From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timeline name

Shouldn't this temlate be called Chrysler timeline, or something like that? This timeline doesn't deal with the DaimlerChrysler group, but with a single brand/division/marque/whatever. The problem is that there are already many articles with the current name. Can somebody fix this? Or you think the current name is ok? -- NaBUru38 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I've renamed it to Chrysler timeline - it definitely shouldn't have been DaimlerChrysler. -- Vossanova o< 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

more colores

I think the timeline needs more colores, seperating US-Chryslers, EU-Chryslers etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:FB32:4620:408F:18B3:9D8B:5A31 ( talk) 23:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Cutoff

This is a nice table, but I think fitting more years will make it unreadable. Yes? No?  Mr.choppers |  ✎  12:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply

At least future years won't have many rows to fill... but yes, it could be split into fewer years. How about 1920s-1950s, 1960s-1980s, and 1990s-present, instead of the 1920s-1960s and 1970s-present we have now? -- Vossanova o< 16:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timeline name

Shouldn't this temlate be called Chrysler timeline, or something like that? This timeline doesn't deal with the DaimlerChrysler group, but with a single brand/division/marque/whatever. The problem is that there are already many articles with the current name. Can somebody fix this? Or you think the current name is ok? -- NaBUru38 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I've renamed it to Chrysler timeline - it definitely shouldn't have been DaimlerChrysler. -- Vossanova o< 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

more colores

I think the timeline needs more colores, seperating US-Chryslers, EU-Chryslers etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:FB32:4620:408F:18B3:9D8B:5A31 ( talk) 23:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Cutoff

This is a nice table, but I think fitting more years will make it unreadable. Yes? No?  Mr.choppers |  ✎  12:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply

At least future years won't have many rows to fill... but yes, it could be split into fewer years. How about 1920s-1950s, 1960s-1980s, and 1990s-present, instead of the 1920s-1960s and 1970s-present we have now? -- Vossanova o< 16:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook