Template talk:Cadillac timeline 1980 to date

It seems to me that there doesn't need to be a generation break for the '89 DeVille/Fleetwood. The car was updated in '89, but it wasn't updated any more than, say, the '89 Riviera. That generation of Deville should run from 1985-93, with the Fleetwood running from 1985-92.

Also, is this a template for Cadillac's vehicles worldwide, or the US? Because in the latter case, the BLS shouldn't be shown. Rhettro76 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I built this template I simply used what the corresponding wikipedia pages said regarding generations. If you feel they were you're you're more than welcome to correct them. Also, the BLS was left in and the template is not based on any specific market, since as far as I know GM operates Cadillac as a global brand and there is not the variety that there is in Chevrolet or Buick, which differ almost completely between USA and other countries. --Denimmonkey 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Well, if you'll notice, in the Cadillac DeVille article, the two "generations" are grouped together under a section called "1985-93". The only place where a generational break was made is in the sidebar. Which probably needs to be cleaned up. Rhettro76 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to add the 2009 BRX on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FenwickFalcon35 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be redone

The placement of a few models is all wrong.

The present CTS is not an entry level car; it is a midsize car. This would interfere with the placement of the STS and DTS. They both, however redundant they are, are actually suppose to compete in the full size segment; one above the midsize segment.

Yes, I know I am implying they 'compete' with the BMW 7 and the S-Class. But that's GM's problem for the car's shortcommings and having both compete with one another. My problem stems from the placement of the CTS; a car that is dimentionally similar to the BMW 5, but only identified as an entry level car based on it's price. Besidses, the BLS is already identified as Cadillac's entry level car.--24.222.156.92 (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2011

I see 2011 was added to the timeline. I was going wait until the full lineup was listed at http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/vehicles.html (currently only the '11 CTS Coupe and CTS-V wagon are listed), but they're all in the fleet order guide, so it's a safe bet. I'm tempted to add the CTS Coupe under "Personal luxury" since it fits the genre well.. any objections? --Vossanova ^o< 14:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATS and XTS?

I added XTS and ATS to the line up but someone deleted them. You must be stupid not to know that they're going into production. I'll edit it once more, whoever you are, don't delete you tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.30.225.226 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Table Does Not Follow Consistent Organizing Logic

This table needs to be revised to follow a consistent organizing logic. Some of the vehicles are grouped into EPA size class (mid-size, full-size), some are grouped by body style (limousine, roadster) and some grouped by marketing terms (compact executive). None of the three are either "right" or "wrong" if used consistently, however, mixing them together reflects poor overall editing and is confusing to readers, particularly those who are not automotive experts. 174.21.220.242 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the table based on US EPA size classes. I picked this classification scheme because it made sense to me and didn't require major surgery on the table coding. I'm open to the idea that this may not be the ideal organizing principle, so if you've got strong feelings, please outline them here, its worth discussing. Regardless, the table is now organized around one classification scheme and is consistent. That's a step forward. 174.21.226.1 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

coupe

@Vossanova: Hi, coupe was the only Eldorado body since 1986, but not before. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]