Talk:Saturn Corporation

message: The article quotes that a high percentage of plastic panels were sent back.  The impression is that this is with manufactured cars.  If you read  the given source this was only for the first few months of panel delivery.   
173.50.230.69 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plastic Panel Quality

message: I am looking for Pictures of the future redline Turbo Sky any idea where i can view those? Are they even available?
:Try Saturn.com, unless it has copyright issues.  You could try various automotive forums for pictures from enthusiasts taken at autoshows.  Bok269 00:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: 12.7.06 - Edited FUTURE section to include reference to new 2008 Saturn Astra. --Flybrian 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Updates

message: GM began manufacturing Saturn automobiles in 1990, largely in response to the success of Japanese small-car imports in the United States. 
Its motto was "A different kind of company, a different kind of car". Not only would it copy Japanese car style, it would try to copy Japanese management style: workers would have more control and involvement in the plant, the UAW agreed to lay off the Saturn division, and in general things were 'done differently' than they had been at GM, drawing from experiences gained through its NUMMI and CAMI Automotive joint ventures.
Saturn values were communicated through finely crafted image advertising created by a leading ad agency of the times, Hal Riney.  Saturn's narrow focus on a high quality small car and graceful customer service found a perfect match in Riney's folksy signature style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyclePat2 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know this is sourced (to a fan page, not anything "official", it seems), but it seems odd that, if GM named Saturn Corp. after the rocket and NOT the planet, then why does their logo evoke the PLANET? Just curious. Chabuhi (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced information removed from article

message: While removal of clearly unencyclopedic content is fine, mass deletions on the pretext that they lack citations are unproductive, and border on vandalism. It is better to add citation-needed tags ( or related) to uncontroversial passages. Or better yet, find the references yourself. ProhibitOnions (T) 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you ProhibitOnions but your playing games here and it is making me mad. (uncivil comment removed by me, CyclePat) I have stated an answer to your question which may be found on a users talk page here. In short please see WP:VER. Per the policy, it is now your responsibility to add the sources. (comment censored)... so long as it is well sourced. I do however agree with you that it is better to add citations then delete material but let's be honest... there are no real sources presently within this article. I come to wiki to get some educational material and frankly I'm not to impressed with the crappy crystal ball and unreferenced material I have found in this article. It sounds like a prosaic POV story told by an employee. (Which is Okay, if we put the source... ie: Interview with President of Saturn... or letter from Saturn).  would be a waste of time and your accusations of vandalism are an insult. Next time you want to talk to me I expect an apology,... (removed threat). Good luck with the references as per WP:CITE. adieu. --CyclePat2 19:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not involved in the content dispute here and was offering advice, not specifically addressed to you. You have earned yourself a block for incivility and vulgarity. ProhibitOnions (T) 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not mass delete content

message: The neutrality and lack of properly sourced information is being disputed again. I will place the information here. (FOR A SECOND TIME). Please discuss this information prior to putting it back into the article. --CyclePat2 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your latest set of edits, adding "According to XX" to the text and adding an excessive number of cite tags to items that you could have researched instead, are not helpful, and seem to be a violation of WP:POINT. Please desist. Find citations for the items you have flagged and you will instead have made an excellent contribution to the article, for which the other users will be grateful. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of tagging every sentence with  tags, you should just instead put an  tag at the top of the page. Cite tags are usually only used for controversial sentences that will need a source to back them up. Karrmann 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While removing huge chunks of the article might seem drastic, the article consist to a significant extent of speculation, OR, POV, crystalballing, editorial-style comments, imprecise, incorrect or malformed information, and yes - it is completely unsourced. I believe it might even be beneficial to remove the whole lot and start ab ovo, making sure to include encyclopedic and properly-sourced info only. Cheers, PrinceGloria 21:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may well be right, and I fully agree the article is very poor. However, the manner in which content has been removed so far has not been helpful, and amounts to an edit war. There's a skeleton of basic information about Saturn here (founded 1985, located in Spring Hill after a long and highly publicized search, originally autonomous but ultimately absorbed by the GM bureaucracy, etc.), but it, too, keeps getting removed, along with all the speculative and other nonsense that deserves the chop. Unfortunately, mass deletion without discussion, excessive taging without new contributions of material, and rude comments on talk pages, are unhelpful. ProhibitOnions (T) 22:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason why I objected to the deletion was mainly just like what you said, he deleted information that was the basic skeleten to this article. After he was done, nothing really was left to his article, and it was missing the most basic information about Saturn. I think that a good NPOV go over and referencing whould be done, but no more mass deletions. Karrmann 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan on rewriting the article, bringing it to good article status, but I have limited time to do so.  My stub will be available at User:Denimmonkey/Saturn Corporation until I feel it is finished.  I have already gathered a variety of sources that verify nearly all the text on the current page, but I feel it would be worthless as the article could have much better headings instead of grouping everything into the initial summary.  Anyone is welcome to contribute to what I currently have (which is pretty much empty at the time of this writing), and I'll make sure to get approval before replacing the page with my version. --Denimmonkey 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea - though at the same time I made an attempt to remove the most glaring faults of the article by rearranging some contents, leaving out what did not belong and rephrasing some of the most inappropriate statements. I also left citation tags wherever the remaining information, to my best knowledge, is or might be be genuine, but would need good, reliable sources. I agree the article is no less a mess than it used to be, but I hope its development will continue. I guess I might have done a much better job, but unfortunately my egoism took over and I decided I do have to get some sleep... PrinceGloria 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have intentions of making this a good article, but i can't get my butt in gear to do it. But if you need any help on the article, just let me know! Karrmann 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of sections and Sources of information disputed...

message: According to the artile, Saturn never turned a profit. This contradicts a New York Times article from 1993 that says Saturn turned a profit in May of that year. It also contradicts a GM webpage.
:My guess is that it "turned a profit" for the time period, if you don't count the huge investment in startup costs, etc.  But if those are factored in (and they have to be, over the 20-25 year period the company has been in existance now), it never was able to recoup those costs.  But that's just speculation on my part.  Also, the NYT Article mentions that no specific financial numbers were given, so it's kinda GM's word... --Rehcsif 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a quote to support my speculation, from this source:
In January 1994, Saturn announced its first operating profit, achieved in calendar '93, though the amount wasn't made public. The workforce had grown to 8500 by then, and each employee received a profit-sharing check for about $5100. Though Saturn was still a long way from paying back GM's initial investment, officials hastened to point out several benefits accruing from the new company.
So my guess is when people say Saturn "never turned a profit" they're meaning that GM never recouped their investment and actually made money on the line.  --Rehcsif 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to agree with Wikipedia's page on Profit, in particular the Accounting definitions of profit. The sources I originally cited used the term "operating profit", which Wikipedia clarifies as profit before taxes and interest on loans.Simplex 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate content?

message: I noticed that a few people had suggested making major changes to this article, but it seems that no one has done it it. I would suggest that someone rewrite at least the history section, and maybe the entire article, preferably with more citations. In particular, the article has some serious organizational issues, including a lot of repeated content, like mention of the plastic side panels and GM's profit loss (which is currently in dispute, it seems). 
UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: :Image:Logo saturn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logo saturn.jpg

message: Will there be any 2009 Saturns?  Or will the Saturn marque exist beyond 2008?
Does GM have a proposal to phase out the Saturn marque?  (If so, will its cars become Chevrolets?)
-Jeff39212  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.63.154 (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again - get this through your skull - the Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia is not in the business of making predictions about the future. For such predictions, go to other sources like fan pages on the Web.72.146.44.165 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I drive a 2009 Saturn, if that answers your question.  Meanwhile check out this AutoNews article for some good information to add to this article.  209.51.167.2 (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He wasn't asking for a crystal ball.  It's a legitimate question:  Have they announced phasing out or not?  Relax.  Tempshill (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No 2009 Saturns?

message: Saturn's management was brilliant (especially early on), learning from their joint-venture with Toyota at NUMMI.  Can the management style be brought into the article? 98.218.232.71 (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Management?

message: Whatever the nature of the content dispute that occurred in the past, the article needs to discuss the different union contract that Saturn started out with before, I believe, they shifted to the industrywide UAW contract; hot it was different and what the objectives were, and why it (apparently) failed.  Tempshill (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Union

message: a lot of models shipped to the US are actually made in Germany, by Opel the company that now wants to get separated from GM (as Opel/vauxhall within Europe alone, have been profitable for over 20 years). Markthemac (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: a lot of models

message: Saturn's trying to pull out of GM. --Gp75motorsports TALK 00:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you give a reference from a credible source, we can't put that into the article. Banaticus (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I wonder if Magna will buy Saturn to turn it into Opel USA? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hint, hint.

message: This can't be right. The article says that Saturn was established in 1985, but didn't sell any cars until 1991. That's impossible. What kind of car company doesn't sell cars? --Jnelson09 (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The kind that's developing cars to be sold, building the factory to manufacture said cars, creating a whole retail network, and so forth.  It should be sourced so that it can be verifiable, but I believe the name was actually first announced even before 1985.  user:J aka justen (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then, I think this should be better explained in the article. --Jnelson09 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1985-1991

message: What exactly is the status of Saturn today?  Has the sale to Penske been completed? If it's still a GM subsidiary as the lede says, is it a subsidiary of the New GM, or of Motors Liquidation Company, which is a separate entity? What exactly is Penske buying -- the "Saturn Corporation" as a self-contained organization, the car designs, or just rights to the brand and dealer network?  --Jfruh (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Barring a miracle, it's over for Saturn: GM to Wind Down Saturn Brand After Penske Halts Talks. Argel1200 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Apparently, the deal was expected to be completed as soon as tomorrow.  According to the various sources, Penske backed out at the last minute after the board of directors of Renault rejected his plan to source Saturn vehicles from Renault.  (For the last several years, Saturn has depended heavily on Opel for vehicle design.  The deal between Magna and General Motors apparent precludes that sort of arrangement going forward.)  As was previously mentioned, it's not looking good for Saturn, although it's important we keep our crystal looking devices under cover and make certain to keep statements out of the article that imply Saturn has closed up shop until it actually has closed up shop.  (Of course, sourced content, like is currently in the article, saying GM now expects to wind down operations is accurate and verifiable.)  user:J aka justen (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Everyone loves to be "First!" writing "X is dead" on Wikipedia, but please, resist it.  Wikipedia is NOT a news site, so also resist the temptation to copy every news release you see the minute it comes out.  The page definitely needs to be updated, but give it a little more time before you ("you" meaning anyone, noone in particular) write it off as officially defunct. --Vossanova o< 14:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it time to remove from the section about "earlier models" the comment about "In recent years, sales have been in decline."?  Obviously, by now, the only Saturn sales are resales, which has of course been the case for earlier models, all of which were by definition out of production for several years.  75.216.235.190 (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the current situation?

message: I came to this article to find out why Saturn failed.  I mean, it was only started in 1985 and was supposed to be GM's answer to Japanese cars.  But I read this article and it doesn't say why it failed.  Huge losses???  If so, why?  Low sales???  Ifo so, why??? (poor design? lack of styling???)  Poor quality???  I read this article and still don't know why Saturn failed.  Thanks in advance to anybody who knows the answer (surely this must be well known in the auto industry).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why did Saturn fail???

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Saturn Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090501155821/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/17/national/a152805S45.DTL&hw=GM+Saturn&sn=002&sc=734 to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/17/national/a152805S45.DTL&hw=GM+Saturn&sn=002&sc=734
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110608075555/http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009906060412 to http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009906060412
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Saturn Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120404072154/http://www.montrealgazette.com/wind+down+Saturn+brand+October+2010/2052163/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/wind+down+Saturn+brand+October+2010/2052163/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified