![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Are you sure that Maxwell and Willys-Overland merged into The Chrysler Corporation? I can't find it anywhere on this page: http://www.chryslerclub.org/histry.htm // Morten Bojsen-Hansen // raz0 .at. worldonline .dot. dk
Why is this article in Category:Defunct companies? Chrysler is very much still around, in the same way that CompuServe and Bank One are not defunct. — Jesse's Girl 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It may be fair to call Willys and Maxwell defunct, but not an organization that's still very much in the marketplace and just reports to a different corporate structure. RivGuySC 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm going to remove this category. --Cholmes75 16:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Can anybody defend the last edit calling Chrysler a "luxury" manufacturer? They did make some luxury cars, but basically they always presented a full lineup across the whole market. Today, since it's clear that Mercedes is the top of the corporate food chain, I'd say that's less accurate than ever. RivGuySC 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)
Chrysler is not a luxury car brand since less than half of all vehicles it sells feature a base MSRP of $38,000 - look under luxury car to find the defenition as well as list of luxury car manufactueres. Chrysler is a middle-class semi-luxury car brand. The Chryler 300C is the only is the only proper luxury car in the Chryler line-up. Gerdbrendel 10:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
"The design shown at the top of the page is an adaptation of the original winged logo which Chrysler used on its cars at its inception in 1924. The logo was revived for the Chrysler divisions in the mid-1990s but again was slowly phased-out after the Daimler "merger"." I think this latest edit is inaccurate. The winged design is still there on the newest Chryslers. RivGuySC 00:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually it is incorrect to claim that Chrysler is a Detroit based car manufacturer since the Daimler-Chrysler coperation's heaquaters are in Stuttgard, Germany. Gerdbrendel 10:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added the NPOV tag to this article. The section on the merger has some language in it that is clearly not neutral: "As if on cue," "tailspin," etc. are all quite charged. ⇒ BRossow T/C 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
User:24.132.86.126 added the following on 8 May 2006:
(diff)
I found references to this feature in model year 2003 Chrysler vehicles, but I can't seem to find a definitive reference that states they were the first, does anyone have a source? Sertrel 13:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
PONTIAC Grand Ville and Bonneville had adjustable pedals in the mid 70s (pre-downsized B-body).
- User:Leonard G. 23:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This article should be split into two - one discussing the U.S. operations called "Chrysler Group" as a whole, and another discussing the Chrysler division of the Chrysler Group. KansasCity 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There is an article link where Van Jolissaint denies global warming. That isn't mentioned in the article, though. So, should that be removed or something? --Jnelson09 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
CZMarlin wrote "There is no confusion between the billionaire and the doctor." No justification is given for this statement which is in direct opposition to personal experience. However, I will avoid reverting as the consensus seems to be that it is not needed.130.156.29.61 14:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Chrysler → Chrysler Holding LLC — This will be the new name of the the Chrysler Group once DiamlerChrysler completes the sale to a private equity firm. This will also help eliminate potential confusion between the Chrysler Group and one of it brands, Chrysler —Black Harry (T|C) 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't all things relating to the Chrysler Brand be left in this article, eliminate the Chrysler (Division) article, and leave all the Corporate stuff in the Chrysler Holdings article?
Image:Logo pentastar.gif 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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we're being far too broad on just constitutes a "private company" for categorization purposes. With regards to Chrysler, nobody doubts that of course it's privately-controlled company because it's majority shareholder Cerberus Capital Management is privately held. But is Chrysler privately held? If you click on Private as it currently stands, you get the Privately held company article. Privately held is being very specific, and strictly speaking Chrysler is not completely under private ownership. It is not in the same league as Cargill, Mars, Inc., Koch Industries, etc. Close, but not quite. The problem is that Daimler AG (a public company) continues to hold a minority stake in the company. So if you buy shares in Daimler you are getting at least a nominal stake in Chrysler. With a privately held company, this should not happen under any circumstance, no matter how Forbes and other respected publications describe the company.
Joint venture on the other hand is a broader term, especially in the sense that there is no rule I'm aware of as to just what the "percentages" have to be for a company to be called a "joint venture." The relative size of the stakes is pretty much irrelevant, even if the shares were split 99-1 between the partners, you could still call it a "joint venture." Of course most times companies choose to create joint ventures they do so with relatively even stakes, because it normally doesn't make much sense for one company to invite another to enter into a joint venture with like a five percent stake, or perhaps even a 19.9% stake like Daimler kept of Chrysler. But that doesn't mean that if such an arrangement is made (as it was in Chrysler's case), then somehow it "doesn't qualify" to be a joint venture.
