Talk:Cadillac

If I'm not mistaken, Cadillac will take the title of the oldest surviving brand name of American cars from Oldsmobile in 2009. Is this right?? Georgia guy 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now that it's 2010, Cadillac must now be the oldest surviving brand name of American cars. Is this right?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This section is a ridiculous apologia for General Motors and its lame LF9 Oldsmobile-developed 350 cubic inch passenger car diesel of the late '70s and early '80s, ridiculous enough to make one wonder if this is revisionism coming out of GM.

I am putting this (IMHO factual, even if it is written informally) screed up on the talk page to see what kind of reaction it gets from the community. If not too many people throw tomatoes, maybe I'll get off my duff and research it for a proper write up.

A large portion of Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes-Benz, and Peugeot sales during this timeframe were also diesels (and other manufactures sold plenty of diesels, although in a lesser proportion of sales than the makes I enumerated); they DID NOT suffer the same early-80s mass failures as did GM's diesel V-8s.

• When incidents of exploded Olds diesels were rampant (coincidentally, starting about a year after the '79 fuel shock and consequent hyper-popularity of diesel cars in the U.S. market) in the early '80s, an urban legend sprang up that a tanker of water-contaminated diesel fuel was imported from Brazil (its importation being necessary because a severe winter had upped demand for home heating oil and skewed the product mix coming out of U.S. refineries) and that water contamination wreaked havoc upon GM passenger car diesels. Interestingly, this load of double-dog-secret diesel fuel never caused a similar wave of catastrophic failures in other makes of cars. Had the fuel supply actually been at fault, it would have affected all user populations similarly, but it did not.
• The fact that this wave of GM diesel catastrophic engine failures fell when it did probably had more to do with age of, mileage of, and cumulative stress effects upon the '79-'80 diesel sales wave crest cars. Given that the mode of failure was usually a catastrophic failure of a lower end component (in the early 80s, a visit to an Olds or Cad dealer would allow you to see dead FE9s lined up in rows on the ground behind the service department, most with a piece of the rotating assembly having penetrated the side of the block - a no-kidding explosive failure of an engine), that points to some combination of inadequate design, substandard metallurgy, and substandard machining. GM had recurring serious problems with the latter two deficiencies in a variety of internal parts across multiple engine and transmission lines throughout its mid-'70s-to-mid-'80s decade of disastrous build quality, so these problems certainly wouldn't have been out of place in the crankcases of Olds 350 diesels. Also, the FE9 was 'dieselized' from the long and well-serving Olds Rocket 350 gasoline V-8, rather than being designed from the start as a diesel as is more common in the industry, making one wonder if the resulting design constraints didn't force GM to use less metal mass than they should. (In fairness to the practice, other 'dieselized' passenger car engines have worked out well, most notably Volkswagen's 1.5 liter inline four, which was as stout as a brick outhouse despite revving to the stratospheric [for a diesel] rev limit of 5800/minute, with its peak power at 5600/minute and peak torque at 4400/minute.)
• The statement in the article about GM diesels not having water separators is literally true, yet out-of-context and misleading. (And if lack of a water separator is a flaw, whose fault is that? In light of the fact that the diesel was a $949 option bundled with another ~$50 of heavy-duty electrics, a whopping percentage of selling price for a late-'70s family car, it's not like cost concerns were overwhelming.) No modern diesel passenger car marketed in the U.S. has a centrifugal water separator, although they are common in heavy truck and industrial diesels and are available on the aftermarket. GM's pleated paper fuel filter in between the low pressure fuel pump and the injection pump is conceptually identical to rest of the industry's approach and very similar in appearance under the hood to what you'd see from any other make. (Not to say GM couldn't have have made design errors in implementing industry standard practice, or made use of substandard filter materials.) If lack of a centrifugal water separator is what killed the GM 350 diesels, it should have been equally deadly for other makes, but it wasn't.
• GM caught flack for going with a Stanadyne (a manufacturer widely regarded as a poor second to Bosch and its Japanese licensees such as Diesel Kiki) injection system, and the rotary pump used was a new design. Maybe this pump was more sensitive to contaminated fuel than the rest of the industry?
• As far as buyers and dealer service staffs not knowing how to take care of these cars, that's bunk. Each car came with an owner's manual, and the factory published service manuals and offered mechanic training programs. If they weren't good, whose fault is that? I'll concede that owners often don't read the book and follow manufacturer's recommendations, but I don't think GM buyers are worse than anybody else. Why did these problems afflict GM but not its competitors in the diesel trade?
• As far as the unsuitability of the general U.S 'gas and go' population for diesel ownership, the author of this section is probably right, and I'll agree with the section author's implicit message that diesels benefit from having gearheads (rather than your mothers-in-law) for owners. However, possibly with some exceptions for the long-established diesel product lines of Mercedes-Benz and Peugeot which did inspire small followings of diesel freaks (and who largely got priced out of the market as these brands went upmarket around this time - very few eccentric college profs traded their '61 180D finwagens for 300SDs; they went over to gasoline or bought Izuzus), the general U.S. population wasn't any more unsuited to own other makes of diesels than it was to own GM products. Buyers of Japanese makes and Volkswagens are a particular case on point - they were into diesels for economy, and not for brand cachet or because they'd liked their previous diesels from the same manufacturers. If the U.S. motoring population (which in fact does take generally poor care of its fleet) was at fault in widespread failures of GM diesels, they should similarly have killed off other makes as well.
• I'd like to see the author of this section document widespread survival of significant numbers GM 350 diesels for "for hundreds of thousands of trouble free miles". Even if they had the mechanical longevity to do so (which is not the typical case), because their reputation was so thoroughly shot by about '83 that they had near-zero resale value, a large fraction of the diesel survivors were converted to gasoline engines. Conversions to gasoline engines were easy and common, both after the original diesel grenaded or had injection problems too expensive to fix and as a way for the owner to restore some resale value to his still-running GM diesel, and it was not unknown in the mid-'80s to see GM rear-drives with diesel badging running under spark-ignition power. The Olds 350 diesel project engineer (interviewed in a big cover story in Popular Science when the engine was introduced, featuring a cross-country run in an Olds 98 Regency coupe) stated that GM was not promoting their automotive diesel as longer-lived than other engines and stated a target durability of 100,000 miles (which was at the time the assumed economic lifespan of a car).
• Most damning for me is the publicity (propaganda) campaign surrounding the Olds 350 diesel. The tanker-of-Satanic-fuel-from-Brazil story came out in a story in either Popular Mechanics or Popular Science after Olds 350 diesels started ventilating their blocks in large numbers using bits and pieces of their lower ends. It read like an apologia for GM at the time because it didn't contrast the GM experience with the generally satisfactory service record amassed by the rest of the (then-substantial) diesel car market. A few years later, right as GM was about to introduce its many-times-delayed-due-to-development-difficulties new front-drive generation of full-sized B- and C-body cars (Buick Electra & LeSabre, Olds 88 & 98, and Cadillac DeVille and Fleetwood), GM put in a full-page ad in magazines such as Popular Mechanics appealing to middle-aged gearheads who stereotypically might be in the market for a big domestic luxury car. It was a page of fine print; the essential story line was 'we're sorry we're behind schedule introducing the new 4.3 liter V-6 diesel in our new big front-drives; we know that we utterly blew it with our 350 diesel V-8, and we're taking the time to get this new V-6 right; please give us another chance to sell you a diesel car'. In one of the strangest pieces of advertising I've seen, GM admitted to selling underengineered and undertested junk built with near-nonexistent quality control and humbly begged the buyer to forgive past sins and put his money on the table again. (As far as I know, they sold very few [if any - I can't remember ever seeing one in the metal] of the diesel V-6. I suspect that most buyers who would consider a diesel either had been bitten by the V-8 or had at least heard of its disastrous reputation and didn't want to give the V-6 a chance, corporate mea culpa notwithstanding. Also, generally falling fuel prices through the latter half of the '80s and Detroit's rediscovery of horsepower probably made diesels a much less attractive proposition regardless of what the buyer might think about their prospective reliability and longevity. Nonetheless, if I ever run across a V-6 diesel front-drive Caddy in decent shape, I'll buy it just for the novelty of a six-passenger car which can approach 40mpg on the highway.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.39.149 (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not exactly sure what the complaint is, but perhaps the content in the article has been revised since your post of 08-31-07. As far as "NPOV", I fail to see how pointing out the massive number of failures of the notoriously unreliable 'Old-Cad 350 diesel' poses an "unbiased" view. I spent 27 years in retail automtotive parts aftermarket ( sales-purchasing-inventory management ), catering almost exclusively to the DIY market, followed by 7+ years selling engines for a high-volume production engine remanufacturer in 7 states. We were selling head gaskets for the 350 Olds diesel in the early 1980's in considerable numbers: unusual considering (1) the engine had only recently been put into production and (2) individual sales of head gaskets to the DIY market were insignificant other than for the most common engines ( Chev & Ford Small Block V8's ( FelPro #7733PT and #8016PT, respectively ) ( note I still remember the part numbers after having been out of the business 19 years. ) In the remanufactured engine industry, the Olds 350 diesel was one of many 'problem child' engines: rebuilders either specialized in them, or ( more commonly ) refused to build them due to their rate of failure and the subsequent ill-will they created with clients. While some independent repair shop owners specialized in diesel-to-gas conversions, a far greater number ( at least in my own territory of 7 western states ) refused to work on them simply because the cost of engine replacement in most cases exceeded the value of the vehicles and more often than not resulted in unhappy customers and/or small-claims court suits. When a production engine rebuilding house that has won "rebuilder of the year" awards multiple times from industry trade organizations refuses to build a particular engine, that in and of itself has got to say something. The only other domestic engine design which comes close to the Olds-Cad 350 diesel in terms of unreliability and premature failure would be the early-production 4.1L aluminum-block Caddys. ( And yes, I did stop to reflect on the Pontiac 230 OHC 6, the Chevrolet L-4 140 "Vega", and the Ford 1600cc "Escorts" before I typed that previous line. ) Bias? Pointing out that a poorly-concieved engine design resulted in premature engine failures isn't bias. Thanks. Ski mohawk 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Ski_MohawkReply

• Comment- I worked in the service and repair industry. The article is correct. This was a GM mistake. Most drivers hated them and they were a nightmare to repair. Seems to me this was common knowledge to anyone in the biz.... Guess if you were a diesel locomotive mechanic you got it....most normal people didnt.... They didnt start in the winter...the head went bad...injector problems continually —Preceding unsigned comment added by STONE8HENGE (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a problem with the current version of the section, so I am removing the tag. Greg Grahame (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am removing the following paragraph for inaccuracy and POV:

Despite Cadillac's attempt to create attractive smaller cars through the Art & Science model, sales of coupes had been sluggish and the make's flagship models, such as the Eldorado, continued their perception as large and unwieldy sedans that were the province only of the older buyer. Cadillac's fortunes changed dramatically, however, with the introduction of the Escalade, a large and ostentatious luxury SUV. The Escalade was initially a favorite of rappers such as Jay-Z, whose cachet added to the Escalade's imposing size and luxurious features to make the Escalade a desired mark of wealth and status. The Escalade has undeniably introduced the Cadillac brand to a younger generation of affluent buyers, and has re-established the Cadillac name as synonymous with luxury rather than geriatricy.

No Cadillac coupe ever used the Art & Science design (and therefore had no influence on sales of coupes), and the first Escalade arrived in MY1998, before A&S. So we start off with a flawed timeline of Cadillac history, and then the paragraph ends with the POV statements regarding what the brand's name is synonymous with. While there may be some valid points in this paragraph, it really needs to be rewritten in a section that considers several influences on Cadillac's recent resurgence, rather than giving the Escalade full credit.--Scottr76 (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It should be added to the trivia section that a Cadillac played a major part in the Seinfeld episodes "The Cadillac" and "The Money", in seasons 7 and 8 respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.214.254 (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are easily 50 more pop culture references to Cadillacs. Why does this section exist at all? It should be removed. Vytal (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism

I don't know enough to correct it, I hope someone comes in and partially locks the site after a reversion is made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.253.150 (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Friend Gedstrom: I understand his decision to erase my contribution to the history of Cadillac. Until now there was no other source of information as supplied by Murphy in his rationale for the name. After several years of research on my ancestors in the USA, I can give every one of the tests of how much he scored. Also I can give references from my book "Conspiracy in the South" published by Trafford Publishing of Canada. There is told the story of the brothers and the family Forto Cardellach New Orleans. You can also check the photographic archive of the book through Google Picasa photos and documents from one part of their country's history. I regret not being able to speak in English, but you should not be a problem with the translator of Google. You can contact me and him darétodas references you think necessary, but before blanking a contribution, given the volume of my contribution Vikipedia in Spanish, you could have requested a pre lasmpruebas. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmauri (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

"The ads, which led to record sales for Lincoln, also reportedly embarrassed the top executives at Cadillac and GM's 14th Floor, leading Smith to ask Ford to drop "The Valet" ads for Lincoln. Donald Petersen acquiesed, in the light of a severe downturn at Cadillac, and the general code of congeniality between the Big Three auto executives."

Is there a reasonable source for this? This is Lincoln fanboy stuff otherwise. Remove it if it cannot be corroborated.

Ken (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I threw a fact tag on it for now, so readers know it is unsourced. That should do until we come up with something better. -Brougham96 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The pictures of the 1996 deVille Concours seem irrelevant to me, as there is no mention of this car in the article. There certainly isn't the need for two pictures of the same car. Thoughts? -Brougham96 (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does somebody have a vintage Cadillac logo with the ducks on it instead of the red squares? After all, the logo used to be the crest of Cadillac. Sneakers55 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

When were the ducks removed from the logo? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Those "ducks" were Merlettes. Ducks were never used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.254.75 (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the The Great Depression section it says: "In 1932, after Cadillac suffered from record low sales and charges of discrimination against black customers, Alfred Sloan created a committee to consider the discontinuation of the Cadillac line. At a fateful board meeting, Cadillac president Nicholas Dreystadt heard that legendary boxer Joe Louis could not go into a dealership to buy a car, because he was black, and resorted to having a white friend make the purchase for him. Dreystadt gave the GM Board of Directors a 10 minute speech in which he advocated advertising to black consumers so as to increase sales. The Board agreed to give Dreystadt 18 months to produce results."

Joe Louis was not legendary in 1932, he was an unknown 18 year old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johhtfd (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made some unsigned edits to the page earlier, and trimmed some of the NPOV. Before we get some "America, F*ck yeh!" fanboy here, let me say I am a Cadillac fan and now own two. But the page itself is suffering from many NPOV and unsigned statements not worthy of Wikipedia. Also, I've said it before throughout the GM articles, will those of you who work for GM PLEASE stop inserting marketing and promotional text into these articles? Not only is it blatantly obvious, its just a pain to have to clean up every day.

And to the three guys from the Ford and BMW forums who keep defacing the article: yes, I found out where you are coming from, please stop defacing it. It just irks GM and the fanboys on when they see its been filled with misleading/punishing information. If part of the article states that Cadillac made a mistake and had some horrendous problems, it doesn't need to be drilled into the article again and again, and it doesn't mean that we can just make stuff up. Scryer_360 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cadillac went in to serious decline in the 1980s, and we should document that, not ignore it. Right now we've got one line on the 80s, nothing on the 90s, and just a few lines about the 21st century. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This article seems absurdly short, and there is a lot of information on the individual model pages that I would love to see summarized here. I'm still not quite clear on the various "Series 60/61/70/75" compared to the model names I remember from the 60's-80's, (Sedan/Coupe deVille, Eldorado, Fleetwood) or where Fleetwood fits as either Body By or its own model. Sevesteen (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

| homepage = www.cadillac.com Sobawok (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: The current website is for the global version of the page, and your version is the US version. Wikipedia strives to represent all countries, therefor we need to leave it in the global version. Kharkiv07^Talk 16:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cadillac. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927230759/http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/reader_rides/1267556.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/reader_rides/1267556.html

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} 18:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cadillac. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3VybD1hSFIwY0RvdkwyRndhUzUwWlc1cmQybDZZWEprTG1OdmJTOWtiM2R1Ykc5aFpDNXdhSEEvWVdOMGFXOXVQVkJFUmlacGNHRm5aVDA0TnpNek16RTJKbk4xWW5OcFpEMDFOdz09JnR5cGU9MiZmbj1HZW5lcmFsTW90b3JzQ29tcGFueV8xMEtfMjAxMzAyMT
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226163922/http://cadillacdatabase.com/Dbas_txt/brg02.htm to http://cadillacdatabase.com/Dbas_txt/brg02.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/1401_2014_motor_trend_car_of_the_year_contenders_and_finalists/viewall.html

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) 18:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per template, could somebody switch the foundation date and place so that it's "| foundation = {Start date and age|1902|08|22}
Detroit, Michigan, U.S."?

173.73.227.128 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: Template:Infobox_company appears to indicate both orders, date then location and location then date. Is there a reason date followed by location is preferred?  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per template, could somebody switch the foundation date and place so that it's "| foundation = {Start date and age|1902|08|22}< br >Detroit, Michigan, U.S."? --173.73.227.128 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

173.73.227.128 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cadillac. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3VybD1hSFIwY0RvdkwyRndhUzUwWlc1cmQybDZZWEprTG1OdmJTOWtiM2R1Ykc5aFpDNXdhSEEvWVdOMGFXOXVQVkJFUmlacGNHRm5aVDA0TnpNek16RTJKbk4xWW5OcFpEMDFOdz09JnR5cGU9MiZmbj1HZW5lcmFsTW90b3JzQ29tcGFueV8xMEtfMjAxMzAyMTUucGRm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710103538/http://www.phillips-screw.com/history_about_phillips.htm to http://www.phillips-screw.com/history_about_phillips.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/1401_2014_motor_trend_car_of_the_year_contenders_and_finalists/viewall.html

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) 23:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The main article shows the pre-2022 logo. Current logos are available here: https://media.gm.com/media/me/en/cadillac/company.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmatero (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Jmatero: I agree with you and I've updated the logo at the infobox. Moreover, the official website plus all brand's social media (Facebook, Tw, etc) shows the b&w logo as official emblem. Therefore I've been reverting edits by user @Locke Cole: who insisted on keeping the old one. Unless he has valid sources to proof we are wrong. You're invited to discuss. Fma12 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Proof that the logo is current: [1], [2], [3], etc, etc. Technically both logos are current, the single color variant that was used previously is just that, a variant. The full color version should be preferred for a mixed media usage like Wikipedia (where we can see it on screens big or small, as well as in print in some circumstances). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

And WP:RS for the color version still being current (see quote in citation):

• Gastelu, Gary (2021-10-01). "Cadillac is changing its logo for the electric age". Fox News. Archived from the original on 2022-07-03. Retrieved 2022-07-03. A spokesman told Fox News Autos that the color version will continue on the legacy internal combustion engine models while the new one will roll out with the electric models that will be replacing them until it becomes an all-electric brand in 2030.

—Locke Cole • t • c 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The color variant is also used internationally still: Saudi Arabia UAE Kuwait Qatar United Kingdom. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I can't edit the article 43.224.38.2 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

As requested by ' Bahooka ', I have placed this reply of mine to him, today, here for general comment:-

" Hello. The ' In Popular Culture ' sub-heading added to ' Cadillac ', yesterday, is capable of great expansion. Many articles show how knowledge can be greatly broadened by directing those of particular interests, (in this case cars), to other subjects they had considered before, (in this example, to a singer). This widening of knowledgee's family is what leads to a fuller understanding of one subject, and broader awareness of others, which, whilst we may still be out-of-sympathy with them, at least keeps our minds in a healthier state of enquiry than obsessions, which can become retarding. It's my hope that you'll agree with that. I should like us to reach a two-party consensus on this by returning the sub-heading with the start which I have given it, in order to achieve what I've described; which is surely one of the greatest justifications for pursuing knowledge, rather than the futile accumulation of disparate facts just to see how high redundant additions can be piled; which the edit could be construed, by it's removal, to be taken as trying to prevent. I understand this consensus could be in a newly-written form, but a complete excision of it has established I contend, a wrong principle; which is to be resistant to the opportunity to increase a subject's enjoyment. I hope you find the opportunity to reply soon. If you disagree, I can quite understand a different point of view, but, like you, unless persuaded, (which I could be), that I'm wrong, I should like, please, to know how to pursue my contention that it should stay. I shall be interested to read a persuasive reply. Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC) ". Heath St John (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support user:Bahooka's removal of this material [4]. A non-notable song (a B side that is not even mentioned on the singer's page) is just unsourced, obscure trivia. I don't know that we need an "In popular culture" section at all, but even if we did have one this entry would not warrant inclusion as it stands. There are many much more significant songs out there that mention Cadillacs, or are about them. Meters (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

MOS:POPCULT says "it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item." Also says it should be prose, not just a list. WP:CARTRIVIA says that the mention must be about how it changed the sales and/or design or the public perception of the vehicle. Useless information dilutes the rest of the article.  Stepho  talk  21:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I couldn't find the specific links. Those are very clear. Meters (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Stepho-wrs Hello.

Because it says it "...should not be..." something that "...merely mentions..." a subject, I drop the request.

I'll mention here that an ' In Popular Culture ' sub-heading is always interesting and relevant. However, I do see that there needs to be some limiting definitions, because, to say again, I accept that otherwise a huge hill of unenlightening ephemera could easily rise if a memorial is errected every time a subject's very name is mentioned.

By the way, because a song, or a film, whatever, isn't on an artist's page, it shouldn't be assumed it's because that work was unimportant in the subject's career. Let's remember that's how all Wikipaedia's pages began, absent of all information. They are what they have become because formerly missing, important facts have gradually accumulated.

(Give Wynonie a listen: he was a very weak man, but, somehow still, naughtily incorrigible !!).

Thanks to all. Heath St John (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Formula 1 announced today that it has reached an agreement in principle with General Motors (GM) to support bringing GM/Cadillac as the 11th team to the Formula 1 grid in 2026. Formula 1 has maintained a dialogue with General Motors, and its partners at TWG Global, regarding the viability of an entry following the commercial assessment and decision made by Formula 1 in January 2024. Over the course of this year, they have achieved operational milestones and made clear their commitment to brand the eleventh team GM/Cadillac, and that GM will enter as an engine supplier at a later time. Formula 1 is therefore pleased to move forward with this application process and will provide further updates in due course. Wycombefan (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply