Talk:Chrysler Pacifica (crossover)

message: :Guys... There is no such thing as "Paris Automotive Show in June 2009".  (The Paris Motor Show in the fall is a biennial event, in even-numbered years.)  Cannot determine who is "John Christopher" at Chrysler Group.  And I can find absolutely no indication that the Chrysler Pacifica was produced after 2008.  Just saying.
Rayeth19 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009-2010 (Discontinuation) No such thing

message: Isn't the Chrysler Pacifica the same as the R-Class Mercedes? with maybe different engines?
:Nope. The Pacifica is based upon the Chrysler minivans, while the R-Class has its own platform. They may look alike and are built by the same company, but they're totally different. --ApolloBoy 04:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: R-Class Platform

message: Sales Graph shows a continuous rise up to end of production, which contradicts the text, and has no source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greasywheel (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales Graph shows a continuous rise, contradicts text, and has no source. 

message: The Chrysler pacifica is one of the worst rated vehicles in terms of reliability on consumer report's list of vehicles, and yet this article does nothing but sing its praises, this article reeks of Corporate intervention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireemblem555 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, I was going to say the article seemed to display a lot of opinion about the vehicle, mostly negative, and should be cleaned up to be limited to a factual discussion. Maybe it was a bad choice of design elements.
Crashj (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chrysler Pacifica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090607204959/http://www.consumerreports.org:80/cro/cars/models/new/chrysler/pacifica/reliability.htm to http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/new/chrysler/pacifica/reliability.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090607203557/http://www.consumerreports.org:80/cro/cars/models/new/chrysler/pacifica/owner-satisfaction.htm to http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/new/chrysler/pacifica/owner-satisfaction.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since there is a replacement minivan, the SUB portion should be moved to its own page or given an executive summary. 
The Winter of Steppes (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move the SUV section into its own page! 

message: It's not a 1999 but rather a 1994 according to Chrysler's site: (archived)  http://web.archive.org/web/20040414130844/http://www.chrysler.com/design/vehicle_design/gallery.html?bypass=true 50.67.152.103 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacifica concept vehicle 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chrysler Pacifica (RU) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 03:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chrysler Pacifica (minivan) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I spotted that there was some vandalism on this page earlier challenging the notion that this is a "crossover" (whatever that means anyway), and while those edits weren't constructive I have to say that skimming through the references (that aren't dead links) on this article I think the vandal may have a point. The sources cited generally seem to describe this car as a "minivan", a "people mover", or a "station wagon". Looking at the photographs of this car it looks to me like an example of what I would call a "people carrier", but since that's presumably the British English term and WP:ENGVAR exists I'm not going to advocate for describing it as that. However I do think that a change in title should be considered, possibly just to "Chrysler Pacifica (mark one)" or "Chrysler Pacifica (first generation)", and the description in the infobox may need to be amended. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossover? 

message: :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: no consensus (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: From the wording of the sources it is entirely reasonable to believe that many people would interpret this car as being a minivan, just as others might call it a station wagon and others might call it an SUV. It's quite obvious that in most cases car body styles are subjective descriptors that different people are unlikely to agree upon, and many of these terms are industry WP:JARGON which may be familiar to the sorts of people who write Wikipedia articles about cars but which . Regardless, the  should try to avoid being , which the current one clearly is compared with an objectively true statement like "(2003)" or "(first generation)". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sources could be interpreted as saying the first car is a minivan? The ones provided don't seem to create that confusion. I agree we don't want to use jargon as the disambiguator, but again, both terms appear to be commonly used in both official sources, mainstream non-auto media, and industry outlets.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 August 2021