Talk:Saturn Corporation

Plastic Panel Quality

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)Bruce Peterson

someone should get the book(s)

this article leaves out a great deal of information about the history of saturn. it doesn't even mention Roger Smith. hopefully some day someone can add info from the many books written on this era of GM

Pictures

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)

Asia

I never heard about Saturn being sold in asian countries. I also never heard of the Saturn Vita & Saturn Kuda.

List of Updates

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

Unsourced information removed from article

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).

more information removed (no sources):

Saturn employees spoke a carefully selected language meant to separate the "new world" from the "old world." This new world was steeped in the best customer service practices learned from travel and hospitality as well as consumer retail industries, not necessarily the traditional car business. If you owned a Saturn franchise, you were a "Retailer," not a dealer. And you planned how to serve a non-competing geographic area, "Market Area," with "Retail Facilities," not dealerships. Saturn inspired a cult following with annual 'meetings' in Tennessee of Saturn owners, as well a day-to-day special events in retail settings. However, the division never made a profit and by the 2000s was a several billion dollar loss for General Motors, which due to its massive financial problems closed the 'experiment' and folded Saturn back into its traditional corporate landscape.

More unsourced information:

General Motors even choose west-coast Saturn retailers to sell and service the short-lived and highly politicized electric car, the EV1, in the mid 1990's. A history of the EV1 can be seen in the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?.

Saturn's headquarters, retail employee training facility and primary manufacturing facility were originally located in Spring Hill, Tennessee. The facility was chosen in 1985, after a highly publicized nationwide search for a site; the impact of bringing a major industrial development to a rural American community was the subject of architectural historian Joe Sherman's book, "In the Rings of Saturn."

Saturn was originally established as a fully-owned, but independently administered subsidiary of General Motors, with GM executive Bill Hoglund at its helm. It was hoped that lessons learned from Saturn would trickle down to the rest of General Motors to make them more competitive against foreign automakers and improve labor relations. Due to severe losses at GM, and a failure of the company to capitalize on its initial momentum by not redesigning its vehicles fast enough nor expanding its range, it was decided to integrate the rest of the company in to the GM infrastructure in 2003, with Bob Lutz aiming to bring the brand closer to its European cousin, Opel.

Since the 2000s, Saturn has been gradually losing its autonomy, as new models, for example, do not utilize polymer side panels and are derivatives of other GM models. Production has since been moved to other GM plants. Production of Saturn vehicles at the Tennessee facility ceased on March 30, 2007. Initially, the Saturn Corporation was headed by a president who consulted with a Union local counterpart and reported to the GM Board of Directors. As the role of Saturn changed within General Motors, the chief executive role was shifted to be a Vice President of Sales, Service and Marketing. Since 2005, Jill Lajdziak, previously a VP of SSM, has been the General Manager of Saturn, who reports to the Vice President of the GM Small Car Group.

Saturn is known for its company-wide "no-haggle" sales policy. Saturn dealers (called "retailers" by the company) are encouraged to sell vehicles at list price. Customer satisfaction with dealer service is among the highest of any car brand in the U.S. The company also won praise for its environmentally-conscious manufacturing processes and for its innovations such as using flexible plastic side panels on its cars to avoid minor dents. However, in 2005, the Saturn Relay became the first Saturn vehicle without polymer side paneling.

Since the 2000s, Saturn has been gradually losing its autonomy, as new models, for example, do not utilize polymer side panels and are derivatives of other GM models. Production has since been moved to other GM plants. Production of Saturn vehicles at the Tennessee facility ceased on March 30, 2007. Initially, the Saturn Corporation was headed by a president who consulted with a Union local counterpart and reported to the GM Board of Directors. As the role of Saturn changed within General Motors, the chief executive role was shifted to be a Vice President of Sales, Service and Marketing. Since 2005, Jill Lajdziak, previously a VP of SSM, has been the General Manager of Saturn, who reports to the Vice President of the GM Small Car Group.

Saturn is known for its company-wide "no-haggle" sales policy. Saturn dealers (called "retailers" by the company) are encouraged to sell vehicles at list price. Customer satisfaction with dealer service is among the highest of any car brand in the U.S. The company also won praise for its environmentally-conscious manufacturing processes and for its innovations such as using flexible plastic side panels on its cars to avoid minor dents. However, in 2005, the Saturn Relay became the first Saturn vehicle without polymer side paneling.

under history section removed POV:

When it was launched, Saturn (named after the rocket that took American astronauts to the moon, not for the planet) was a significant departure for GM.

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)

Removed unsourced:

The first real change came with the 2000 Saturn L-Series mid-size car. It shared the GM2900 platform with the Opel Vectra, along with its engine, and was built at a GM factory in Wilmington, Delaware. The Saturn Sky is now being produced in the Wilmington facility along with its essentially-identical siblings, the Pontiac Solstice and Opel GT.

Today, the company shares GM's Delta and Theta automobile platforms, along with the company's Ecotec engine, and vehicles are built at many GM plants along with the Spring Hill factory. The Saturn VUE even uses a Honda engine, and the plastic body panels will be discontinued on most future vehicles.

In recent years, Saturn has been criticized for not keeping pace with the rest of the automotive industry. Sales have been declining, and the ION production lines were halted for two weeks in 2003 to allow dealer inventory to reduce. The L-Series was canceled after production of the 2005 models.

