Talk:Chrysler
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chrysler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chrysler. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chrysler at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Index
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Removal of the Note
There is a note at the bottom of the page detailing how Fiat's acquisition of Chrysler has not yet gone through, and is currently in court. The court decision was made, making this section obsolete. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.253.4 (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Removed! Thanks, Springee (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Please stop wholesale deletion of fixable content
See the Wikipedia policy WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.
If it's in the wrong section, move it. If the tense is wrong, copyedit it. If you don't like a source, show me a more reliable source that asserts they're wrong. Or show me where there has ever been consensus against that source. Don't tell me you're merely deleting Business Insider and The Motley Fool and then throw out the New York Times along with it, like nobody would notice?
There's no reason for this kind of editing. If you care about this article, improve it. If you don't care enough to make improvements, then leave the content here so someone who does care can do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Dennis, I was fixing it. The section suffered from citation over kill and has content about past decades that isn't relevant here. I reduced the number of citations for the contemporary sentence leaving just the NYT ref. I removed the previous decade sentence and all of it's refs. Springee (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Dennis, to be clear, I'm removing these two sentences as not relevant to the 2010s:
- In the previous decade, Consumer Reports had consistently placed Chrysler brands at the bottom of their reliability ratings, and their Automotive Brand Report Card.[137][138][139][140] J.D. Power's results were similar during the same time period, in both Initial Quality Studies and Customer Service Indexes as has the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.[141][142]
- I'm also removing the BI and Fool sources from the first sentence while leaving the NYT source. I don't see the issue with this cleanup. Springee (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Article split discussion
78Game, you added a split tag to the article but no discussion. There have been recent discussions about this topic [[1]]. Is there a new reason to split things up? Springee (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- With every new company merger, this article is getting further and further away from actually being about Chysler. What are we going to do in 10 years if Stellantis and Volkswagen decide to merge? Will we have to merge Volkswagen Group of America into this article and still keep it at Chrysler?? BilCat (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I made a draft page of what this page should be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chrysler 78Game (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- 78Game You need to give a rationale of why the article should be split. This has been proposed several times, and so it would be good if you'd review those discussions first. BilCat (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- BilCat The Chrysler name is not the main part of the company and the Chrysler division keeps creating less and less cars. Also the Company has not been called Chrysler since 2014. The company is rumored to kill off the Chrysler brand as well and if it does and the page is still called Chrysler that would look stupid. Wikipedia is meant to be accurate in every way I see that you want this page to be called Chrysler for reader convenience but that isn't what wikipedia is made for.
- B-Class company articles
- Top-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- B-Class Automobile articles
- Top-importance Automobile articles
- B-Class Brands articles
- Top-importance Brands articles
- WikiProject Brands articles
- B-Class Trucks articles
- Mid-importance Trucks articles
- B-Class Michigan articles
- High-importance Michigan articles
- B-Class Detroit articles
- Detroit task force articles
- WikiProject Michigan articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages