Jump to content

Talk:Chrysler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78Game (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 26 May 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

Removed! Thanks, Springee (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Springee 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 make Wikipedia look bad. 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 the Wikipedia website is made for. 78Game (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've confused me with other users. I'm not one of those opposing an article split, and I've supported this article covering the brand/marque on several occasions, with a separate article for the corporation. BilCat (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
78Game, my view on the subject hasn't changed since we discussed this last year. I don't think the recent merger changes that much. Chrysler is still a distinct organization within the parent organization so treating it only as a brand isn't a good option. The Chrysler brand didn't create the M1 tank, the Saturn 1B rocket nor a number of other things that weren't Chrysler cars. Chrysler is still the COMMONNAME for the part of the company primarily located in the US and that is primarily responsible for engineering, production, sales and marketing Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and RAM vehicles. I simply don't see it improving reader's access to the information if we decide that Chrysler is not going to only refer to the Chrysler brand products and not talk about anything it did as Chrysler the company. Still, this is just my opinion and a RfC might get more editors with better ideas how to split things up without loosing ease of content access. Springee (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Springee The company still has it's own page with it's history as Chrysler but the wikipedia page "Chrysler" should be the brand's own page
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrysler&oldid=1025160438"