General Motors has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do.Vital articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital articlesTemplate:Vital articlevital articles
This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about General Motors, electric cars, or cars in general. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about General Motors, electric cars, or cars in general at the Reference desk.
A news item involving General Motors was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 June 2009.
Wikipedia
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Should Asüna, which I'd never heard of until five minutes ago, be in the table of former GM brands? Mr Larrington (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you never heard of it before is no reason to remove something from Wikipedia. Asüna was a brand used for captive imports in Canada, much like how Geo was used in the US. Even if it was short lived, I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the list. --Vossanovao< 14:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, it is long. But GM is one of the oldest surviving brands, so that's expected. Chopping it down would be a disservice. Better to split the history section off into it's own article and leave just a 1 or 2 paragraph summary here. Stepho talk 23:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There already is a History of General Motors article though, so we just need to move more of this into there. The "Post-reorganization" section is definitely getting out of hand. WP:NOTNEWS, this is not a place to dump a new line and reference every time a news story about General Motors is released. See also WP:PROSELINE and WP:ANNOUNCED (not policies, but they show how easily a well-written article can turn into a timeline of indiscriminate announcements with unnecessary emphasis on dates). --Vossanovao< 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but that is not a suitable question for this talk page. A Wikipedia talk page are about improving the Wikipedia article. You will have to ask somewhere else. Stepho talk 00:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is missing any summary description of the engineering of GM products, and company initiatives to engineer their products. It is missing the role of major engineering efforts of previous decades. But it is also missing things like the commitment GM made in 2019 to design an electric vehicle platform (which they seem to call "Altium") for many EVs across their brands.
This would seem to be important because new products during major technology shifts are critical to a company continuing to exist or the company missing a societal technology shift, and potentially failing or consolidating/shrinking later on. See any Tesla article and you won't find the design, development, & engineering going on missing from an encyclopedic treatment of the company. Cheers. — 17:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC) N2e (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. If you have suitable references then feel free to add such a section. If it is more than a few paragraphs long then consider creating a new article and leaving just a summary and link to it from this article.
Beware that almost all big manufacturers have promised to go all electric at some future date. Corporations are also known to change their mind at the drop of a hat. Promises are cheap and non-binding. Stepho talk 10:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In 1909, General Motors attempted to buy Ford but failed. Is it possible within the following years for General Motors to acquire Ford, as Durant attempted 114 years ago? General Motors would need to buy the Ford Motor Company, to be able to re-take its title as the world's largest automaker, and come close to Toyota with around 10 million produced vehicles a year. GM, would then grow from just four car brands to six or five (depending on if GMC will be discontinued and replaced by Chevrolet): Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC (the current four); Ford, Lincoln (two new brands if acquiring the FMC). 90.231.234.93 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page is for discussion about improving the article. It is not for general discussion about Ford (or GM) and certainly not for speculation on what Ford or GM could do in the future. Stick to reported facts. See WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTFORUM. Stepho talk 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a reason to have individual subsections for recent strikes? I mean auto worker strikes are hardly new yet we have as many sections talking about post 2000 strikes as we do for strikes in the all of the 1900s. The impact of individual strikes is probably due in the labor section but this article suggests the strikes in the 70s, 80s and 90s aren't important while the strike which just started is very important. Are editors opposed to some type of consolidation? We could list major strikes without going into detail in this article. Springee (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
