Talk:Chrysler/Archive 7

Requested move 23 December 2018

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: original request withdrawn, revised request below. Dekimasu よ! 20:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

– The company is officially called FCA US LLC, the LLC should be removed as per WP:NCCORP, so It would be FCA US. FCA Italy is also named similarly. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  01:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Chrysler → FCA US
 * Chrysler (brand) → Chrysler


 * Support as proposer. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  02:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Chrysler should be about the brand, per WP:ASTONISH, though I've no issue with another title for FCA US, if others so desire, but it shouldn't hold up the move of the brand . - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Might be a good idea to check the talk archive for the last time, or two times, this has been shot down. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not corporate entities. We aren’t required to have a one to one relationship between every company or corporation or division or subsidiary. We don’t scramble to rename and split and merge articles every time there is a merger or takeover or bankruptcy. The topic of Chrysler exists regardless of all that. The topic includes material about the cars and companies that predate the actual company, like Dodge Bros. The Fiat article can cover how that company is currently structured, and we could even have another article on Fiat’s American unit, if it’s too large. But the Chrysler topic is still a coherent article subject, and the name refers to everything Chrysler, and it’s the primary topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Two and a half years is a decent wait for a move discussion, as consensus can and does change. The OP has done nothing wrong. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article is about Chrysler the organization from it's inception nearly 100 years ago. This article includes the time as an independent company as well as the DC and Chrysler-Cerberus time, basically all the pre-FIAT time which was the majority of the history of the organization. Chrysler is the common name and the name people are most likely to search for. FCA US should be reserved for discussions that are specific to the the parent of the Chrysler brand. Previous rename request in 2016 resulted in a consensus to retain the current name Talk:Chrysler/Archive_6. Springee (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you seam to believe that the article is about the company. What's your onion on a rename to Chrysler (company) for now. then in a few years (if ever) we can rename it to FCA US? And this article is about the parent company of the Chrysler brand. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  21:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment How about if we renamed this article to Chrysler (company) as Chrysler (brand) should be moved here as https://www.chrysler.com/ is only for the brand and it's the primary topic. FCA US is the new name of the Chrysler (the company) (FYI) and is not the name of it's parent company (that's FCA). –  BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  03:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, this isn’t only about the company, Chrysler. It’s about the topic of Chrysler. And it is the primary topic, which means it doesn’t get parenthetical disambiguation. What problem, exactly, are you trying to solve? Can you point to threads where readers said they were confused? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The brand is the primary topic as the website https://www.chrysler.com/ is only about the brand and when people talk about Chrysler they talk about the brand. Sure some may talk about the company, so we can move this article to Chrysler (company) to reflect that. When did I say anything about confusion? But for example I as a reader am confused, I visited this article expecting to read about the brand, so I'm trying to make the name of the article make sense. The article is currently about the more about the company and rather then the topic. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  04:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're confused because it is confusing. And while we don't cater to a company's every whim, even they find it confusing, and that's worth at least considering without dismissing it outright, as was done above. I'm active across a number of different types of corporate articles, and have written or reorganized quite a few. I don't recall have never seen another one handled quite this way, despite the claims that this is how it is done on Wikipedia. - BilCat (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Kawasaki motorcycles (n.b. lowercase m) is handled this way, as a distinct topic from Kawasaki Heavy Industries Motorcycle & Engine since 2011, when Kawasaki Consumer Products & Machinery was restructured out of existence, and industrial robots was ungrouped from motorcycles, jetskis, ATVs and lithium batteries. See Talk:Kawasaki motorcycles The topic of Kawasaki motorcycles remains, timelessly there, regardless of whether or not the same company division also makes ATVs or robots or whatever. The same solution is useful for brands that have changed ownership frequently, like Moto Guzzi, and would have made Ducati, Ducati Motor Holding S.p.A., and so on less confusing. Expanding the redirects at Yamaha motorcycles, Honda motorcycles, and Suzuki motorcycles as was done with Kawasaki is a likely path we'll follow. Chasing corporate org charts is a fool's errand when what you're really doing is writing history. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Chrysler (company) isn't the topic here. And when we say Chrysler is the primary topic (and MOS:PRIMARYTOPIC), we're saying the article title is just Chrysler, not Chrysler (foo).Just to reiterate where I stand, I don't care about what is on chrysler.com in 2018. That website didn't exist in 1904 when Maxwell Motor Company started, or 1900 when Dodge Brothers Company started. These are included in the topic Chrysler. The topic isn't just a brand, and it isn't just Chrysler Corporation, or Chrysler LLC, or Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. It's all of those things and more. It includes the topic Chrysler's web of suppliers -- independent companies, not owned or controlled by Chrysler at all, but part of the topic -- which made Chrysler qualitatively different from Ford and GM, which were much more vertically integrated. It includes the extended social and cultural phenomenon of Chrysler, such as car enthusiasts, nonfiction industry watchers and journalists, film and literature, folk art. All of that. There is no one to one correspondence between this article topic and a particular company that ever existed, or exists now. The topic exists as a subject of history regardless of what happens in the future. The philosophy behind this is to identify timeless facts, combating Wikipedia's problem of recentism, and systemic bias, specifically the FUTON bias that places too much weight on online content, chrysler.com in this case.Other articles can exist which focus more tightly on corporate or legal entities specifically, Chrysler Corp., Chrysler LLC or FCA.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to second what Dennis is saying here. It looks like similar arguments were made the other (at least) three times a move was proposed. In those cases there results were pretty strongly against. Springee (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to read Arguments to avoid on discussion pages. All your arguments here have been of this type. WP:CONTENTAGE may also be applicable here. - BilCat (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Chrysler (company) isn't the topic here. I'm not sure what article you're talking about, Dennis, but the Chrysler article clearly declares that it is about the current company. The first line states: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) US LLC (commonly known as Chrysler...) is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V... The hatnote states: This article is about the American automobile manufacturer, and the infobox reads "FCA US LLC". The distinction between this article being about the topic "Chrysler" and not the company may well have been true in the past (I haven't looked), but the current article is clearly about the current company, FCA LLC. Yes, it covers some company history, but that is common with all company articles.
 * The Kawasaki motorcycles articles does not have a company infobox, nor much content for that matter. It's quite short, with the navbox being longer than the article, and should probably be merged with List of Kawasaki motorcycles. Ducati redirects to Ducati Motor Holding S.p.A., while Ducati (company) is about the parent. Another apparent mess.
 * So while you state Chasing corporate org charts is a fool's errand when what you're really doing is writing history, some group of "fools" has done a darn good job of writing this article as the FCA LLC company article, and FCA US where it needs to be, freeing Chrysler (brand) to be moved to Chrysler. If you and Springee want to create an article on the topic "Chrysler" at Chrysler cars or something, go ahead. I'm sure it will languish in obscurity and mediocrity as Kawasaki motorcycles has done for 8 years. - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See, you’re not interested in Chrysler. These repeated move proposals are motivated by the arbitrary goal of making a category of articles look the same. For what? For the sake of making our messy world look neat and tidy. Not everything fits in a cubby hole. I approach this topic as what it is, not as an interchangeable part of a great elegant scheme. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That response is condescendingly dismissive, and makes absolutely no sense to me. I gave concrete observations on why this article is already about the current company, along with a rebuttal to your rabbit trails, and your response is See, you’re not interested in Chrysler?? This is just stonewalling for no apparent good reason, and it honestly feels like a years-long trolling stunt. I'm trying really hard not to make this personal, but I'm about done assuming good faith here. - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a similar situation in 2014 on another article where one user was holding up a split of a company article into two separate articles. After 6 months of arguments in various locations, I finally had to be bold and just make the split over those objections. The user carped about it for a few weeks at various other venues, then finally gave up and disappeared from Wikipedia for about 3 years. The funny thing is, the issue went away completely, and the articles have been stable for over 4 years, with absolutely no objections to the current format. That's the feeling I get here. - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing is stopping anyone from having articles focused on Chrysler Corp or Chrysler LLC or FCA. Make those articles, and define them as strictly about those discrete corporate entities. Maybe some of the detail here can be moved over to those, keeping only summaries of it. Maybe some other kind of infobox can be used here, if it bothers you to see Infobox company on an article that isn't limited to the company only. It seems like you want articles about corporate units. By means, have them. If you want some of the redirects pointing here to point to more narrowly-defined articles about corporate units, fine. Nobody is forbidding that.But we can also have an umbrella article about the topic Chrysler, construed broadly, that covers the company's precursors, and a number of social, aesthetic, economic and technological subjects that are in Chrysler orbit. Why on Earth can't we have that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We already don't have that. I'm not sure why you're so enamored with the idea that we do or should have an umbrella article, but we currently don't. Nothing in the article is out of the norm for a company article. Again, the hatnote and Lead clearly state what this article is about, and it doesn't resemble what you envision. The article has moved on; so should it's title. Please let it. - BilCat (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've stated my case for how I think things ought to be. I haven't said any of our goals have been achieved to perfection, and I haven't nominated anything here for GA or FA. I think there ought to be an umbrella article on this topic at Chrysler, and the current version, whatever one's opinion of its completeness or quality, is what we build upon to work towards that goal. There's no reason why we can't have Chrysler (company) and organize that content to be consistent with other company articles. There's nothing exclusive about these two goals. I've given my reasons for why I think this is how things ought to be, and whether you understand why or not, other editors can read what I said and decide if they agree on the merits of my points. I don't think you'll be able to convince many editors that you can't make Chrysler (company) into exactly the article you wish it to be without redirecting Chrysler there. You can do what you want and leave Chrysler as the article that covers the topic construed broadly, beyond any one company. Maybe others won't be convinced by what I've said and they'll agree that Chrysler has to be a redirect to an article with a narrower scope. Sometimes consensus is with me, sometimes not. I can live with that, and I don't have anything more to add. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I really haven't been arguing here to convince you, but to show the holes in your logic, and that this article has long ceased to be what you envision it. Others will judge whether that's been accomplished or not. Also, that there is a primary topic, and that is the brand, not the "topic construed broadly", whatever the heck that actually means. I am encouraged that less people are defending the status quo this time than before. It may take another discussion in a couple of years, but I do believe this title will eventually cover the brand, as it should. - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm pinging just in case the have any input. –  BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  04:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are select editors being pinged? - BilCat (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They were active in the discussion 3 months ago, so I thought they might be interested in this RM. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  06:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to beware of canvassing. This generally means we don't single out editors for contact about an ongoing discussion. If they have watchlisted the article, they should be aware of the proposal. - BilCat (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm just tying to make sure the decision form this discussion ensures everyone who's interested gets to have input, I'm not trying to influence the discussion, they were just recently active on a discussion about the issue. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  06:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * BrandonXLF pinged me probably because I had made a comment earlier on Crysler Europe which is actually a distinct entity. Thanks for that. I think that there should be a Chrysler (brand), a Chyrsler (company) for the pre-FCA history of the company (by transforming itself into the subsidiary FCA USA of a worldwide company registered in the Netherlands, it became something completely different from the former independent company named Chrysler, and of course, Chrysler Europe. Above all those Chrysler as the disambiguation artikel with links to all those named, and perhaps also some people named Chrysler, among them possible the founder of the eponymous company Chrysler. --L.Willms (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CANVASS, he should be pinging everyone involved in previous discussions. That said, I don't have a great problem putting the DAB page at Chrysler, as it's a better situation than what we have now. I do believe the brand itself is the primary topic, but it hard to argue that substantively when the opposition has already decided that the topic is the primary topic, and that because it was already decided a long time ago, it can't ever change because it was decided that way along time ago, so stop challenging it because it was decided that way along time ago. What is encouraging is that only 2 people are supporting the status quo this time. The move will come up again, because the status quo is inexplicable to those outside this small group, and hopefully there will be less supporters that time around too. We'll just have to see.
 * I've been involved in perennial renames discussions before, usually on articles where an official name has been changed, such as a city, usually in India, as name changing is apparently a national sport there, and of course Kiev/Kyiv. In those cases, there is clear policy behind maintaining the status quo, which is usually WP:CONMMONNAME. Once the new name becomes common, the name will be changed. That isn't the case here. - BilCat (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to again agree with Denis. This article covers the entity that is Chrysler. That means from inception through the merger and now as part of FCA. Yes, Chrysler is no longer an independent company but it is still an ongoing operational concern. This should be the parent article for all things Chrysler (with FCA US being shared with FCA). I don't think anyone here will change the minds of others. Perhaps a move request posting at Project:Automobiles and the other related projects would get more eyes on the subject. Springee (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still interested on your opinion for a rename to Chrysler (company). Thinking about it, it may be the better option. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  03:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not want this article to be renamed "Chrysler (company)" and then limited to the pre-DC period. As an organization that develops, among other things, automobiles, Chrysler is still operating and is still commonly referred to as "Chrysler" even if that isn't the legal name.  With only limited thought on what a structure should be like I would suggest (and reserver the right to reconsider later) the following.  "Chrysler" as the parent article.  "FCA US" (or similar) as the article talking about material specific to the Fiat take over.  "Daimler-Chrysler" (or similar) to talk about the Daimler merger.  "Chrysler (brand)" to talk about brand specific material (presumably only recent material).  Consider how McDonnell Douglas was handled.  The company is now part of Boeing but the page is still "McDonnell Douglas".  Yes, future MD projects are now Boeing projects but that is in part because Boeing quickly changed the names of things.  The "McDonnell Douglas F-15" was quickly renamed the "Boeing F-15" by Boeing (though Wikipedia redirects that to "McDonnell Douglas F-15").  Heck, I suspect Boeing would rename the DC-3 the Boeing DC-3 if they thought they could ;) .  Anyway, per common name, Chrysler should be the primary topic name and should cover both the company history and the continuing operations of FCA US (popularly known as Chrysler).  Springee (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking we could just leave the article as it is as it's still about the company (I'm saying that despite the history, it's still the same company). My Issue is when I came to this article, I was expecting to read about the brand. I never said anything about limiting the article, the only point of the rename is to move the brand page here. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  04:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming no issues with length I see nothing wrong with pulling the brand into this topic. It would probably be an enhancement.  This is especially true if we don't limit the scope to just brand or company etc. Springee (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * (!vote struck, see below) Oppose - WP:NCCORP plainly states that Whenever possible, common usage is preferred; the most common way by far to refer to this company is Chrysler. If consensus is that the article about the brand is the primary topic, then host that at Chrysler and host the article about the company at Chrysler (company). cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 28 December 2018

 * 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 section. 

No consensus. See no general agreement below to rename these articles. This can be closed to make way for the alternative proposal that follows. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, if the alternative proposal is not implemented, editors can try again in a few weeks to garner consensus for name changes. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

– When visiting the article, one would expect an article about the brand rather then the company, as FCA and most people associate the Chrysler name with the brand rather then the company, making the brand the primary topic. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  19:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC) I updated the RM to better represent what the current discussion is leading to. You may want to update your !vote. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  19:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Chrysler → Chrysler (company)
 * Chrysler (brand) → Chrysler
 * you might want to undo your edit as it makes it unclear what the original RM (and thus most of the discussion) was about. I'd suggest restoring the content of the original request, striking it, and then below it putting the new text and rationale to promote clarity of discussion.
 * That all said, I support the revised request. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, do you want to strike out your original comment and replace it with the new one for clarity? – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  19:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * struck !vote, but did not delete original comment. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That works fine, thanks. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  19:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Confusion: This is now probably going to confuse editors who haven't been following.  Chrysler -> Chrysler (company) makes some sense but I don't think Chrysler (brand) -> Chrysler makes sense.  Yes, the brand is the current "Chrysler" but when we talk about the company that marketed the HEMI or the company that was the primary contractor for the Saturn 1B or the company that Iaccoca ran we are referring to the organization that is now FCA US and was Chrysler Corp.  I don't believe that people would think of the brand as the primary topic.  Of course merging the two articles would solve that issue.  The Chrysler brand article is short enough that is could be rolled into this article with little issue.  I think we could trim things like the coverage of the various marketing campaigns (or the two paragraphs on Uconnect) in favor of the brand info if length is a concern.  Springee (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Merge
We could also merge Chrysler (brand) and Chrysler. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  02:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Merge of Chrysler and Chrysler (brand) - Actually, that's an extremely good suggestion, User:Springee. Ford Motor Company includes information on the Ford brand, with Lincoln and the defunct brands such as Mercury and Edsel being covered separately. I don't see any reason at this point why that shouldn't be the case here. - BilCat (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Merge as well. Chrysler (brand) into Chrysler.  Springee (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Any comments on this new proposal, Dennis? - BilCat (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Tell me again, what problem are we trying to solve? Is it that "one would expect an article about the brand rather then the company, as FCA" and that "most people associate the Chrysler name with the brand rather then the company"? Is there any evidence of either of these two assertions? Is there any evidence of any other confusion happening among readers? If the scope of Chrysler remains broad, and it isn't moved or redirected, then I don't see how it makes much difference. Merge away. Or don't merge. Looking at this article I see higher priority areas I'd work on if I had time to edit content much, but if editors want to spend time merging in the content from Chrysler (brand), who am I to say they should be working on something else? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We finally came up with a compromise that makes everyone else involved happy, but you're not? It's an umbrella article about the topic Chrysler, construed broadly, that covers the company's precursors, and a number of social, aesthetic, economic and technological subjects that are in Chrysler orbit. Why on Earth can't we have that? So now we do, yet you're still not satisfied. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not what neutral means at all. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Per User:BilCat. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  02:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments - Since the merge was proposed 7 days ago, and 3 of the 4 participants are in agreement on merging, with no opposes and 1 "neutral" (but I don't know what it means), shall we proceed with the merge? - BilCat (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. I think we can proceed with it. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  16:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Chryslyer imperial all transistor car radio audio sound news clip.ogg

Chrysler Uconnect
Updated this article to reflect UConnect's internet connectivity. All current gen vehicles use AT&T with UConnect's services (Including those with WiFi Hotspot)

Source: I test drive FCA vehicles for work. Hemingray (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Typo in the table, "Marketting" section
2016[84] 	2,244,315 	Increase 0.0%

2017[85] 	2,059,376 	Decrease 0.8%

2018[86] 	2,235,204 	Increase 8.5%

The vario regarding 2017 is 8.2%, not 0.8%.

