Talk:Plymouth (automobile)

Marque vs. Brand

There's been an objection to this article's opening words, Plymouth was a marque of automobile…. A preference has been expressed for Plymouth was a brand of automobile…. I don't agree with this preference. While the two words denote the same concept, the connotation is different; "marque", in English, connotes an automobile make rather than, say, a brand of dill pickles. Says so right above the table of contents in Brand. The fact that marque redirects to brand is an excellent illustration of why we have the redirect system: it allows us to use the most precise possible language in any given article without having to stop and explain the basic terms which differ from everyday general context only in terminology. It means we needn't elide the terms and phrasings of any given subject; it means we needn't write an article at a 4th-grade level of comprehension. It lets us refer to a "marque of automobile", which is contextually the most proper usage, and anyone who doesn't know just what the word means or wants to know more about the concept can simply click the link and keep right on learnin' new stuff! Either way, it's an utterly minor point not worth making a Federal case of.

…But my view may not be the one that attains consensus. Let's hear some more voices, please. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Marque" is the traditional term and I wouldn't call it "unusual." --Sable232 (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You won't find the word "marque" anywhere on the Chrysler Corporation's website; they refer to their brands as "brands." This isn't writing at a "4th-grade level of compehension"; it's using the words that people use when they refer to things. Since it's an utterly minor point, why insist on reverting the edit? KevCureton (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such company as Chrysler Corporation, and you won't find the word "Plymouth" anywhere on any Chrysler Group website. You probably also won't find the word discombobulate on any Chrysler Group website, either, but that doesn't mean we can't use that word in this article if it's appropriate. Fact is, we're writing an encyclopædia article here, not a "USA Today" article, and that means we write as precisely as possible. Our own Brand article supports marque, and that alone is reason enough to use it, but for those who demand more reason than that, clicking "marque" takes the reader directly to where s/he needs to be to learn what it means and why it's used instead of "brand". A minor point? Surely, which is why your argument, which amounts to "I don't like it", doesn't get much traction. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing stuff

Someone seriously needs to put in Plymouth's cars from the late 1960's and 70's. that was a huge part of what Plymouth was (muscle car era ie: Roadrunner, Duster, GTX, Super Bird, Fury, Valiant, Scamp) and it was completely skipped. Please add asap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.8.74 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Plymouth"

The usage of Plymouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Plymouth -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Plymouth P19 Business Coupé

I came across this car at a car show in Belgium recently. After it had parked I noted down the details the exhibitor had entered on the information sheet accompanying the car and I came back to my laptop to check it out on Wikipedia. I thought I dimly remembered, from my childhood, seeing a car something like this depicted in a Tintin book, but that could well be a misleading digression. Childhood was a long time ago and memory is fallible.

Anyway ...

I cannot find an entry for any Plymouth model from this year (1950) or of this size (small or mid but surely not large) in Wikipedia. Is anyone able to tell me what I saw? Better still, does anyone have the knowledge and sources to set up a wiki-entry for it? Or am I simply looking in the wrong place for something that's already there ... somewhere?

Thank you (if you did) for thinking about it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)