Jump to content

Talk:Chrysler

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

Splitting proposal

[edit]

I'd like to propose two page splits...

First, I'll start with the less controversial one: I'd like to propose that the § Chrysler brand section be split into a page called Chrysler (automotive brand), separate from the parent company. It's no different than say the GMC brand being split from the GM parent company article. At 133k, this article is well past the point of a WP:SIZESPLIT, and this seems like a logical place to make the split.

I like @User:Springee's logic above, so I'd therefore further propose that the page be further split into both a Chrysler Corporation page (covering the history of the company from 1925–1998) and a Stellantis North America page (covering the history of the company from 1998 to the present). It's a somewhat arbitrary date, but in my reading, it's the start of a period of the company being passed between international partners.

Discussion of splits

[edit]
  • Before I !vote, RickyCourtney could you outline what the splits will look like? I think I'm misunderstanding but are you proposing splitting this article into three? Springee (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, but I'm also open to splitting into only two articles [just a spin-off of Chrysler (automotive brand)]. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the length I generally support the the idea of splitting the brand from the company but I think we should have a clear definition of what goes where before doing so. So rockets and tanks stay with the company. Where would discussion of the Hemi engines go? I'm asking as a point of discussion. Given the length I do think some type of split makes sense. I would prefer as few splits as possible. Springee (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll retract my proposal to split the Corporation page into two. I would propose a pretty cut and dry spin-off of the Chrysler brand section. You can see my proposed post split pages at Draft:Chrysler and Draft:Chrysler (automotive brand). -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post split discussion

[edit]

I have completed the spin-off of Chrysler (automotive brand). Please feel free to discuss any further issues here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler → Stellantis North America – Now that the page for the Chrysler brand has been split into Chrysler (brand) it would make sense to rename the page to Stellantis North America. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom; matches the COMMONNAME I’ve come across in most recent articles, I think it is clear that its usage has been adaopted. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Automobiles has been notified of this discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - might support if the proposal is about spinning off post-merger(s) history from Chrysler. Stellantis North America is not only not a common name, but covers a quite different context as well. Chrysler (not the brand) in my mind is an automaker that is/was one of the Big Three, while Stellantis North America in my mind is a Stellantis branch / regional office.
(On an unrelated note it's quite confusing to have an article called "Chrysler", that starts with "FCA US, LLC, doing business as Stellantis North America". That's three different-sounding corporate names.) Andra Febrian (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it particularly astonishing that you complain about the three different corporate names in the article while rejecting the solution to bring that down to two (two being the minimum that would be appropriate for this article)

I think your point about splitting the article into pre-DaimlerChrysler and then everything else is valid on paper, but it would appear quite confusing to have Chrysler (1925–1998), Chrysler (brand), DaimlerChrysler era (don’t know how this would fit in any of the post-split articles), and then Stellantis North America as well. Adriazeri (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You realize it's not the only solution right? The proposal calls for renaming Chrysler to Stellantis North America, so the former would redirect to the latter - I reject this. I wouldn't mind if the proposal is to make a separate article, therefore in the Chrysler article there's no need to mention FCA/Stellantis as the scope would change. But this is something else that should be proposed separately. Andra Febrian (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support split and rename The company hasn’t been Chrysler in over 25 years, continuing to call it so is untenable as seen by the word salad that is the first sentence. The article is called "Chrysler" (because of heavy prior opposition to changing the article name) that starts with "FCA US, LLC, doing business as Stellantis North America" (because while the company has consistently used the Stellantis brand, they never bothered to change their legal name which remains FCA US, LLC.)
If we are to split the article apart, in my opinion, the cleanest point would be the exit from bankruptcy. The company that exited bankruptcy would technically not be the same Chrysler that was established in 1925. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC) — Upon further reflection, I have changed my vote. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have another bold suggestion. We could essentially rewind this page to 2009. The history post-2008 can live on the Stellantis page.
I can find no evidence that Stellantis uses the name Stellantis North America in any official capacity. We don’t have a Stellantis Europe page. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stellantis Europe. Adriazeri (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to break the Stellantis North America and Stellantis Europe divisions apart? RickyCourtney (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I think it's a weird page. Legally sure, Stellantis Europe is the successor of FCA Italy and Fiat Group, but one would expect Stellantis Europe covers Stellantis' European operations (including ex-PSA, plants in Spain, Slovakia, Poland, Serbia etc.) Andra Febrian (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I understand why editors are pushing for a move. What we might do instead would be handle this as many of the articles about aerospace companies have been handled. We could simply state that Chrysler as a company stopped existing in 1998. Consider the example of Lockheed Corporation. People still commonly refer to "Lockheed" even though they are actually speaking about Lockheed Martin. A flaw in my example is that Lockheed Martin is a direct successor vs Stellantis which is a few legal organizations past Chrysler but we might be able to plaster over that. Still, I think that makes more sense vs listing Chrysler's work on the space program and as the prime contractor for the M1 tank as a Stellantis project. Basically, I think a move can work but I don't think this is the right one. Springee (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting proposal - Sep. 2024

[edit]

I’d like to propose splitting this article so that it would only cover Chrysler Corporation.

The new article would cover Stellantis North America (including what was Chrysler Group LLC), DaimlerChrysler stuff could go to Mercedes-Benz Group.

I think this proposal would be favourable to all, including those who value the differentiation of Chrysler Corporation and the succeeding entities and those who value a proper representation of Stellantis North America.

I’m interested to hear people’s thoughts, many were not keen on renaming this article to Stellantis North America so I hope this will be more lucrative. Adriazeri (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Automobiles has been notified of this discussion. Adriazeri (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest splitting from the Chrysler-Fiat merger. The reason for keeping the DC period in the Chrysler article is when DC ended it was again just Chrysler. Springee (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if it's always been the same company no matter what it's called, so the various names are always going to be part of the story. Separate articles make sense for separate companies, not different chapters of the same company. Rally Wonk (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rally’s reasoning
Support After hearing what Adriazeri had to say regarding the issue, I have decided to support the proposal. Reader of Information (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company has changed radically in between the formation of the Chrysler Corporation and now as Stellantis North America. This isn’t about names, it’s about Chrysler going from being an automotive conglomerate to being merged with a German automaker to becoming a subsidiary of another automotive conglomerate.

At the very least, Stellantis North America needs to be split from Chrysler even if the DaimlerChrysler era is left in. Adriazeri (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, you've convinced me to support the proposal. Reader of Information (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a new separate article, Stellantis North America, there would presumably be a history section. What is good reason for it not including the entire text of what remains on Chrysler? Rally Wonk (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think the Stellantis North America page needs to be no more in depth than the Toyota Motor North America page or the Stellantis Europe page.
The Stellantis page should be the primary topic... and the primary target for a lot of the merged information.
But what is good reason for it not including the entire text of what remains on Chrysler? The same reason for every post-merger/acquisition company page. As mentioned above, Lockheed Martin is a good example. The page mentions that the company was created from the merger of Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta, but doesn't give readers the decades long histories of each. Chrysler is far from the only company that has been through a messy merger/acquisition process and there are plenty of good examples across Wikipedia on how to handle this. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree. My feeling is Chrysler as an organization has largely survived in tact during many of these mergers. Since Chrysler merged with then divorced from Mercedes I would think treating that like a chapter in the history of Chrysler is fine. If, for what ever strange reason, Stellantis exploded into it's premerger companies I would be in favor of keeping it as a single article since I would see that as the organization staying together despite the various parent organizations. However, since that isn't the case, my suggestion would be to end the Chrysler article with the merger with FIAT. The sort of information that isn't brand specific but is largely Chrysler organization/division specific I would put into a Stellantis NA article (but I'm open to suggestions here). I do think it's OK to treat this as a historic article (ie it generally shouldn't change absent that explosion I mentioned). The question is where to facts like "Chrysler dropped it's V8 line for a turbo I6 engine family" go? I think we should have a clear plan before cutting things up. I think that has been one of the hang ups in the past. Springee (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you although I think the current article should end either when DaimlerChrysler started or when DaimlerChrysler ended. The post DaimlerChrysler, "Chrysler LLC" should be where the new article starts. Adriazeri (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose the split if the remaining article is named Chrysler Corporation if that is its agreed scope. The current company is still Fiat Chrysler in full (I've just found Fiat Chrysler Automobiles too). No reason why DaimlerChrysler stuff can't go to DaimlerChrysler, Chrysler Group LLC.. so on...
Especially given there is Walter Chrysler, History of Chrysler and Chrysler (brand) and probably others too, Chrysler alone sounds like it should be a disam page. Rally Wonk (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining article will likely remain named Chrysler (common name), focused on the Chrysler Corporation. By the Chrysler Corporation we mean the history before 2014(-ish). I think the consensus is that the company largely came out of the DaimlerChrysler "merger" largely the same way it went in. It also continued to operate much the same way as it had before the merger. We would continue to cover this post-DaimlerChrysler "New Chrysler" as it went bankrupt and was bought up by Fiat to form Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.
At that point, the trajectory of the company begins to change. During the FCA era the two companies were sharing a CEO who was at least spending part of his time in Detroit. Now at this point Chrysler feels like nothing more than a North American subsidiary, where the leadership spends most of their time in Europe... more akin to Toyota or BMW than Ford or GM. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it 'came out the same as it went in' and the 'trajectory of the company' changing means it's the same company, there is no justification for splitting. If I don't follow the reasoning, seems unlikely to be understood by the average reader. How you feel about where the CEO spends his time means nothing to them. Rally Wonk (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make is that this page is currently twisting itself into knots to attempt to link what’s left of Chrysler today to what the company once was.
The company today is no more led from the US than Toyota is. Both have significant offices, influence and workforces in the US, but headquarters is an ocean away.
The truth is, the Chrysler Corporation went bankrupt in 2014. Everything after that is a postscript. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's left of Chrysler today is what the company once was. It was protected from bankruptcy by the US government and then bought by Fiat to live on, this is the only way Fiat Chrysler exists. There's no Fiat Chrysler without Chrysler. That it's not led in the US has no significance to a global encyclopaedic entry with a global audience.
You say the truth is Chrysler Corporation went bump in 2014, but strongly supported the original proposition of splitting up to 1998. Meanwhile, @Adriazeri would like to see splitting at 2007. For @Springee it's 2009. 3 of the 4 of you wouldn't get the split you want. With a generic article name like 'Chrysler' there's not likely to be a consensus. Disam and either split to each of the company names or move this to FCA or SNA makes most sense to untie any knots. Rally Wonk (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I support splitting at either 1998 OR 2007, whatever is most agreeable to people. Adriazeri (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I could get behind any of these dates. 1998, 2007 or 2009. What I think is untenable is the current situation of this page acting like the Chrysler Corporation still exists. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Given that there's this many Chrysler pages, there probably should be a disam page. However, I don't know if we would need to vote to create it or if it can just be automatically created. I'm new to Wikipedia (only been here three months) so I'm not sure how the disam page procedures work just yet. Reader of Information (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page can be created by anyone, they’re manually updated. Creating one in the Chrysler namespace however, would involve going through every article that currently links to Chrysler and updating them to Chrysler Corporation which would be a tedious process, I’ve done it before with smaller articles but this would require multiple people. Adriazeri (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chrysler LLC and Chrysler Group LLC stuff will go to the new Stellantis North America page. DaimlerChrysler stuff is probably best to stay on this page for now unless it doesn’t fit in very well. Adriazeri (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. This very proposal appeared (at least to me) to be supported by the majority of editors during the last requested move discussion. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If your proposal is to limit the scope of this article to only covering Chrysler Corporation, why not move this page to Chrysler Corporation, and Chrysler (brand) to Chrysler? Andra Febrian (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s a good proposal but it’ll probably need to be a separate discussion after the split and will involve updating links to every article which currently points to Chrysler as appropriate, which will probably be quite a tedious task. Adriazeri (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are automated tools that we can use, but I digress. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - there's nothing to split. Stellantis-related content in this article is limited to a single sentence in the lead and the "Corporate governance" section. Given the lack of content for a separate article, I think it's best to wait until there is more to say (or if there is no longer Chrysler in the future, given what some industry observers have been predicting lately). --Sable232 (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see the point in breaking up the Chrysler Company's history into separate articles for different periods of ownership. Stellantis won't even exist in five years' time, anyhow.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stellantis won't even exist in five year's time. - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
That was a sidenote, not the reason I am opposed - hence the "anyhow".  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also this isn't about ownership or names as Chrysler LLC, FCA US and Stellantis North America would be all part of one new article. It's about differentiating Chrysler Corporation and it's history from what resulted from DaimlerChrysler and onwards. Adriazeri (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is there to differentiate if it's not about ownership or names? Please forgive me if I'm repeating the same questions, this POV is very hard to understand. Your initial post said "those who value the differentiation of Chrysler Corporation", yet there's dismissal of suggestion of an article called Chrysler Corporation. Rally Wonk (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t dismiss renaming the article to Chrysler Corporation. I said it’d likely need to be a separate discussion. Adriazeri (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrysler&oldid=1248290553"