2A01:CB08:A8D:9300:ADEB:B5B9:6F38:ACF6 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that the section Chrysler brand be split into a separate article called Chrysler and the remaining sections of this article be titled FCA US. The company that was once know as Chrysler has officially been named FCA US for a number of years now and the Chrysler name merely lives on as a vehicle brand of the parent company. The Chrysler brand section is adequately sized to be its own article. Currently, all of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' brands have their own articles except for Chrysler. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' other direct subsidiary is FCA Italy which already has its own article separate from the Fiat brand, so there is precedent for this split. Chrysler is no longer even FCA US's top brand and it is arguably not even a household name anymore. When the merger of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Groupe PSA is complete, Chrysler won't even be in the name of the parent company anymore as it is being renamed Stellantis. Thunderbolt.wiki (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey
Please respond with Support or Oppose:

Threaded discussion

 * This was discussed not that long ago. I would suggest opening a proper RfC and link to the discussion from two years back.  My feeling is the new merger wouldn't invalidate the previous arguments made the last time we talked about a split.  Springee (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Splitting proposals are not an RfC matter. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That assumes the split is due to size. So far no editors have suggested splitting due to size nor have the editors addressed previous concerns regarding a split.  This has been discussed and didn't get consensus twice in recent years.  Questions included how do you address parts of Chrysler's corporate history that are pre-merger?  Where, for example, would we put Chrysler's involvement with the Saturn 1b rocket?  Perhaps we should ping the previously involved editors. Springee (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I've no issue with pinging previous respondents, and suggested that the OP do that in a post they deleted from their talk page. However, the RfC is a red herring, as is saying that we did this two years ago. Consensus can and does change. The new merger is significant,and does need to be taken into account. Whether it it will matter is what will be discussed, so let's discuss it. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree consensus can change and the new merger, which has yet to happen, may change things but I think we should take a wait and see rather than assume it does approach. In the past editors didn't support this change, while the new merger would make Chrysler a smaller part of a yet bigger group, what, at this point in time, has changed?  This is why I think past arguments against should be part of today's discussion.  Springee (talk)


 * That isn't really how discussions and consensus on Wikipedia work. If it were, nothing would ever change. You're welcome to make those past arguments in the new discussions, but it's not up to the closer of a discussion, whatever it's about, to review old discussion arguments in those old discussions, before making a decision. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it is how they can work but the burden of raising previous concerns is on the editor who suggests that previous concerns are still valid. Looking around, that would be me.


 * So long as I'm posting can someone outline what the new articles would look like? In the above discussions I see several options including splitting this into Chrysler (car brand) and Chrysler (pre FCA company) (my titles not official titles).  Is that the same thing Eight.Valve is suggesting?  Also, is any article going to be called Chrysler?  Once the Chrysler (brand) material is removed will Chyrlser be moved to FCA US LLC or stay as Chrysler (defunct, merged into X) etc.  Will we repeat this process in a few months after the PSA merger with some new FCPAS US LLC sub organization name?  When editors search for the name Chrysler what page will they find?  This I think was par of the hangup last time.  Springee (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know either. The proposal is poorly formatted and not well thought out. In case you missed it, the OP initially performed a split, moving the FCA US content to that title, but that was reverted. I'm actually fine leaving things as-is until the PSA merger happens. I do have some ideas for how the split could happen, and what it would cover, as I do support an eventual split, but I'm not going to fire my wad just now. What we have on the talk page now is just a mess. - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While my initial suggestion was to simply separate the section for the Chrysler brand into its own article, I am open to other suggestions of how to split it as well. Thunderbolt.wiki (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee, the new name of the merged Groupe PSA and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is Stellantis. While it hasn't formally been announced, I think it is fair to assume for the sake of this discussion that FCA US LLC will be renamed Stellantis US LLC. Generally on Wikipedia, LLC, Inc, Corp, etc. are not in the name of articles so we would shorten Stellantis US LLC to just Stellantis US. Likewise, FCA Italy would be renamed Stellantis Italy and Groupe PSA would be renamed Stellantis France assuming the nomenclature is consistent. Thunderbolt.wiki (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The issue I see, even before the merger with Groupe PSA, is the existence of two subsidiaries of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles being FCA US LLC and FCA Italy S.p.A. When Fiat Group Automobiles S.p.A. and Chrysler Group LLC merged in 2014, the article titled Fiat Group Automobiles S.p.A. was renamed FCA Italy, but for whatever reason at the time the article titled Chrysler was not renamed FCA US. I don't see how there's a justification for moving Fiat Group Automobiles S.p.A. to FCA Italy, but not a justification for moving Chrysler to FCA US. Furthermore, even though Fiat was the namesake of the parent company before the merger with Chrysler, the vehicle brand has a separate article from the parent company, yet for Chrysler the parent company and vehicle brand share an article which I believe causes confusion. Can someone try to explain why there is justification for one but not the other? Thunderbolt.wiki (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't really thought on the merits or nature of a potential split, but it seems like this would be a poor time to do so. It sounds like there's a significant corporate restructuring planned soonish, and I see little point in implementing (or even evaluating) an article-restructuring now when when we would have to re-evaluate and rework everything after we see how the corporate situation develops. Alsee (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I added some history pre 1950s for the chrysler brand i hope helps with the spit issue i personally think the chrysler brand should be spit and merged with the Imperial brand page since the imperial brand was sold through Chrysler-plymouth dealers and since the imperial car both started and ended with chrysler . heck the shortlived continental brand at for is combined with lincoln along with the 1 year only valiant-us brand which was folded in to plymouth in 1961, I think this would be a good place holder until the PSa merger is complete, since the psa, fca us and fiat pages with most likely be merged into a new Stellantis page. Dartman2020 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving the Chrysler marque to its own page.
I personally believe that the Chrysler marque should be on it's own page and not share the same page as FCA US LLC. Right now it seems we are trying to make 2 things into 1 when they are really not. For example in the info box Chrysler Group LLC is listed as a former parent company of FCA US when in reality they are the same company. I don't know why we can't do something like the Ford Motor Company page where the Ford marque has a separate page and are not trying to be combined into 1. Stanotron1600 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As has been previously discussed the issue here is that this page is about the "thing" known as Chrysler. Until the late 90s this "thing" was a stand alone company.  After the DC merger it became a part of a larger organization but still existed as an organization.  Even now the organization that was Chrysler still exists.  Since the article is titled "Chrysler" and talks about the history of the "thing" that is Chrysler from it's inception we shouldn't remove the name from the first sentence even while acknowledging that the legal name is no longer "Chrysler".  Springee (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Concur. Also, I found Ford Motor Company easily, but I can't find the article on the Ford marque. Can you point me to it, Stanotron1600? - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I could say the same with FCA Italy which has its own page and still shares the history of the same company which used different names and the Fiat marque is a separate page from the parent company. It still talks about this thing called "Fiat" while going under it's legal name FCA Italy Stanotron1600 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * So are you admitting that there are no separate articles for Ford company and marque? I can't tell. Anyway, each company/brand content is handled on its own merits. What works in some cases doesn't always work in others. For now, keeping the company and marque together at this page is the best solution here, being the result of a long-needed editorial compromise. I for one ain't ready to see that peace disturbed yet. - BilCat (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This doesn't seem like a bad idea as the chrysler brand section has been expanded a lot since the pages were merged. I would keep the brand here and move the company like the article for Volkswagen. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  04:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this a European thing?? I don't know what a 'marque' is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:8461:2D08:B01E:3FDF (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Chrysler brand and company need to be split in to seperate pages due to chrylser cars historically being differant than the othe cars they mad(example-chrysler imperial and c-300) and since FCA or historically the chrysler corp. is all their brands as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartman2020 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The last requested move was December 2018 Talk:Chrysler/Archive 7. You probably want to read over that discussion and be prepared to explain what new or better arguments there are for any proposed move or split. I will probably continue to be opposed unless someone can point out to me what content on this page doesn't really belong, or what content on some other page doesn't have a proper home. To me it's fine to put everything under the topic (not company, not brand, not corporate subdivision, topic) of Chrysler on Chrysler. Notice also the merge discussion below the move proposal. Talk:Chrysler/Archive 6 is another move proposal prior to that.I'd suggest reviewing Summary style for our general organizational strategy, and to note that repeating the same facts on two or more articles is fine. The goal is to make each article the best it can be, not diminish one article in service of some grand plan to compartmentalize content in one and only one location. WP:COMMONNAME has important guidelines on article naming. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Support – I agree that it would make sense to split the Chrysler page into two articles - one that represents the history of the Chrysler brand to the present day, and one of that represents the history of the former Chrysler Group from formation as a group (when the Chrysler company made its first acquisition), through all the changes (futher acquisitions, mergers, divestments, closures, separations etc) including the purchase by, and merger with Fiat Group to form the North American division of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles: FCA US LLC, which is technically what the thing that was once upon a time just known as 'Chrysler' is now called. Chrysler today is now just a brand of FCA US LLC, and therefore of the greater Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (as per Volkswagen and the Volkswagen Group). - Eight.valve (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Support – I think The Chrysler brand should be spit from the corporate website due to the annoucement of the 50/50 FiatChrysler-Psa merger Chaning the Name of Chrysler. I think the pages being combined is a diservice to the reader,Since the corporate page includes the entire chrysler history including the other brands, It doesnt specify on just the Chrysler branded cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartman2020 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Support – I agree that FCA US needs its own article. The section on the Chrysler brand is quite extensive and could easily be independent. This article is misleading because it is titled Chrysler when in fact Chrysler is the name of FCA US's predecessor and today only lives on as one of FCA US's brands. Could someone please make an official proposal to split the articles? - Thunderbolt.wiki (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I think Chrysler the independent company and now Chrysler the brand/part of FCA that runs Jeep, Dodge and Chrysler brands should stay in this article. As has been discussed in the past, we don't have to rigidly treat Chrysler as either a brand or a company. We can treat it as an organization that still exists under the FCA and presumably new company. Until the organization is dissolved I think it's better to keep all that is Chrysler in one article. However, things that are parent company specific, so currently things that are FCA and now the things that will be FCA+PSA should stay in that article. So that means things like a high level comment on say the Pentastar V6 (a Chrysler motor used in Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and RAM brands) would stay either in here or as a child of this article rather than a child of the FCA article. BTW, my oppose can change if we can figure out how to deal with the mixed issues that historically Chrysler has been a brand and a company. We need to make sure we have a clean way to break things up if this goes forward. Note there was a fairly recent discussion on this topic (prior to the PSA tie up) []. It would be best to come up with a good proposal and then start a RfC since this topic has been discussed in the past and a local only consensus is likely to result in a reversal and eventual RfC. Springee (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To further detail my concerns, oppose unless we have a clear plan what happens to the parent Chrysler article. I'm OK with splitting the Chrysler (brand) material out but there is far too much history with the Chrysler company (M1 tank, Saturn 1B rocket etc) to just merge away the name.  I would rather keep Chrysler as the company and state that it was defunct when it merged to become FCA.  The problem with an argument like saying Audi would be part of the VW page COMMONNAME.  No one says Audi=VW even though it's well known Audi is part of VW.  I think it would be better to follow how the Ford page handled things with something like List_of_Ford_vehicles (thought I'm not sure I would want it to be a simple list).  We should either treat Chrysler as we do something like Grumman which is now part of Northrop Grumman or leave it as is.  The Grumman example keeps the old article for anything pre-merger and points to the current article for the post merger company.  I'm oppose to any splits/name changes that would result in no article called Chrysler.  Springee (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Any of those options is probably better than what we have now, but which we chose is more a matter of editorial preference than guidelines and policies. Up to this point, that preference has been to lump the original company, brand, and post merger companies all in one article. While most editors who've commented here don't like the status quo, no alternative has ever become consensus. The current discussions, as proposed, are unlikely to produce a new consensus. And it's not a battle I'm prepared to support at this time. - BilCat (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Merges/splits and page moves are always handled on the article talk pages. I don't see why an RfC would be needed in this case. This isn't a matter of local consensus either, simply the way all such discussions are handled. What benefit would an RfC bring, or what would it even be about, isn't clear at all from your comments. - BilCat (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern is there have been a number of previous discussions and we shouldn't carryout a split that had been previously rejected without a strong consensus (in terms of participation). I will add a discussion notice to the automobile project page.  I think we should also ping previously involved editors.  If the consensus has changed and we can address previous concerns then let's split.  Do note that we aren't splitting due to size but due to the feeling the scope of the article should change.  Springee (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Support – Support – I think You could start with the Maxwell Chalmers article since the Maxwell Brand Became Chrysler. I think the FCA-post fca-psa merger page should deal more with acquisitions and company History as a whole and possible links to some of the previous incarnations of the company. The Chrysler Page should mainly be like the plymouth or Dodge Page -model info and brand History. I think its un fair to just send people to the fca page if they are curious of the Chrysler Brand, since FCA produces a ton of other brands.Same can be said of Volkswagen it has a VW groupe page and a VW brand page, by logic of the naysayers the Audi and VW brands would share a wiki page. Also the former EAGLE, DESOTO and PLYMOUTH Brands all have THEIR OWN pages and they were all merged into the Chrysler brand example-(eagle vision being reworked as the 300m, the 1961 Desoto being reworked into a chrysler newport, and all of plymouths models being reworked into Chryslers. Another idea could be converting the Plymouth page into a CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH division PAGE historically speaking Chrysler and plymouths were built and designed together.   --Dartman2020 (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Support split - Chrysler, the company which merged into Fiat Chrysler, is definitely distinct from Chrysler the make/marque since Chrysler the company made other marques (Dodge, Plymouth etc). A7V2 (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Support - This article clearly needs to be split into an article called Chrysler Corporation (per WP:COMMONNAME) detailing the history of the broader company and an article called Chrysler detailing the history of the marque. Right now it's the equivalent of having Daimler AG and Mercedes-Benz as one article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

FCA US LLC Headquarters?
I'm not entirely up to speed on the naming of Chrysler / FCA, or the naming of the wikipedia articles.

But I was just googling for the CTC and instead landed on FCA US LLC Headquarters and Technology Center, which seems misnamed. Especially when this main page remains at Chrysler.

Additionally, corporate press releases still seem to continue to call it "Chrysler World Headquarters and Technology Center".

Can a regular Chrysler editor make that Move?

PKAMB (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021
In the description of Chrysler corporation it states that Chrysler is one of 'the big three' in the United States ... That is no longer a true statement. First of all it is NOT a American company... and not one of the Three largest Auto Companies in the US... The big three in the US is now GM, Ford and Tesla. PjkPA (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done - You'll need to provide multiple rock solid reliable sources for those claims. The claim that Tesla is a larger car manufacturer than Chrysler Corp is highly likely to be challenged without a watertight reliable source on the claim.  Even if that is now true, the fact that remains that historically Chrysler Corp has both literally been and has been commonly referred to as one of the "big three" in the US motor industry for nearly a century and the cultural meaning of that will not disappear overnight. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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
, you added a split tag to the article but no discussion. There have been recent discussions about this topic []. 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78Game (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Be aware that 78Game has been blocked. Confirmed sockpuppet of Lyanbox782, who was blocked for disruptive edits along a number of lines, including poorly explained split/merger proposals like this one. -- ferret (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Relatedly, noting that I've reverted 78Game's move of to List of Chrysler factories as an WP:RBI matter. Anyone willing to take responsibility for the move can feel free to revert me.  -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 18:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We should probably leave it for now, and see what happens. BilCat (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021
Add second pronunciation of Chrysler: /krʌɪslər/ to match the pronunciation of many people in North America—namely, people in Canada and the northeastern and western United States. TRocky2 (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. BilCat (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Including alfa romeo and Fiat brands to chrysler current brands.
The Mopar site, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram sites include alfa romeo and fiat as sister brands, the argument for these being removed was that fca spa still owns the trademarks, but Fca spa and fca usa are fully merged with PSA under stellantis nv, and the US operations of stellantis recognize these brands under the same umbrella as the Former Chrysler/mopar brands as stellantis usa and the former fca-us are still referred to as CHRYSLER. and alfa romeo uses a ton of chrysler switch gear and its engines are cast alongside the chrysler engines. Maserati is the only brand not included and thats because its seperated as the Maserati SpA. and Maserati North america Subsidaries. So if these brands are referred to as Sister brands to the former chrysler brands and use the same warranty site, then they should be included. Another reference for my argument is the example written under the trade mark area on the alfa website--These objects may not be copied for commercial use or distribution. Unless otherwise indicated, all marks displayed on FCA US LLC Internet sites are subject to the trademark rights of FCA US LLC, including each of FCA US LLC's primary brands (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep®, Ram, Mopar®, SRT®, ALFA ROMEO and FIAT® ), its model nameplates, and its corporate logos and emblems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartman2020 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC) --Dartman2020 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * https://media.stellantisnorthamerica.com/page.do?file=legal "Unless otherwise indicated, all marks displayed on Stellantis Internet sites are subject to the trademark rights of Stellantis, including each of Chrysler's brands (Chrysler®, Dodge®, Jeep®, Ram®, SRT® and Mopar), its model name plates, and its corporate logos, emblems and slogans. FIAT is a registered trademark of Fiat Group Marketing & Corporate Communication SpA, used under license by Chrysler Group LLC."
 * I'm not sure where you got the bold text above, but on alfaromeousa.com, it states "Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Wagoneer, Mopar and SRT are registered trademarks of FCA US LLC. ALFA ROMEO and FIAT are registered trademarks of FCA Group Marketing S.p.A., used with permission."
 * Even if the Fiat and Alfa Romeo brands are available in North America, or they are included on media.stellantisnorthamerica.com, it doesn't mean that they are owned by or a subsidiary of FCA US, and being "sister brands" does not make them the same as the brands owned by FCA US. The fact that Jeep models are sold in Italy (and built in Italy, in the case of the Renegade) does not mean that Jeep should be considered one of the brands of FCA Italy/FCA S.p.A., or the former Fiat Group.  Hope this makes sense. --Vossanova o&lt; 23:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Article issues.

 * Grettings, I have briefly gone over aspects of the article specifically dealing with issues and classification.


 * There are several citation tags, "Citation needed" (Aug 2012), "Verification needed" (April 2014), "Citation needed" (July 2015), "Citation needed" (October 2017), "Citation needed" (multiple-- Sept 2022)
 * There are sentences, paragraphs, and entire subsections under the "Chrysler brand" section that are unsourced.
 * The "corporate governance" ("Management team" subsection), is unnecessary bloat.
 * There is far, far, (did I mention "far") too much-unsourced content.
 * Leaving the "Environmental initiatives" section, with the last mention of "model years 2012–2021", then going into a nostalgic time warp back to 1940 in the unsourced "Chrysler Defense" section is not evidence of being "well-written".
 * Eight entries in the "External links" section is link farmimg.

Conclusion
This article has not had a legitimate claim to sport a B-classficication since 2012. Among the criteria is: #1)- The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations., and #2)- The article is reasonably well-written. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)