Talk:Imperial (automobile)

message: I uploaded the 1981 Imperial pic. It is copyrighted by Chrysler Corporation. If I need to add additional info, please let me know.
I am "testing the waters" here on this "fair use" thing. If I am wrong, then so be it. Otherwise, I need to understand right from wrong 
on this issue. Help is appreciated.UPDATE: Returned image to article. Placed "copyright tag" with photo. If this is not sufficient reasoning for retaining the photo on Wiki then image will probably be deleted by Admin.MJEH (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fair Use" ???

message: It has been suggested for a while now to merge the two separate Wikipedia articles. However, in order to keep the distinction between the Imperial marque and Chrysler Imperial, I plan in the near future on moving all infortmation and subsections dealing with 1955 and newer Imperials from the 'Chrysler Imperial' page to the 'Imperial' page. Within the 'Chrysler Imperial' page I will leave a clear marker to direct the reader to the 'Imperial' page for 1955 and newer models. Comments? Rockford1963 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like we were doing this at the same time.  Agree completely. Fallout11 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice work, Rockford1963. Thank you for the contributions. Fallout11 13:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperials 1955 and newer to be split off from 'Chrylser Imperial' page and moved to this page ('Imperial') page 

message: The 1981-83 Imperials were indeed Chryslers according to Standard Catalog of American Cars 1975-99. Period Car and Driver and Road and Track reviews say so, as well. 
Saying that the Imperial wasn't a Chrysler because the Chrysler brand name wasn't mentioned in advertizing is like saying the Oldsmobile Aurora wasn't an Olds because the Oldsmobile name wasn't feature initially in advertizing.
The Chrysler brand name WAS, however, mentioned in 1971-75 Imperial advertizing, as well as on the cars themselves, with their "Imperial by Chrysler" monikers.
The 1981-83 section should be added to the "Chrysler Imperial" section. Rhettro76 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Points above taken, however I do believe that the 81-83 models were still separated from regular Chrysler products in a  meaningful way.  This may be a gray zone with no definitive answer.Rockford1963 (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Please put some more careful thought into your preference and think about its flaws. There is (or was) no Dodge Corporation or Plymouth Corporation or DeSoto Corporation or Jeep Corporation or Eagle Corporation or MoPar Corporation, yet we have articles for Dodge, for Jeep, for Plymouth, for Eagle, for DeSoto, and for Mopar. It's because each of these—like Imperial in some year ranges—is a marque. In other year ranges, Imperial was a model name under the Chrysler marque. It is reasonable and appropriate that the Imperial be treated separately from the Chrysler Imperial, for they are not the same car. Of course you can propose a merger such as you have in mind, but you're likely to get shot down for the simple, reality-based reasons I've provided here. —Scheinwerfermann T·C03:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: You're entitled to hold whatever beliefs you wish, but your beliefs are not an adequate basis for textual changes; we work by consensus here. When you make unilateral changes based on what you think you understand of what you think you know, others will come along and revert your changes and guide you to the talk page. Here is where you make your arguments and present your case—including whatever reliable support you feel makes your claims verifiable. If consensus is attained to shift the article text to align with your preferences, that's what happens. If no such consensus is attained, the text stays as is. Your argument so far evinces a lack of knowledge, awareness, and understanding not only of how Wikipedia works, but also of the history of the cars covered by this present article. The Pentastar on the hood does not constitute evidence of anything; remember, plenty of Dodges and Plymouths bore Pentastar logos—that did not make them Chryslers. Likewise, your assumptions and guesses about what might have motivated Chrysler Corporation to market the cars as they did are pure conjecture, which is not even remotely adequate basis for supporting a textual change. You'll simply have to do better than that, in accord with Wikipedia core policies, or drop the argument. In the meantime, I've moved the relevant text back to this article and copyedited it for grammar, syntax, spelling, and to remove opinion and personal essay.  —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1981-83: Chryslers or Imperials? 

message: :Image:Chryslerimperialeaglecirca60s.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Chryslerimperialeaglecirca60s.jpg

message: I named the generations with some basic data. I also reorganized and added verifiable detail to 1957-1966 Imperials, added some detail to the 1956 that recognized its superlatives, and corrected some minor errors in the Crown Imperial section.  
Sadowski (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generations 

message: I want to save this here for possible future use by one of you editors. Twenty-nine 1964-66 Imperials were purchased for the 2011 movie The Green Hornet Twenty-six were destroyed, thus making all others in collector's hands more valuable. The quote below, except for the last comment about a sequel, appeared in the Feb 2011 print version of Popular Mechanic magazine as well as online: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/vintage-speed/behind-the-scenes-in-the-green-hornets-garage, which was a little longer. QUOTE FOLLOWS. 5Q5 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Green Hornet" 2011 film use depleted collector supply 

message: This is a touchy subject. Is unibody really an advancement for large cars? The evidence seems to be otherwise. 
In any case the information concerning Lincoln was incorrect. Lincoln's first unibody car was the Zephyr in 1936. From 1949-1957 Lincolns were indeed built body on frame. But the 1958-1960 Lincolns were also unibody. And despite the cars excellent construction the general perception was that those cars were too big to benefit from such construction. So Lincoln downsized drastically in 1961. And Lincoln went back to separate body on frame construction in 1970, only three years after Imperial went to unibody. 
So it's not at all clear that unibody was an improvement for Imperial. In any case, it certainly wasn't considered one for Lincoln.
Sadowski (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Lincoln Unibody 

message: I made major revisions today reverting many of the recent changes. Much of it contained errors concerning options, body styles and trim levels. I recommend that people who volunteer to make such changes read Krause's Standard Catalog of American Cars before contemplating such changes. I also recommend that people read the entire article in order to understand the basic narrative. 
Sadowski (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Unibody and Separate Platform Edits 

message: I quote from the book "American Cars, 1960 to 1972": "Imperial reached the end of an era for 1971. Chrysler Corporation made the decision to demote the Imperial from an individual sales and marketing division to a model within the Chrysler division lineup. This made the 1970 models the last 'official' Imperial models. The 1971 cars were sold as Chrysler Imperials."
No, they were marketed as an Imperial.  In 1971 they did away with the Imperial sales and marketing division but not the brand name.
Mhrogers (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to note that a make or marque or such as Imperial does not require it to have it's own manufacturing division or sales network to exist as a marque or make within a combined division. Imperials had their own make codes in the first three digits of their VINs which are legal identifiers for make of vehicle. Watchdevil (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were 1971-1975 Imperials actually Chrysler Imperials (again)? 

message: It's a Crown Imperial Limousine made by Ghia, which uses the same words as but is not the base series Imperial Crown.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.222.114.65 (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crown Imperial Limousine 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Imperial (automobile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140102194514/http://www.chryslergroupllc.com/company/Heritage/Pages/Chrysler-Heritage-1950.aspx to http://www.chryslergroupllc.com/company/Heritage/Pages/Chrysler-Heritage-1950.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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) 05:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: it looks like you forgot to fill in this "Chairman" ref when you added it last year. Do you happen to remember what your source was? -- Fyrael (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairman ref