" The very last sentance on the page "The Tundra wins our Truck of the Year Award."

Because of this I'm removing that information from wikipedia.

Chart at bottom doesn't show correct production date

I think the Silverado was introduced in '88. I hesitate to make the change because I do not know if the c/k line continued at the same time. Steveandaugie (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA

You need to not add USA to every city name. I'm pretty sure that is counter to policy as those cities are already wikilinked and internationally known (again, there is no other Flint, Michigan.) This isn't my opinion, this is pretty much established for every single article on Wikipedia: You don't need to add USA if the city is well known. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a policy that supports this? I believe that the Chevrolet name is far more widely known than the cities in which its products are produced. For example, can you name (off the top of your head) what cities BMW or Toyota cars are produced in? Frank | talk 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes. The wp:manual of style clearly states that you should never use USA anyway, ie: U.S.A. and USA are not used unless quoted or as part of a proper name (Team USA). Also, the Wikilinks themselves do not have USA. It is an American owned company, it is normal to assume locations are in the United States unless otherwise indicated, as is the case with the Mexico link. Also, try looking at virtually every other article on Wikipedia. This is the standard, you are the one trying to come up with a new policy. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody dont know all US cities, and if other cities have countries why dont US cities dont have, it generalstandard in car articlers here to have city and country.. --— Typ932^{T | C} 21:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bullshit, I just check out Ford, and the convention is exactly what I am telling you. Please read manual of style and look at other mainstream articles for reference. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You are trying to change how everyone on wikipedia does cities, all by yourself. As a side note to answer you question that has no bearing here, if you said that a car was built in Paris, then I would know it is in France (note that the article isn't Paris, France, which is a redirect. If it was built in Paris, Texas, then you would see that Texas is in the title. This is normal convention here. This is why the articles are named as they are. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please state the policy that indicates you should put USA on every city. I have shown you the policy that says you never use that abbreviation anyway. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No im not, here is lots of articles without United States, for example Chicago article was missing vital information the country where it is . It looks very us centric not to have the country --— Typ932^{T | C} 21:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it is NOT normal to assume locations are in the United States, nowadays cars are assembled in various places --— Typ932^{T | C} 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling me YOUR OPINION. I am quoting the actual policies at Wikipedia. You NEVER use USA even if you do need to add country (I quoted you the actual policy at wp:MOS and you just keep reverting it. This is the last time I will explain it, and will just seek further action. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep it civil, please. This discussion needs to be taken to Template_talk:Infobox_Automobile since it involves all vehicle articles.--Flash176 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_automobile infobox docs assembly: cities and countries where the model is built, also different city templates has also country fields --— Typ932^{T | C} 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a template, not a policy. It is very possible and easy to create templates that violate policies. Even if it is used in a template, you can't use USA. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the civility request. I would also ask for a link to the policy that states that country names shouldn't be included. Frank | talk 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehhe this is very funny....it is your OPINION "if the city is well known", do you really thing that everybody thinks they are well known... --— Typ932^{T | C} 21:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given the exact policy that says you never use USA above, wp:mos. This may be why I am getting testy. And this isn't about Automobiles, it is about general policy at Wikipedia. And you you really think we should go into every article and add United States to every city/state? Why would autos be different than any other product? We don't add the name of the country to every city in any article, we only do where it is needed to prevent confusion. There is no confusion about Flint, Michigan. If there was, then the Flint article would be named Flint, Michigan, United States PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:NC:CITY also indicates that you only use country name when there isn't a secondary geographic area, ie: for countries without subdivided states. This means you never add United States unless there is a specific reason it is needed to prevent confusion. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give the link to that mos, its only for USA abbreviation, does it make some harm to use it? Is United States different than other countries? and the nc:city talks about article names not articles --— Typ932^{T | C} 22:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this is why I get frustrated. The policy says "never use USA", and you want to know if it really harms anyone. That isn't the point. The policy clearly says "dont do that". You asked for a policy, I gave it. Now I am asking to follow the same policies we all follow. The other policy states that you don't name the country except when there isn't a secondary geographical area. This means you don't even use United States or U.S.. You use the primary and secondary geographical, meaning Flint, Michigan. If you can show me why this doesn't apply to articles as well as titles, I am all ears. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't even say it is about titles only anyway, it is about city naming convention, so it would apply. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we should go and clean most of city articles ? give me a break... --— Typ932^{T | C} 22:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note All city articles already use this method. All of them. Virtually every one of the over 2.5 million articles on the English Wikipedia use the same convention. The only exception is your addition to this article. That is the point I am trying to make. YOU are the only one breaking convention here, and you can't even admit the one super easy "never use USA" point. I have shown the policies, as requested. Now please revert back. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements), its only for article names --— Typ932^{T | C} 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note That is a talk page, not a policy page. I quoted from the actual policy page. Anything can be said on a talk page. Currently, that is the only policy that approaches the proper way to name cities. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The convention page speaks only for article names, if you can read, , get some admin here or stop that bulsshitting --— Typ932^{T | C} 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you felt I wasn't "bulsshitting" about WP:MOS. I understand why you are putting it in the templates. Lets just leave it at that then. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

close

GMT900HD

i see information on the GMT800 HD is here but nothing much of anything for the GMT900HDs, which just recently got a chassis redesign and some minor exterior changes close —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.201.146 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated and inconsistent information

This page seems to be at least 2-3 years out of date, but the text often does not indicate which year it applies to.

Terms such as "light-duty", "heavy-duty", "half ton", "3/4 ton" , etc are used variously with no way to determine which models fall into which category in most instances. peter (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great project for you. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

It appears that some editors do not know how to properly format a citation, forcing others to go back and fix them. Don't just throw in a weblink....PUT A TITLE ON IT. If you don't know how, go learn. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great project for you. ;) (also, there are bots that do it) --Vossanova ^o< 16:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Most Dependable Longest Lasting Full Size Pickup On The Road", and has been since 1981.

"Most Dependable Longest Lasting Full Size Pickup On The Road"

Badly in need of citation or deletion. If not, I'd at least add something like "Chevy claims that..." Wykily (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Years

This article was incorrect about the years produced. It started in 1988. Here is the proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_C/K#Fourth_generation_1988.E2.80.931998.2F1999.2F2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.14.226 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio removal

All of this was removed per WP:COPYVIO because it was lifted directly from GM and other web sites. The content can be added back as long as it is not copied directly from its source. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Chevrolet Silverado Special Edition Listing

There are available Special Edition for the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado series now in the market. They are Rally Editions, Midnight Edition, Custom Sport Edition, Custom Sport Plus Edition, Black Out Edition and Texas Longhorns Edition. This can be found at Silverado Special Edition web page. Is this possible to fit this to the Third generation (2014–present) section? Rjluna2 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chevrolet Silverado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chevrolet Silverado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chevrolet Silverado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chevrolet Silverado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320180517/http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2007-02-13T175615Z_01_N13187053_RTRIDST_0_GMCANADA-HYBRID.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna to http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2007-02-13T175615Z_01_N13187053_RTRIDST_0_GMCANADA-HYBRID.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chevrolet Silverado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chevrolet Silverado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702155012/http://gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/PowertrainProducts.aspx to http://gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/PowertrainProducts.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting this article up by generation?

As the Chevrolet Silverado continues production, the scope of the content related to each generation continues to grow in size. While deciding what is notable to include in an article is in the opinion of each editor, there is a point where a section in an article can stand on its own as its own article. Here, the first-generation (GMT800), second-generation (GMT900), third-generation (K2XX), and fourth-generation (T1XX) sections are all worthy of their own dedicated article space. In addition to freeing up space on this article, setting up separate articles that link back here (in line with the Ford F-Series and its generational articles) provides a format for further editing (and expansion) on each generation independently.

While the migration of content would be a substantial undertaking, the benefits for both editors and viewers would be worthwhile. Thoughts? --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As with the C/K article, this one has reached (maybe passed) a level of content where a page split would be necessary. Being current production, it's only going to get longer. --Sable232 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - long overdue IMHO. Mr.choppers | ✎ 05:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as long it's done properly. It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 13:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it's overdue, but I also think it's a big job that users are reluctant to start. Dana60Cummins (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long overdue. VX1NG (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SteveCof00, Sable232, Mr.choppers, Sallicio, Dana60Cummins, and VX1NG: Since this was unanimously approved and so much time has passed I have gotten the ball rolling and split off Chevrolet Silverado (first generation). There are issues with the lede and categories at the new article, and the summary at this article which I'm not sure about though so feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. A7V2 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good so far. I would keep a little bit more in the main article for each iteration, and perhaps a picture of two. Other than that, good job! It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 13:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (this is what was done for the Chevrolet C/K article in the long run). Overall formatting will still be a work in progress for a while, as this is repurposing the article as a parent article of several derivative articles, involving the reconstruction of content that has been added to for many years. On a plus side, very little of this has original-research issues and this new scope allows for the evolution of content through each specific article. -SteveCof00 (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A7V2: Thanks, I will give it a glance next time I am a bit bored (after the youngest one starts school perhaps, how does 2025 sound?). Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and split off the second-gen section as well. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support improves the readability 83.168.137.1 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should we also split GMC Sierra ? Nevertheless I support splitting the articles. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to go faster. This discussion has been open for four and a half years. 750 h+ 13:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ELectric version

Hello! So I was watching Youtube and saw this video pop into my recommended. I know there's already a section on the electric version but it doesn't appear to have much info (probably due to there not being any at the time). A quick google search shows that some sources have already covered this. WOuld we also be able to use images from these sources or would we have to get the images elsewhere? Not exactly all that familiar with the policy on car-related images since I don't really look for images for articles that much. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their website also appears to have information on it now. I know this can't be included in the article but, it honestly looks a lot like the Hyundai Santa Cruz in terms of its shape. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]