Since Saturn never made a profit, GM decided to take back control of the division, eliminating its independence from the corporate behemoth.

Wikipedia is not a crystal bal. Removed:

The Saturn brand will be repositioned in the upper-end of the family car market, stopping just south of entry-level luxury; roughly where Oldsmobile used to be. Volkswagen is in the same market position that GM wants to take Saturn (only going as high as the Passat)

Remove POV and no source:

The company's independent manufacturing operations are in doubt, however. GM has begun moving Saturn production away from Spring Hill, and announced that that plant would be integrated with the company's regular plant mix, producing products for all GM brands. It is currently being retooled for larger cars, and the shop to produce Saturn's iconic plastic body panels is being dismantled as the company moves to conventional steel panels. Besides the obvious cost and assembly benefits to using industry-standard steel panels, Saturn's trademark polymer skins require larger gaps in between body panels to allow for heat expansion. The lack of understanding by automotive critics has led to past Saturns being periodically criticized for poor assembly quality.

Wiki is not a crystall ball:

The VUE and ION Red Line models, launched in 2004, will be joined by a Green Line VUE and Aura and Red Line Sky in 2007.

Sorry as of today this article still reads like Saturn corporate communications employees wrote it.202.82.171.186 (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not mass delete content

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 ({{cite}} or related) to uncontroversial passages. Or better yet, find the references yourself. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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). {{fact}} 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)

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)

Neutrality of sections and Sources of information disputed...

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)

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)

Instead of tagging every sentence with {{cite}} tags, you should just instead put an {{unreferenced}} 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Inaccurate content?

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)

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)

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)

Suggestions

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)

I took the initiative to make a few changes to the article. I added a few extra phrases at the beginning of the History section, fixed a punctuation error in the paragraph about the primary manufacturing facility, and deleted the last sentence of the Products section, as this was not only redundant, but also written in the second person. UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs could still use some tweaking, and the article still needs citations. And how a bout some pictures, especially in the Products section? There are several on the pages for the Saturn models (S-series, ION, etc.) Lastly, a few questions. Is this article part of the Automobiles Wikiproject? If not, I think it should be. And is the Saturn website an okay source? I don't know how this figures in to NPOV and such. UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts with this article. It looks like it was restored to a more information-rich, but poorly formatted, previous version (it was agonizingly sparse the last time I checked, November or so perhaps). I would not be able to weed through things all that well at the moment, but when I can, I'll lend a hand in at least removing repeated content. Boter (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or does the "History" section repeat itself? Smithw14 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo saturn.jpg

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)

No 2009 Saturns?

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think at this point, they will continue to produce Saturn models through the 2010 model year, but after that, there will be no more. But don't quote me on that. About all that's certain now is that GM plans to phase out the Saturn brand. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Management?

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)

Union

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)

a lot of models

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)

Hint, hint.

Saturn's trying to pull out of GM. --Gp75motorsports ^TALK 00:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

1985-1991

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)

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)

Well, then, I think this should be better explained in the article. --Jnelson09 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the current situation?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why did Saturn fail???

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)

The major reason is that, despite running a very popular and well-liked business for the vast majority of the company's lifetime, their sales were generally a mixture of parasitic to GM as a whole (siphoning buyers who would usually be interested in say an Oldsmobile or Chevrolet) and non-profitable (Saturn was once reportedly losing thousands on every car they sold). Their market strategy presumed that they would retain the massive appeal of the early S-Series at least into the early 2000s, but the S-Series became somewhat outdated by the turn of the millenium, to the point that even a new SUV (the Vue) couldn't sway the American market. In this phase of the company, we did get some interesting Saturns, like the essentially plastic and, dare I use some slang here, "ricey" ION version of the Cobalt SS Supercharged and the Vue with a quite decent Honda V6, the C3 'Vette-inspired Sky, among others, but in the end, a company can't survive by being interesting in obscurity. This wasn't as much a problem in the early-to-mid 2000s when GM was chugging along fine and dandy, but when the housing market crash hit in 2008, GM as a whole got rocked by the shockwaves. To get a bailout from the government, they would need to de-bloat their company, so ultimately decided to scrap their companies they deemed least core to the success of GM. There was not going to be a universe where Saturn lived but GMC or Chevrolet didn't, so that was out of the question. Even then, Saturn would fall in front of Pontiac on the chopping block for heritage alone. Add on that Buick actually had some potential for relatively easier profits domestically and internationally, that means neither Pontiac nor Saturn really had a chance from the start, especially considering their lineups just echoed either each other's or Chevrolet's products.

In the end, deals with Penske and Renault just didn't work out (thank heavens on the latter!) and such is life, Saturn was decomissioned as a result of nobody wanting to invest in such a big unknown. I'd attribute this to the long-lasting reputation of Saturn buyers, that being a somewhat familial or religious view of the company. Let me just ask you: pretend you're a businessperson in 2008 looking to buy low on a safer than average company, would you really want to juggle the possibility of upsetting, and let's be realistic here, a bunch of lunatics just by making a car they don't like? I wouldn't, either. TheSaturnLover (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Saturn Corporation. 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/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.

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} 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saturn Corporation. 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 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.

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} 00:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add reason for last edit

Sorry about that y'all, just wanted to give a heads up: the edit was to remove a redundant hyperlink I had created in previous edit regarding generations of Saturn Vue. I apologize for any inconvenience. TheSaturnLover (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)