Template talk:Pontiac timeline 1980s to 2010

Fiero

Someone needs to add the Fiero (1984-1988 sports car) I'm not sure how to, though... Clarkefreak ∞ 23:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Move Tempest

Someone needs to move the Tempest - it was the same intermediate wheelbase Tempest. Stude62 01:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Category shifts 4-1-2006

The following changes were made to the template on 4-1-2006.

1) Shifted "Personal" car size down to just above full size. Rationale+Grand Prix's were based off on the Full-Size platform from 1962 to 1968. While post 1968 Grand Prix's were smaller in wheelbase, they were priced above mid-size and intermediate vehicles.

2) Changed Large to Intermediate classification. Rationale: The LeMans was the same car as the Tempest, save for engines and trim appointments and built on the same wheel bases as the Temptest, which was based on the mid-size classification. Stude62 16:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pontiac GTO

I was just wondering why the 2004-2006 Pontiac GTO is considered a mid-size coupe, when I think it would more appropriately be placed in the Sport category. Comments? -HumanZoom 06:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It effectively replaced the 2-door Grand Prix in the American market. "Sports" cars typically have limited or no rear-seat space, while the GTO, based on the Australian Holden Monaro, is a full-fledged coupe. --Vossanova ^o< 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Parisienne and LeMans

I updated the template to show that the Parisienne debuted for 1983, not 1982 as had been shown previously, so the gap between the last B-Body Bonneville (1981) and the first Parisienne (1983) is evident. Also, the LeMans was dropped after Model Year 1993, not '94, as the template used to show. Rhettro76 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

G7/2009-2010

GM has not officially announced the Pontiac G7, or any other product for 2009/2010. If/until they do, the information that Jgera5 has attempted multiple times to add to this template is only speculative.

The "source" that Jgera5 has provided is a local newspaper quoting, not GM officials, but "analysts" not within the company.

Thoughts? Rhettro76 20:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not speculative. Workers at GM Lordstown have confirmed this as well. I know, I live near there. I'm reverting it back. The only thing not confirmed is the name of the car. I simply put "G7" in there because the vehicle will likely be called that, seeing it will be positioned between the G6 and the G8. The article even mentions that. End of discussion. Jgera5 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is speculative, as the vehicle doesn't even exist yet, nor are there even concept photos! And the last edit you had showed the G7 as beginning in 2009, but your new one shows 2010. So which is it?

If you don't know for sure, then it is indeed speculative until the manufacturer officially announces it. You are willfully putting unconfirmed information on this template, as you even acknowledge you don't know what the vehicle will be called. It is not 2010, but the beginning of the 2008 model year at present.

A lot can happen in 2 years, so this information needs to be reverted and stay off the template until the information has been confirmed by the manufacturer. Nothing personal. It's just in the name of accuracy. Rhettro76 23:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The 2010/2009 issue was my error, as I was looking at the article from the Vindicator wrong. It's supposed to start production for the 2010 model year in the 2009 calendar year.

As for everything else, hey, I'm just stating what was said in the paper. Where I am at, it's a big deal that GM Lordstown is even staying open.Jgera5 00:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, until this information is officially announced by GM itself, it is still somewhat speculative. The future of the plant itself may not be. But until GM announces the vehicles that are spoken of in the article, its rendition of the future might be subject to change in the coming 2 years. Plans change quickly in the auto industry, as I'm sure you well know. Rhettro76 01:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rhettro. Until there are firm plans sourced from GM, speculation should not be included as it is not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denimmonkey (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)