Talk:Mercedes-Benz Group

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

Who owns Daimler Chrysler?[edit]

Interesting to note that the biggest shareholder in DaimlerChrysler is the government of Kuwait - one of the world's leading oil producers - I wouldn't be expecting too many eco-friendly cars from DaimlerChrysler anytime soon. jkm 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the phrase "It is interesting to know..." is appropriate for the first paragraph of an enceclopedia article. Furthermore it indicates your assumption of any influence of Kuwait in DaimlerChryslers eco policy which is of course not proven. Other shareholders are not mentioned in the first paragraph as well. I would suggest to remove it.

I would agree it is probably inappropriate for the first paragraph of an encyclopedic article - but then - WHY does it mention in the first paragraph that Daimler Chrysler owns a major stake in EADS? How is that any more appropriate - in fact Daimler Chrysler is in the process of selling down its stake in EADS - so that is a declining interest. As to whether it indicates an assumption to say, "It is interesting to know..." - it does no such thing. Were you aware that the largest shareholder in DaimlerChrysler was the government of Kuwait? I wasn't - until I read that - and I did find that an interesting thing to know. I'm pretty sure that the largest shareholder in General Motors, Ford, Toyota - the other big carmakers - is not a nation reliant on sales of oil, maybe you can answer that question for us all - which entities own the largest stakes in these companies?
As to there being no mention of other shareholders in that paragraph - well, there's only 1 largest shareholder in DaimlerChrysler - and that is Kuwait. That is a fact - it can't be denied - why mention a whole bunch of minor shareholders with less that 1% of the company? Again I would say, why is DaimlerChrysler mentioned as a shareholder of EADS then? 155.143.221.252 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The company also owns a substatial share in the asian car company Mitsubishi.

Does Daimler own Maserati?[edit]

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)
Nope, Ferrari is indeed owned by Fiat. Therefore, Maserati in turn is owned by Fiat as well. MikeZ 09:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

RWD[edit]

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)

Also, does anyone think it's worth mentioning the class-action shareholder lawsuit against DC because the supposed "merger of equals" was clearly a takeover? -- stewacide 01:54 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

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)


Holdings accuracy?[edit]

Does anyone know how accurate the "holdings" statistics are on this page? --Kylen1010 16:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CEO's[edit]

Wasn't Dieter Zetsche recently replaced by a Chrysler executive as the CEO of the Chrysler branch? Gerdbrendel 04:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Daimler????[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Unneeded text detected[edit]

Someone must have added usless text below the DAX box. I deleted it so that it won't interfere with this article. --megamanfan3 12:58 PM, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

The Takeover?[edit]

"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)[reply]

Daimler took over Chrysler, as every current Chrysler is just a cheap Mercedes in the USA as the majority of the parts are marked Mercedes. Markthemac 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The split up[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

In light of the finalization of Cerberus Capitals' purchase of an 80%+ stake of Chrysler (see any major financial publication),I think it is most prudent to wait and see what the name of the non-Chrysler portion of that which was Daimler-Chrysler calls itself, and then explore whether the Daimler-Benz and Daimler-Chrysler articles should be merged together. My thought is that they should remain separate, as they are different eras of what really are different corporations with components that were shared. Linked properly, a history of the component the reader is exploring could be learned.mercator079 2039 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Daimler-Benz[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Merge[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


New Daimler AG page[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I don't believe you addressed my suggestions at all in that comment:

  • "This suggestion is not at all in the best interests in keeping Wikipedia an accurate source of information." You don't provide any evidence to back this up.
  • "It is so amazing that someone cannot seem to understand...". Insult? Not sure if that advances your argument either.
  • "a company that was incorporated in 1998 only wants to change its name, not become a 'new' company": Umm, my last comment didn't cover that issue...so straw man? Incorporation date would be irrelevant anyway.
  • "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". You don't provide evidence to back this up.
  • "I have yet to see support for your side,". Side? thought wikipedia worked by working towards consensus? So far there have only been comments by three users on the latest thread (you, me, MuteJoe), and only you have replied to my last comment where, incidentally, I suggested a change of tack. It's just been you and me so far kid.

So here's my suggestion again if you'd care to respond to it. Many other company articles have separate sub articles where important eras in their histories are fleshed out. They are clearly marked on the main page and on the sub page as subsections of the main article. It's an established way of breaking up large articles. I propose we do the same for DaimlerChrysler as a subsection of Daimler AG. Here are some examples IBM - two related history pages, Ford, General Motors... I can provide more if it's of help to you. What's more we could also provide a link back to Daimler Benz and other earlier iterations of the company, IBM uses that technique for instance. At your service...Saganaki- 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my response to this, and my reasoning why this must remain as one page.

  • "This suggestion is not at all in the best interests in keeping Wikipedia an accurate source of information." You don't provide any evidence to back this up.
    • Evidence? Here's your evidence: If we split off the DaimlerChrysler history from the Daimler AG page, it would distort the factual quality of the article, creating the impression in reader's minds that Daimler AG is a totally new, fresh company compared to what it is now as DaimlerChrysler, which is not true at all. The DaimlerChrysler today is the exact same company that will be around under the name Daimler AG the day it changes its name.
  • "a company that was incorporated in 1998 only wants to change its name, not become a 'new' company": Umm, my last comment didn't cover that issue...so straw man? Incorporation date would be irrelevant anyway.
    • How is the incorporation date irrelevent? The incorporation date is what keeps a company's history straight. That is what the founding date of the current AT&T comes down to is its date of incorporation. It is not the same AT&T that was around in 1984, as it was created in 1983 as a Baby Bell. The same can be said for DaimlerChrysler after its renaming. It is not the same Daimler-Benz created in 1926, rather, it was created in 1998 as the holding company for the former assets of Chrysler Corporation and to inherit the assets of Daimler-Benz.

Also, do you realize that if the History of General Motors was included with the main General Motors article, it would make General Motors extremely long? Providing a link to the Daimler-Benz page will suffice, as it is a separate company from what will be renamed Daimler AG. Since DaimlerChrysler was founded in 1998 (legally speaking), its history is less than 10 years now. To split off the history of DaimlerChrysler from the buyout of Chrysler by Daimler to the point where we are now, it would be a truly short article. It would not harm a soul in the world to keep the fact that, at one point, Daimler AG was once named DaimlerChrysler and that it owned all of Chrysler for 9 years. KansasCity 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Daimler AG[edit]

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)[reply]

A move request has been lodged at WP:RM. Gr1st 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
done. Agathoclea 11:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:DaimlerChrysler will need untangling by someone who know what belongs where. Agathoclea 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be separated from Daimler to keep it as reference --MJKubba|talk|contributions 01:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

world's ##'s producer[edit]

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)[reply]

Yep. You are missing some math. Volkswagens do not cost US$426,000. :) spryde | talk 02:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each. spryde | talk 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cars account for around 50% of Daimler's revenues, with trucks, vans & buses making up the balance. I suspect that the VW group has a much lower percentage of commercial vehicles in its product mix. Paul Fisher (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad :) I did not think other areas of Daimler were that profitable :) Newsweek: 2006 revenues at Volkswagen AG totaled €104.9B, while annual earnings equaled €5.99 per share. from: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?symbol=VOWG.DE

2006 revenues at Daimler AG totaled €151.6B, while annual earnings equaled €3.14 per share. from: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?symbol=DAIGn.DE —Preceding unsigned comment added by EL GhouL (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPLIT[edit]

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)[reply]

  • No split - Long and wordy...just needs cleaning up.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this comment was added after this talk page had the rationale removed by an editor previous to Tomtom9041, thus making the reasoning unclear... 76.66.195.159 (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be split, and it should be WikiProject US, because Daimler-Chrysler is important to the US and Canada. This is the Daimler-Chrysler article, thus IT IS one of the Big 3 articles. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A split should be reconsidered; Daimler-Benz gets its own page, so DaimlerChrysler deserves its own page for a clearer article of the merger saga, and the Daimler AG page could then feature a historical overview of all its predecessors, and more detail of its contemporary situation and current alliances. Warren (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renault-Nissan and Daimler Alliance[edit]

This need a reference that is publicly available: only the first paragraph is available for public reading. It should be changed to something more open.

Here are a few from Reuter:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE63605Q20100407 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTFA00661720100407 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6351C620100407

Bribery?[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Daimler AG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead and Holdings section[edit]

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)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

Descriptions in hatnote[edit]

@Eddaido: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@Eddaido: 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 [1] would be preferable to motor vehicle manufacturer [2] (considering also that it introduces unnecessary repetition). --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deeday-UK:OK I ask you again why do you think I agree? Is that meaningful enough? Eddaido (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the portion of the article concerning the loss of rights to the Daimler name and I see it is plain wrong  ! and I see that the explanation given in the article about Gottlieb Daimler has lost all its citations. I have ordered and am waiting on the references supplied by the various editors. Yes, I do think the two businesses were of comparable status and should be described as having been equals. You have not responded to my question to you "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?". Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Financial Numbers[edit]

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)[reply]

Ownership[edit]

English 102.66.72.39 (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if we have on German choice already made[edit]

  1. 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)[reply]

What form of ownership is Mercedes Benz[edit]

Business project 41.114.182.69 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article! "Mercedes-Benz Group AG" Mark83 (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W220 s280 2000 need help[edit]

0166563395 malaysia 2402:1980:8251:874:9C7E:D469:C575:41C7 (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woman architect perspective on what to include in a car[edit]

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)[reply]

Original Founders of Mercedes-Benz[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mercedes-Benz_Group&oldid=1217104535"