Talk:Mercedes-Benz Group

message: Does this company also own Maserati?
:No.  Fiat owns Maserati. --Robert Merkel 00:42 22 May 2003 (UTC)
::Do you mean owns as in property, or do Fiats just kick ass compared to Maseratis? ;) --Dante Alighieri 00:44 22 May 2003 (UTC)
:::According to maserati.com, which we should consider authoritative, neither own Maserati.  Ferrari owns Maserati, and Ferrari is now I believe independent of Fiat. --Morven 22:42, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, Ferrari is indeed owned by Fiat. Therefore, Maserati in turn is owned by Fiat as well. MikeZ 09:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify.  Fiat as in the car maker does not own them.  The Fiat GROUP owns Fiat Auto and Ferrari.  Ferrari own Maserati.  So Fiat as in "Panda and Punto" doesn't own either.  But the same company owns both the Fiat carmaker and Ferrari.  A small distinction but quite an important one.  Fiat could theoretically sell off "Fiat cars" and not either of their sportscar makers. Duds 2k 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Daimler own Maserati?

message: Is it true that Chrysler is going RWD with all its sedans? That seems like a REALLY bad idea IMHO.
:Not that I'd heard.  A few top-of-the-line models are going to be RWD, like the new Chrysler 300C (a car also notable in that the name is considered an insult to the marque's history by aficionados of historic Chryslers.  The next 300 letter-series car should be the 300N) --Morven 22:42, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so.  It was clearly intended to pull the wool over the eyes of shareholders as well as the US public and regulatory bodies (who would have definitely bridled at the idea of Chrysler being bought out by a foreign manufacturer). --Morven 22:42, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: RWD

message: Does anyone know how accurate the "holdings" statistics are on this page? --Kylen1010 16:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holdings accuracy?

message: Wasn't Dieter Zetsche recently replaced by a Chrysler executive as the CEO of the Chrysler branch? Gerdbrendel 04:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His Wiki entry is a little hard to make sense of, but from what I can recall Dieter Zetsche was the CEO of the Chrysler Group up until January 1st 2006, when he succeeded Jürgen Schrempp as Chairman of DaimlerChrysler. Tom LaSorda took over the CEO role of the Chrysler Group the same day. 59.100.153.114 03:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CEO's

message: This will seem like a stupid question to many, but I'd love to know; why is the company called DaimlerChrysler? Exactly how does the Daimler name fit in to the firm's product line. I know it must be for historical reasons but surely when Daimler-Benz merged with Chrysler it would have been better to use the Mercedes name in the new title — their most important brand? Chrysler-Benz sounds good! Mark83 22:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Daimler refers to Gottlieb Daimler, Benz to Karl Benz, whereas Mercedes is just a brand named after the daughter of an early automobile dealer for the Daimler-Benz cars (see Mercedes (car)). After Wilhelm Maybach the Maybach brand was named. - But I don't have a clue why Daimler was chosen for the new firm's name instead of Benz or both ... DaimlerBenzChrysler, BenzChrysler, DaimlerChrysler ... :-) MikeZ 09:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daimler was the name chosen by Gottfried Daimler and Wihelm Maybach for the original company in Stuttgart, Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft (Daimler Motor Company) which later merged with Benz's company to form Daimler-Benz (changing their car brand from Mercedes to Mercedes-Benz brand in the process). -- Marcika 12:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daimler????

message: "In 2003, however, it was alleged by the Detroit News that the "merger of equals" was, in fact, a takeover"
It is not clear which corporation allegedly took over which, can someone please clear it out. Thank you. 
74.117.68.16 21:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Takeover?

message: Ok so 'Chrysler has been dumped by Daimler' (to quote evo mag, issue 106). Does this mean that DaimlerChrysler is now a nonexistent corporation to be consigned to the vaults of history, and Daimler and Chrysler are separate entities, (except for Daimler’s minority 20% stake in Chrysler). if this is the case why does the official DaimlerChrysler website still exist... this still the transitional period I guess. But the fact is DaimlerChrysler is now officially over. So shouldn’t a seperate Daimler AG Wikipedia page be created? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanDaMa (talk • contribs) 
:Might I suggest you don't rely on Evo for your analysis of the corporate history of a company? DaimlerChrysler is not "officially over" - "Daimler AG" will not be adopted until "fall 2007." Mark83 22:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chrysler Group has not been officially severed from DaimlerChrylser anyway, besides the fact that yes, the DaimlerChrysler name will remain until the stockholder meeting. KansasCity 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The split up

message: Daimler-Benz should be merged into this article a history section. It is widely known that the merger was actually a buyout of Chrysler, and having Daimler-Benz separate doesn't make sense. Also, when Chrysler is severed, it would really not make sense, as having two separate articles on Daimler would create the impression that there are two different entities named Daimler that have produced Mercedes-Benz vehicles, when in fact it has been the same one with three different names. KansasCity 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. The new Daimler AG (which will come into being in October) will also need to be incorporated. So what is the best name for a consolidated page? Paul Fisher 10:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it would be Daimler AG - the various articles discussed are just different incarnations/names, and as Daimler AG will be the 'current' name I suggest that should be the title. Mark83 10:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm with Mercator079 (see comment above in the split section) - while the new Daimler AG has many components of the old Daimler Benz they are in fact different companies. I'd go with the idea of a overall history page and then a page for each company. This would provide more information and an idea of the historical flow. Saganaki- 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm flexible Sagakaki, however I'm not entirely clear what you are proposing - what would that article be titled and how/where would we link it in each article? Mark83 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could modify the Daimler disabmbig page? Make it slightly more historical and include it as a link at the top of all the pages of the related companies including current DaimlerChrysler page and new Daimler AG page we will presumably need to create.Saganaki- 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The point of this discussion is the fact that Daimler AG is NOT a "new" company; rather, it is the same company founded as Daimler-Benz AG in 1926 and has simply changed its name over the years - to DaimlerChrysler in 1998, and eventually to Daimler in 2007. KansasCity 06:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I thought the the topic of this discussion was whether the pages be merged (see the topic header). My view was oppose as they aren't really the same company and that readers would be better served by maintaining the pages separately and linking all the companies together via an overview page.Saganaki- 07:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the point - to merge the pages because Daimler-Benz/DaimlerChrysler/Daimler are all the same company, with just different names throughout its history. Keeping the pages separate would be illogical - it would essentially keep 3 history pages for only one company, creating a large bit of redundancy. Daimler-Benz/DaimlerChrysler/Daimler are not "separate companies". I don't see how one could come to the conclusion unless believing a corporate name change also means reincorporating the company (which in some cases happens - however, with Daimler-Benz etc., it has yet to happen, leaving the true founding date of Daimler-Benz/DaimlerChrysler/Daimler as 1926). KansasCity 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't think using incorporation necessarily demonstrates continuity, it's a legal device only. A case in point is backlisting where companies allow themselves to be acquired by listed companies in order to get a stock exchange listing. The acquiring listed company in effect becomes the acquired company but no reincorporation occurs. I'd suggest doing as the courts do and parting the veil of the legal fiction of incorporation and looking at the substance of the deal. Using that approach, the new Daimler AG looks like a descendent of Daimler Benz, but is not the same company. That would make the founding date for Daimler AG as 2007. Saganaki- 03:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it wouldn't. It would be like saying a divorced woman is born again if she drops her surname after a divorce, or gets married and gets a new surname. Daimler has always been with the company since 1926. Just because a company changes its legal name does not mean it is a 'new company'. It would be like saying Macy's, Inc., AT&T Inc., and Verizon Communications were also new companies just because they changed their names. KansasCity 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your argument ignores the reality of companies as legal and economic entities. Companies are not people. People can't merge chunks of one another into each other, then spin them off and even reacquire them later. Nowhere in my argument, incidentally, do I sat that a legal name change amounts to a changed company - you have introduced this. My argument is that the entity which bears the name Daimler AG today is structurally different to the entity once known as Daimler Benz, including management, sales coverage and asset holdings. I don't believe you have addressed this issue in any of your arguments. Just because you say they are the same company doesn't make it so. Evidence is required.Saganaki- 00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you have me that DaimlerChrysler was only founded in 1998. Reuters Stock Info. Therefore, I am dropping that merge request. However, I do say that this page should be moved to Daimler AG once the renaming takes effect, since it looks like a reincorporation is not in the works. Plus, Daimler AG will have the same assets following the renaming from DaimlerChrysler. What DaimlerChrysler is now is no different from what it will be the day after it renames itself Daimler AG. KansasCity 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Daimler-Benz

message: I think it should stay a sperate page because it is a diffrent company 71.249.1.239
:No, it should not stay separate because Daimler-Benz is the old name of DaimlerChrysler before it bought Chrysler. KansasCity 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, I would say from the comments so far that there is insufficient consensus to carry out the merger. Agree on that? Cheers Saganaki- 06:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I think the next step should be the creation of a new Daimler AG page. We'd retain the DaimlerChrysler page but re-craft it as an obituary as per the American Telephone & Telegraph page. Any thoughts? Cheers Saganaki- 09:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this page should be moved to Daimler AG when the renaming occurs, but this page should not become an obituary as DaimlerChrysler will continue to exist under the new name Daimler AG. The assets, corporate structure, etc. it holds this very day will be the same the day following the corporate renaming. The difference between this and American Telephone & Telegraph/AT&T is that American Telephone & Telegraph is legally defunct while AT&T is a separate company; DaimlerChrysler will simply slash the Chrysler name from its corporate name, not become defunct. KansasCity 14:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  DaimlerChrysler AG will become a defunct legal entity as you have already demonstrated. The new entity, Daimler AG, will contain many of the assets formerly owned by DaimlerChrysler AG, DaimlerChrysler AG itself will become defunct. Daimler AG's corporate structure will certainly not remain the same as DaimlerChrysler, check recent news reports. Also By preserving the DaimlerChrysler AG page, we maintain an notable chapter in automotive history. Saganaki- 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I myself have demonstrated, Daimler-Benz AG is most certainly a defunct entity. DaimlerChrysler AG will not become a defunct entity, because that entity will merely be renamed to Daimler AG following stockholder approval. Check Sprint Nextel for a situation where most assets were retained while others were split off, but that doesn't change the fact that Sprint Nextel was founded in 1938 as United Utilities. Hence the reason there is not a separate page for United Utilities, United Telecommunications, etc. because they are all former names of Sprint Nextel Corporation. If the Daimler AG will indeed be a new, separately incorporated entity, then all the more reason to separate that page from DaimlerChrysler. However, if it doesn't reincorporate itself, then DaimlerChrysler should merely be renamed. I cannot comprehend as to why you insist on splitting Daimler AG as an entirely new page keeping DaimlerChrysler intact, as it would create the fiction that DaimlerChrysler is defunct, while it is really going to be renamed. And, no, it would not eliminate a chapter in automotive history from Wikipedia. KansasCity 03:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with KansasCity. DaimlerChrysler AG and Cerberus have set up a new company, Chrysler Holding LLC, to hold the Chrysler Corporation. DaimlerChrysler AG is only subject to a name change pending an Extraordinary Shareholders’ Meeting.(MuteJoe 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Suggested compromise: The new Daimler AG company page should be a fairly long and well referenced article. It will be one of the top 10 automakers and there will be a substantial amount of detail required to flesh out the article and sub articles are likely to be required (see for example the sub articles for the Toyota Motor Corporation page). Why not retain the Daimler Chrysler AG page with some of its existing content as one of these sub-pages linking from the Daimler AG history section? The majority of DaimlerChrysler AG content could be shifted to the Daimler AG page. The rump Daimler Chrysler AG page would contain a potted history of the merger and outline how big the company was at the time? Saganaki- 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggestion is not at all in the best interests in keeping Wikipedia an accurate source of information. It is so amazing that someone cannot seem to understand that a company that was incorporated in 1998 only wants to change its name, not become a 'new' company. To divide up the history sections would still create the impression that DaimlerChrysler is going to be an 'old' company, which it really isn't, since it is only changing its legal name.  I have yet to see support for your side, and I think MuteJoe has summed up the position that we've been standing with in the best 3 sentences I have read on this talk page. KansasCity 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Daimler AG page

message: yesterday the shareholders approved the new name, today it was changed (see www.daimler.com). Please move the article acordingly to this.--79.214.69.57 11:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A move request has been lodged at WP:RM. Gr1st 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. Agathoclea 11:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:DaimlerChrysler will need untangling by someone who know what belongs where. Agathoclea 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Daimler AG]]

message: Daimler is "the world's thirteenth largest car manufacturer. By revenue it is the largest German company."
says on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Chrysler
Volkswagen is "world's fourth largest car producer after Toyota, GM, and Ford, respectively"
says on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen
Is there something I am missing about their Math? How can a 13th place have higher revenue than 4th place? Unless they get a lot of money from some kind of viral weaponry sales that I am personally not aware of... ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.204.242 (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. You are missing some math. Volkswagens do not cost US$426,000. :) spryde | talk 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each. spryde | talk 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: world's ##'s producer

message: The DaimlerChrysler era should be in a separate article. Daimler is not one of the Big-3 North American makers, DC was. 70.51.11.201 (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SPLIT

message: I was looking up information on the bribery charges. I am not aware of such a news article. I was wondering where the citation of that particular article. I do not seem to see it in the references section.
Roseynose (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bribery? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Daimler AG. 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/20090401124105/http://www.daimler.com:80/dccom/0-5-876574-1-886072-1-0-0-0-0-0-8-876574-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html to http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-876574-1-886072-1-0-0-0-0-0-8-876574-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html
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 04:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Daimler AG. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20151119171222/http://www.boerse-frankfurt.de/en/equities/indices/euro+stoxx+50+EU0009658145/constituents to http://www.boerse-frankfurt.de/en/equities/indices/euro+stoxx+50+EU0009658145/constituents
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219161431/http://www.caranddriver.com:80/dailyautoinsider/12499/chrysler-announces-major-downsizing.html to http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyautoinsider/12499/chrysler-announces-major-downsizing.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211193100/http://www.daimler.com:80/dccom/0-5-7145-1-858191-1-0-0-0-0-0-11979-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html to http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-7145-1-858191-1-0-0-0-0-0-11979-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GwZbRs57Yw
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323062030/http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-7153-1-1035042-1-0-0-0-0-0-8-7145-0-0-0-0-0-0-1.html to http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-7153-1-1035042-1-0-0-0-0-0-8-7145-0-0-0-0-0-0-1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/2010/09/ff_tesla/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://m.foxbusiness.com/quickPage.html?page=19453&content=36252885&pageNum=-1
*Added  tag to http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-7153-1-1285530-1-0-0-0-0-0-16694-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html
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) 05:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Daimler AG. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20071021155408/http://businessweek.com/2000/00_23/b3684147.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_23/b3684147.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.daimler.com/corporate
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117023751/https://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-65181-1-79600-1-0-0-0-0-0-135-7145-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html to https://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-65181-1-79600-1-0-0-0-0-0-135-7145-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daimler AG. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20170624011328/http://autobusesmercedesbenz.com.mx/site/page?view=corporativo-20 to http://autobusesmercedesbenz.com.mx/site/page?view=corporativo-20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article lead and the Holdings section have info from 2014 and 2015 recpectivelly. I don't know about the other brands/companies but MV Agusta hasnt been a part of Daimler for 7 months, but its still listed there. I left it there, since it says "as of 2015" its technicaly correct. Chris Ssk talk 12:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lead and Holdings section 

message: I propose to merge Daimler-Benz into Daimler AG. It makes little sense for the Daimler-Benz article, small as it is, to exist on its own when the content would make for a more substantial history section within the Daimler article. Also, the infoboxes would imply that Daimler-Benz is a "defunct" company and Daimler is a company with only 10ish years of history, while the content in the articles (and the Chrysler article for that matter) reads that the company was Daimler-Benz, which was renamed DaimlerChrysler when it acquired Chrysler, and was renamed to simply Daimler when Chrysler was sold off; no defuncts here, just renaming with the times. A merge would streamline many of these discontinuities. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: can you explain the reason why the Daimler Company should be described in the hatnote any differently from how it is described in its own article, that is as a "British motor vehicle manufacturer"? --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, times have changed and the use of words with them. While I'm here. Why is Mercedes so very very anxious to call itself Daimler ?  The British company had a high repute but isn't Mercedes' behaviour a bit over the top? Eddaido (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think we agree that it's better to keep the hatnote description as clear and consistent with the related article as possible. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Ok, I think we agree" I seem to have missed something here, would you mind explaining. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  you are reverting without engaging in meaningful discussion. I'll ask you again: Daimler Company is described in its article as a "British motor vehicle manufacturer". For clarity and consistency, the best thing to do is to use the same description in the hatnote of this article. Now please state your case as to why describing Daimler Company as an automotive corporation in the hatnote  would be preferable to motor vehicle manufacturer  (considering also that it introduces unnecessary repetition). --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I ask you again why do you think I agree? Is that meaningful enough? Eddaido (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Eddaido, this is not a forum and your question about Mercedes is off-topic. We are talking about the hatnote here. You say that "the two businesses were of comparable status and should be described as having been equals", so why isn't Daimler Company described the same as Daimler AG in their respective articles? Do you think that is wrong? (oh and please stop rearranging other people's posts as you think appropriate; it doesn't help the discussion) --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it was right exactly on topic. We are discussing matters in the hatnote and (incorrectly) covered in portions of the article (possibly intended to be deliberately misleading for readers like DA1). About the description of the businesses I'd say the two articles, Daimler Company and Daimler AG are by different editors. Wouldn't you agree? Its all about "taste" and stuff like that.So what does your "clarity and consistency" relate to? Surely to another article. The best thing for your ideal of "clarity and consistency" is to describe the two equivalent businesses in the same terms within the one article. Eddaido (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptions in hatnote 

message: Example: €2.709 billion
If we read that as a British or American person, we see that as "two point seven oh nine billion euros". But when it comes to Euros, all of the member countries of the Euro currency don't use the period as the decimal place, they use it to indicate a thousand. So €1.234,56 is "one thousand two hundred and thirty four euros and fifty six cents". The comma and period are swapped. So back to that initial example, taken from the numbers on this page. Is that really "two thousand seven hundred and nine billion" ? It's hard to imagine Daimler Benz having numbers that go into the trillions like that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:5020:6C01:D09F:5113:1AB8:5C80 (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial Numbers 

message: English 102.66.72.39 (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: #becker
Would there be a second from Mercedes 
Like a Trump Recovery hs girl?
Quora? 2600:1016:B02C:EAE6:64F0:5FD:26CE:DFA6 (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  if we have on German choice already made 

message: Business project 41.114.182.69 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article! "Mercedes-Benz Group AG" Mark83 (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What form of ownership is Mercedes Benz 

message: 0166563395 malaysia 2402:1980:8251:874:9C7E:D469:C575:41C7 (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  W220 s280 2000 need help  

message: 1- built in vacuum 
2- a location for tissues box 
3- a lication for a woman handbag 
4- a location  for a small disposable garbage bag 
i hate when I enter a car with people and I am driving with no place for handbag and tissues box 2001:8F8:1DC7:575C:85F3:61CE:8BBC:ABD5 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woman architect perspective on what to include in a car 

message: As specified in the article, Daimler-Benz (aka: Mercedes-Benz) was formed by the merger of Benz & Cie and Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft(DMG) in 1926. Based on his biographical article, it makes sense to list Carl Benz as one of Daimler-Benz's founders because he was still involved in Benz & Cie's management at the time of the merger and ultimately became a director of the newly formed company. Conversely, the same cannot be said of the original founders of DMG, Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach, because both left that company by the time of its merger with Benz & Cie in 1926. 
With that being said, does anyone know who was in control of DMG at the time of Daimler-Benz's formation? If so, can you provide sources that corroborate this fact? 
Such information is necessary in order to determine who Daimler-Benz's founders were. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Founders of Mercedes-Benz