A similar example I would like to point users to is The Mosaic Company. If Chrysler is simply a "private company" end of story, then arguably Mosaic should be declared so as well. After all, its majority shareholder (Cargill) is private, right? Problem is that unlike Cargill, Mosaic shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, so to simply declare Mosaic "Private" would be silly. On the other hand, to just say it's "Public" might be slightly misleading since the minority shareholders who choose to invest in Mosaic are essentially silent partners. So the best description of Mosaic, of course, is Privately-controlled public company.
The same principle should apply to Chrysler. No, its shares do not trade directly but those of a still-significant shareholder (Daimler) do trade publicly. There more than enough truly private firms with articles here that companies that are "almost" privately held like Chrysler should not be categorized with them. Private implies privately held i.e. that Chrysler is just like Cargill, etc. when it's not. That sort of blunt classification, frankly, is amateur. Privately-controlled joint venture is not.
Forbes can use a broad classification system to group and describe companies if they like. We can do better.
Rupertslander (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
On the current Chrysler website, the pentastar logo is nowhere to be found. Have they decided to predominantly use the winged logo? I am not a car expert. --Tkgd2007 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
H'mm. Are we sure the list of Chrysler-made vehicles is really necessary here? The list as it stands has problems — it's by no means exhaustive, and its categories are oddly misalphabetised D, C, J for some reason. Both of those problems could easily be fixed, but while an exhaustive list would be unwieldy in an article, but whether a fix should go ahead is not as good a question as whether we could simply and cleanly link to List of Chrysler vehicles, List of Dodge automobiles, List of Jeep vehicles, and List of Plymouth vehicles? Those four links would fit neatly into this article, and those four pages are much better suited to the exhaustive, organised presentation of the model chronology, as it seems to me. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please add a proper IPA template for the pronunciation of Chrysler/Archive 1. I have heard their advertisements say /krai:zler/ when all along I thought it was /krai:sler/. Perhaps note both of them. Jidanni (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It is irrelevant whether certain Chrysler models used the winged medallion or not. And I know for a fact certain 1996-2000 Plymouth Voyagers used the pentastar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.96.119 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest create a section about present alliances (i.e. with Tata and with Fiat). --193.145.201.52 (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would welcome any inputs from Chrysler afficionados to my enquiry at Talk:Virgil Exner#Design work. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article is heavy on the auto operations. It needs more on military products such as the M-60, M1, Redstone, etc. --Gadget850 (Ed) 14:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This article makes no mention of Chrysler Group (China) Sales Co. Ltd. (CGCSL). CGCSL is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chrysler and provides its footprint in China. Certainly seems like it is something worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.122.247 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Yikes. 30 years of brain drain has really hurt Detroit. This article is one of the worst written wikis I've ever seen.--Mlprater (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Was the company ever headquartered in New York, or was that some sort of branch office? Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Chrysler never actually occupied the Chrysler Building in NYC, although they did call for its construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.53.162 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
In the infobox under "divisions" Chrysler Financial Services is listed. I thought that as of 2007 Chrysler Financial Services became a totally independent company? --173.106.154.90 (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Several hours ago, I changed the past tense in the lead to present tense, but it was later changed back. Yes, Chrysler has now filed for bankruptcy, but that doesn't mean the company no longer exists. Let's not confuse bankruptcy with liquidation, which is not always the end result in these situations. Although liquidation is possible, Chrysler will not cease to exist unless/until all is said and done, and as of this moment should be spoken of in the present tense. In addition, I don't think the infobox should have a "fate" entry until we can determine the company's ultimate fate. Besides, Chapter 11 is not a "fate". It is a transitional process that can have a wide variety of results. Later on, if a "fate" entry is warranted, it might say "Merged with Fiat", "Liquidated", etc. But it's not our job to speculate at this point. Of course, any feedback or alternate viewpoints are welcome. szyslak (t) 08:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
An article needs to be created for Daimler-Chrysler. It currently redirects to Daimler which doesn't really cover DC, and is very Germany / Mercedes centric. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The section on the bankruptcy was getting a little long. I've moved the section to Chrysler bankruptcy and eliminate some of the detail. Both article and section could probably stand some copy editing. Ronnotel (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Chrysler. Either way, this might increase the traffic on this article. Bovlb (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It's clearly a case of poor reading comprehension on her part.Alanmjohnson (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that in the infobox, it says that C. Robert Kidder is the Chairman and CEO. First, Bob Nardelli is going to be the CEO of Chrysler until it emerges from Chapter 11, however long that may be. Second, from my understanding, Kidder is just becoming Chairman, and Sergio Marchionne is going to become CEO. I have sources to back up Marchionne becoming the CEO. Karrmann (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Chrysler Group LLC should be merged into the Chrysler article, which should then be renamed Chrysler Group. KansasCity (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)