Talk:Coupé de ville

	This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Automobiles Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Town car page were merged into Coupé de ville on 2014-08-23. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Coupe de Ville was copied or moved into User:SamBlob/Sedanca with this edit on 2014-07-06. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Coupé with this edit on 2014-07-06. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This car would meet the definition of Coupé de ville perfectly if the panel over the driver's seat was actually removable like a Targa top as well as appearing to be removable. Eddaido (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Within the past 30 hours or so, a vast amount of crap has been shovelled into this article:

• A paragraph about the car-buying habits of "Hollywood film stars" from "the roaring 1930s" was supported by one citation claiming the source to be a publication from 1878, which predates not only "the roaring 1930s" but the automobile and the motion picture camera as well.
• Another very detailed paragraph about driving to Southern Europe in luxury (oddly placed in the "North America" section, and including text in the second person in violation of
  WP:YOU
  ) was based solely on a dictionary definition of the subject of the article.
• Very many references to Appendix 5 of The complete catalogue of British Cars 1895 - 1975 by Culshaw and Horrobin were made; checking against my copy of the book showed that this supported only the one statement that it supported before the crap was shovelled in.

There are also several references to Automobile Body Design by Ian Beattie in the article. There is a difference between

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Latterly, few North American manufacturers have used the term exactly (ie: no open front), to enable their larger cars which could be chauffeur-driven to gain extra marketing qudos."

What does "qudos" mean? Could it be "kudos", which my dictionary has as meaning "personal fame or glory"?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call me petty, but how about retitling the article Coupé de Ville instead? This minor change would bring it in line with the Coupé and Coupé utility articles.

FielderSincera01 (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article again seems to be unreliable beyond redemption. It contains so many references to published writing of pure journalistic invention as if those fantasies were true. Most of what this article currently says is plain wrong. Eddaido (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the U.S. was major auto producer in the pre WWII era, Coupe DeVille didn’t become a commonly used phrase until Cadillac used the term for its first two-door hardtop in the late forties. While some custom body manufactures may have used that term, it was not commonly used in the general public. To suggest that it was a commonly used term in the U.S. prior to that model is to spread a falsehood. And no, town car and Coupe DeVille are not commonly interchangeable in all languages. This seems to be a projection of someones opinion (European, perhaps) and that POV results in a misleading falsehood. Say Coupe De’Ville in the U.S. and most people think of the Cadillac model, period. ClevelandExPat (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]