![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Shouldn't the part of the Jaguar XJ page about the Daimler Corsica be included in this Daimler page instead ? Hektor 05:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I own a Daimler SP250 that was used on TV, so briefly updated the page with details of the car on the 'In The Media' section. Will also place up a photo to prove claim etc - but new to this and just going to check out how to upload the scanned photo. Polko2 13:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is incorrect: "This is not to mention that the Queen's own car for personal use is a 2002 Daimler V8 Supercharged (based on the MkII XJ)." In fact, the Queen has a fleet of Bentleys, Rolls-Royces and Daimlers. She seems to use one of her two custom made Bentleys the most, which were presented to her to mark her Golden Jubilee in 2002. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Bridger ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Does anyone know what this is, please? When I uploaded it I thought it was a Daimler Majestic, but now I don't. From the wiki entries it appears it might be a Daimler Conquest saloon (Brit Eng) / sedan (US Eng). According to an accessible bit of a UK government database it is a 2433CC Daimler first registered in 1955. I'm not sure how much confidence you should have in information published from a UK government database, but .... it's there.
Thank you for any knowledge sharing. Regards Charles01 ( talk) 07:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a Daimler Conquest. Malcolma ( talk) 09:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Malcolm. I don't suppose you can tell, simply by looking at it, whether it's a Conquest Century or ... a Conquest. Apart from (presumably) retrofitted indicators this one looks pretty carefully original. Regards Charles01 ( talk) 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know there were no external differences. Malcolma ( talk) 10:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Best regards. Charles01 ( talk) 11:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In Jan 2009 the image has been renamed and I have accordingly replaced the image which originally accompanied this discussion with its replacement (which is the same image with a better name). Regards Charles01 ( talk) 11:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the Jaguar XJ article the Daimler name was dropped when the X350 was facelifted in 2007; is this correct or was there a Daimler version available until 2009 when the new-shape Jaguar XJ was launched ? RGCorris ( talk) 09:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Because it seems the owners are keen to keep the brand name alive - must be very valuable - I have changed Successor so it does not imply products do not appear from time to time with this brand-name on them.
I guess that comment could go instead above where it is now and alongside "Fate" and then Successor is really those products bearing the Daimler name as mentioned in the sentence before this.
Is this box trying to cover the business or its product? I admit to being confused on that score.
The owners (Parent) are without doubt Tata Group and they operate from India - in the lower box, "country" applies to the owner - does it not?
Ford PAG as a previous owner because it ties to Ford's particular grouping of this type of product as well as still linking directly to Ford, a better known brand than Jaguar or Tata.
If what I have done is not recognised to be an improvement can we first discuss more amendments to it here?
Why is it the upper info box refuses to show the listed subsidiaries? Can it be fixed - Please! Eddaido ( talk) 03:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks DeFacto for making the subsidiaries show. Is it correct that the subject of this article is "defunct"? Eddaido ( talk) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
02954323 DAIMLER LIMITED
05381148 DAIMLER & LANCHESTER LIMITED
01354709 DAIMLER AND LANCHESTER OWNERS' CLUB LIMITED(THE)
03323663 DAIMLER ESTATES LTD
03180691 DAIMLER FINANCIAL SERVICES UK (TRUSTEES) LIMITED
02556005 DAIMLER FLEETBOARD UK LIMITED
03534682 DAIMLER FLEET MANAGEMENT UK LIMITED
05379712 DAIMLER GREEN CARE HOME LIMITED
05586393 DAIMLER GREEN COMMUNITY RECREATION TRUST LIMITED
00268439 DAIMLER HIRE LIMITED
03232980 D DAIMLER HIRE LIMOUSINE SERVICE LIMITED Dissolved
03510012 DAIMLER INSURANCE SERVICES UK LIMITED
00112569 THE DAIMLER MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED
05207700 DAIMLER SQUARE (COVENTRY) MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED
00322903 DAIMLER TRANSPORT VEHICLES LTD
01140745 DAIMLER UK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
05328119 D DAIMLER UK FINANCE LIMITED Dissolved
04293667 DAIMLER UK SHARE TRUSTEE LIMITED
01630664 DAIMLER UK TRUSTEES LIMITED
RGCorris ( talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Copy and paste from Companies House website, 22 March 2011. data available free of charge. my notes in italics:
Name & Registered Office:
'THE DAIMLER MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED'
ABBEY ROAD
WHITLEY
COVENTRY
CV3 4LF
Company No. 00112569
'Status: Active'
Date of Incorporation: 07/11/1910 [refer: Motor Trade Amalgamation. The Times, Monday, Sep 26, 1910; pg. 6; Issue 39387]
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7499 - Non-trading company
Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/12/2009 (DORMANT) [but Active - see above???]
Next Accounts Due: 31/12/2011
Last Return Made Up To: 01/05/2010
Next Return Due: 29/05/2011
Last Members List: 01/05/2010
Previous Names:
Date of change Previous Name
20/12/1988 DAIMLER COMPANY LIMITED(THE) [a technicality about the The?]
03/01/1996 T.C. LAVIN LIMITED [???]
Best I leave it to someone else to interpret this. Best, Eddaido ( talk) 23:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Eddaido, earlier you restored BMC as a previous owner of the Daimler brand. According to the BMC and BMH articles, BMH was formed by the merger of Jaguar Cars (at the time the owners of the Daimler brand) and BMC. That would suggest that BMC never owned the Daimler brand, but that it was brought into the newly formed BMH company by Jaguar. Do you have information or reliable sources to support the view that BMC did own the brand before BMH was created? -- de Facto ( talk). 20:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It's very clear to me that Eddaido is wholly good faith and very committed to improving this article but I must say that I do find their reverting style somewhat frustrating.
There are a few issues here. Even though the Daimler Motor Company technically still exists as a company registered at Companies House, it is clear that the company does not trade, does not form a subsidiary of Tata Motors or Jaguar Land Rover with its own mangement etc, and does not own any assets. Daimler is now a brand owned by Tata, but that it not the same as Daimler forming a division, subsidiary or business unit of any kind within Tata. It currently does not, so far as I am aware, even have any products.
Beyond this there is a broader need for a clear distinction to be made in the article between the original company, which once owned its own assets, traded and owned the Daimler marque, with the Daimler marque itself. The current lead completely fails to address this. I feel that the issue would be best addressed through a split into two articles, one for the Daimler Motor Company which ended in 1910, with the end of the company's indepedence, and another for the Daimler marque under all owners. The current lead is simply not right though.
Marque is a very commonly used name for an automotive brand, including in Wikipedia. I am puzzled at to why this has been reverted back to brand. Rangoon11 ( talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Having gone through this incredibly stuffy yet not very formal article, and having found an automatic peer review program (West Indian convention: English spelling of "programme" used except when referring to computer programs, where the American spelling is used), I ran the article through the program and got this:
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. [?]
- Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions. [?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 litre, use 5 litre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 litre. [?]- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb. [?]
- Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style. [?]
- This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. [?]
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), counsellor (B) (American: counselor), programme (B) (American: program ).
- Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
Allpigs are pink, so we thought ofa number ofways to turn them green.”- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
I hope editors of this article will find this information useful.
Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 13:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Daimler DS420.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Daimler DS420.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
"...though it is currently marked 'non-trading'."
Could it be that it is marked "non-trading" because its shares are not being traded?
Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 16:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In the article, it is claimed that the list of cars given in Rolls-Royce Phantom IV#List of the 18 units "shows where what should have been Daimler repeat-orders went to." To an extent this might be true, since Daimler held the Royal Warrant to supply the British Monarchy, and the Aga Khan and the Spanish Monarchy had also bought Daimlers (although Alfonso XIII of Spain was a car enthusiast and had several cars, including Hispano-Suizas), but nowhere in the article does it state that any of the Royal Families of Iran (purchasers of 4AF6 and 4CS6), Iraq (purchasers of 4BP1, 4BP3), Saudi Arabia (purchasers of 4AF22), or Kuwait (purchasers of 4AF8, 4CS2, and 4CS4) had ever bought a Daimler. It also does not state in the article that Francisco Franco (purchaser of 4AF14, 4AF16, and 4AF18), or anyone else in power during Spain's interregnum, had ever ordered cars from Daimler. With no mention, much less evidence, that any of these had ever bought Daimlers before, and with 4AF4 used internally by Rolls-Royce and 4AF12 going to Rolls-Royce director Ernest Hives, only six of the eighteen Phantom IVs built can be said to go to ex-Daimler customers. The idea that the list of Phantom IV is a list of ex-Daimler customers is therefore invalid and the statement of that idea shall be removed from the article again. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 13:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Blue Clover and Golden Zebra are featured in the article. Are the whereabouts of her other Daimlers known? -- 76.115.67.114 ( talk) 05:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems (and I may be wrong) that since 2008 what were formerly Mercedes-Benz trucks are now in USA sold under the brand name Daimler.
This suggests that (in spite of other announcements which would seem to rule it out) Ford sold Daimler AG (and not Tata) certain rights to the Daimler name previously owned by Jaguar. Can anyone show mention of or speculation about these arrangements in print? Eddaido ( talk) 10:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Daimler Company's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "BES":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned this section has no references:
It sounds a bit...odd. Is this a very well disguised attempt at vandalism or was this report actually made? Any references? Mongoosander ( talk) 21:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've heard Daimler in 1946 introduced the first electric side windows in cars--except, I can't find which Daimler. Anybody know? Trekphiler 10:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! You're right, of course, it was the 1946 Daimler Thirty-Six DE 36. CyanIsland ( talk) 14:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The article suggests that acquiring Browns Lane was one of the reasons for Jaguar taking over Daimler. However I believe that Jaguar had had the use of Browns lane since the early 1950s and it was the Radford plant that they wanted for expansion in 1960, which was then Daimler's primary manufacturing base. RGCorris ( talk) 11:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I hereby propose the following structure for the article:
1. Lead section, to be constructed as per WP:LEAD at the end of the restructuring, to summarize the article.
2. "Origin", regarding the foundations built by F. R. Simms
3. Section on the history of the Daimler Motor Company from 1896 to 1910 (how can this section be titled without including the word "Daimler" in the section title?)
4. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under BSA from 1910 to 1960, with subsections about (a) World War I, (b) the inter-war period, (c) World War II, (d) the postwar Docker era, and (e) the Sangster/Turner years.
5. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under Jaguar Cars from 1960 to 1966
6. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under BMH from 1966-1968 and under British Leyland and its successors from 1968 to 1984
7. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under Jaguar Cars from 1984 to 1989, including the renaming to Daimler Motor Company that allegedly took place in December 1988 (any sources to be cited, anyone?)
8. Section on the history of the Daimler Motor Company under the Ford Motor Company from 1989 to 2008, including the revival model proposed under Ford ownership
9. Section on the history of the Daimler Motor Company under the Tata Motor Company from 2008 to the present, including the revival model proposed under Tata ownership
10. "Other concerns of similar name", basically as it exists at this time, except later in the article
11. Section on the details of the Royal Warrant, how it was obtained, maintained, and lost
12. "Current status"
13. "List of Daimler cars"
...closing with the usual last sections as per WP:FOOTERS
Any objections?
Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 18:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed this crazy bit among the references as I flashed past.
*The Electrical Journal (D. B. Adams) 29: 438 http://books.google.com.jm/books?ei=IFHBUZvZKYP48wT_l4D4BQ&id=ymZOAQAAIAAJ&dq=Pears+electric+motor+%22eel+pie+island%22&q=Pears+%22eel+pie+island%22#search_anchor |url= missing title (help). Retrieved 2013-06-19. "THAMES ELECTRIC AND STEAM LAUNCH COMPANY—Mr. Andrew Pears has taken over the Electric and Steam Launch Buildings and Public Charging Station, now in course of construction upon Eel Pie Island, Twickenham, formerly the property of Mr. W. S. Sargeant, of Strand-on-the-Green, Chiswick and Twickenham, and the firm in future will be worked as the "Thames Electric and Steam Launch Company"."*The Electrical Review (Electrical review) 36: 714. 1895 http://books.google.com.jm/books?id=p-VQAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Thames+Electric+and+Steam+Launch+Company%22+Pears&dq=%22Thames+Electric+and+Steam+Launch+Company%22+Pears&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xFTBUY-sLInU8wSPpICwBw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA |url= missing title (help). Retrieved 2013-06-19. "Business Announcement, — A circular signed "Andrew Pears " states that from June 1st the works of the Thames Electric and Steam Launch Company, of Twickenham, are under new management, and all communications should be addressed to the company and not to employis (sic)."
It would be best if the reference to the works there was simply reverted to what I originally wrote. Subsequent editors are, of course, quite unaware that Mr Andrew Pears was just the enormously rich owner of Pears Soap though it has been pointed out by me a number of times but disregarded. Eddaido ( talk) 06:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of these have since been corrected, but...
This is not the end. This is not even the end of the beginning. There is just so much to plough through!
Смерть Интернет тролли! Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 04:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The peer reviewer program, which might be going away in September, now has this to say about this article:
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 Litre, use 5 Litre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 Litre. [?]As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day. [?]The last remaining use of "th" in a date is in a quote, which should not be altered to match the MoS. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)- Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style. [?]
- This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. [?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- it has been
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, pleaseWeasel words removed. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)strikethis comment). [?]Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).This one was my fault, and I have corrected it. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
I will look into these suggestions next. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 17:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I hereby propose that we archive the talk page. I further propose that we use an automated archiving system similar to the one in use at Talk:Straight-twin engine. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daimler Company. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As with the Jaguar Cars article, I've tried to align the brand ownership content (prose and infobox) with what I have been able to glean from the UK trademark registry. The records are very complete for Daimler, so some interpolation based on what I found out about Jaguar might have crept in, but that website is surely the most reliable source available for this information. Any ideas about how this information might be improved upon and made more accurate or reflective of the reality would be appreciated. -- DeFacto ( talk). 23:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to rationalise the categories applied to the article. Because this company no longer trades as a car producer, I moved all the categories used for car producing companies to Category:Daimler (this article is in that category, so it still inherits all of those categories) and kept only the categories applicable to a car marque. Please discuss if you disagree with this approach, as I am not completely confident that my reasoning is sound! -- DeFacto ( talk). 23:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Eddaido: a hatnote is not a place to explain complex company histories; articles and disambiguation pages are. Please have a look at
WP:1HAT. The main question to consider when adding hatnotes is: how likely is it that readers searching for other Daimler-related articles will end up here by mistake? Arguably, not very likely, since both
Daimler and the more common
Daimler-Benz already take you to the relevant pages.
Chances are that readers landing on
Daimler Company did indeed want to read this article, and having to go through a three-line hatnote simply to learn that they have found the right article is a waste of their time. Check out the hatnote at
Daimler-Benz; that's how a sensible hatnote would be. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
12:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
No, Eddaido, I won't leave this article alone because I want to improve it. But you were right: the cut I first proposed was a bit too drastic. Now the hatnote contains all the main Daimler-related links, but in a concise form (and consistent with the hatnotes at Daimler-Benz and Daimler AG), while in the opening lines it is immediately clarified the relationship between The Daimler Company, Gottlieb Daimler and the German businesses. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 17:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Deeday-UK: Entirely from my memory. A boy grew up in Germany. his name was something like Demler. He became a good engineer, he changed his name to Daimler. It was unique, no-one else anywhere used that name. He was a very good engineer and not interested enough in money and stuff like that. He let other people use his name, Daimler, when they were involved in business with him. After a time they all got worried about the use of his name and they settled it this way:
Daimler Motors Company merged with Benz and they named themselves Daimler-Benz and made Mercedes-Benz products
Tata An Indian company, distributor of Mercedes-Benz in their part of the world bought Jaguar (and Daimler Company) from Ford and sold Daimler-Benz some of the rights to the use of the name Daimler. We don't know exactly what or how much or anything.
Does this make it clearer? Its just on 3 am here. Eddaido ( talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Deeday-UK: While I wind down. What's RFC is it a flying corps, royal? Eddaido ( talk) 14:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Eddaido: [2] There does seem to be some serious issues with the hatnote and misleading to readers with no prior knowledge on the subject, but correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation. As it stands:
1. Isn't Austro-Damiler older than Daimler-Benz, so isn't it better to list it before the latter?
2. It mentions "Daimler's original enterprise" but doesn't specify what that is (i.e. DMG) which makes the reader assume it's the one we are reading right here (i.e. Daimler Company Ltd, UK).
3. The hatnote begins with "Daimler brand and its owner the British automobile manufacturer" but this is also misleading because the 'Daimler brand' name is separately owned by both Daimler Company (Jaguar) and by Daimler AG, that's something even mentioned in the footnote in the latter's article.
Welcome to hearing your thoughts. DA1 ( talk) 16:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Watching ! Cheers, Eddaido ( talk) 13:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, we need to put some clarity here. Let's start with what a dab hatnote on this article should achieve. It should:
Instead, what a hatnote should not attempt to do is:
So this could be a good start, for example:
-- Deeday-UK ( talk) 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Eddaido ( talk) 23:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The link in the first line of this article: "For the disambiguation of other Daimlers, see Daimler..." actually links to a disambiguation of "see", not "daimler". I would make this correcting edit myself, but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.88.129 ( talk) 22:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I re-hashed the following from 63.159.194.142
Does anyone know if Jaguar (Ford) are still using "Daimler"?
Also - History of German daimler anyone? - British bus info? The logo's the same as the Jaguars, but I know no more. Andy G 19:38, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I will mark this page as an {auto-stub} because it does not help avoid confusion. Except their inception, there is nothing in common between German Daimler company, founded by Gottlieb Daimler in 1890 (sometimes called Canstatt-Daimler) and the British Daimler company (founded by British importer of German cars, H. J. Lawson of Coventry in 1896 using Daimler's name by permission of the German firm). First British Daimler cars were based on the contemporary French Panhard and were not influenced by the German Daimler firm which made the immortal Mercedes. By the way, German Daimler stopped manufacturing cars in 1902. Afterwards, Austro-Daimler of Austria was run by Gottlieb Daimler's son, Paul. So, the further histories of the German, Austrian and British Daimler firms are not connected at all. I propose to make a "diasmbiguation page to reveal what I have told before. What do you think?
-- Millisits 15:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Shouldn't the part of the Jaguar XJ page about the Daimler Corsica be included in this Daimler page instead ? Hektor 05:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I own a Daimler SP250 that was used on TV, so briefly updated the page with details of the car on the 'In The Media' section. Will also place up a photo to prove claim etc - but new to this and just going to check out how to upload the scanned photo. Polko2 13:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is incorrect: "This is not to mention that the Queen's own car for personal use is a 2002 Daimler V8 Supercharged (based on the MkII XJ)." In fact, the Queen has a fleet of Bentleys, Rolls-Royces and Daimlers. She seems to use one of her two custom made Bentleys the most, which were presented to her to mark her Golden Jubilee in 2002. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Bridger ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Does anyone know what this is, please? When I uploaded it I thought it was a Daimler Majestic, but now I don't. From the wiki entries it appears it might be a Daimler Conquest saloon (Brit Eng) / sedan (US Eng). According to an accessible bit of a UK government database it is a 2433CC Daimler first registered in 1955. I'm not sure how much confidence you should have in information published from a UK government database, but .... it's there.
Thank you for any knowledge sharing. Regards Charles01 ( talk) 07:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a Daimler Conquest. Malcolma ( talk) 09:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Malcolm. I don't suppose you can tell, simply by looking at it, whether it's a Conquest Century or ... a Conquest. Apart from (presumably) retrofitted indicators this one looks pretty carefully original. Regards Charles01 ( talk) 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know there were no external differences. Malcolma ( talk) 10:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Best regards. Charles01 ( talk) 11:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In Jan 2009 the image has been renamed and I have accordingly replaced the image which originally accompanied this discussion with its replacement (which is the same image with a better name). Regards Charles01 ( talk) 11:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the Jaguar XJ article the Daimler name was dropped when the X350 was facelifted in 2007; is this correct or was there a Daimler version available until 2009 when the new-shape Jaguar XJ was launched ? RGCorris ( talk) 09:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Because it seems the owners are keen to keep the brand name alive - must be very valuable - I have changed Successor so it does not imply products do not appear from time to time with this brand-name on them.
I guess that comment could go instead above where it is now and alongside "Fate" and then Successor is really those products bearing the Daimler name as mentioned in the sentence before this.
Is this box trying to cover the business or its product? I admit to being confused on that score.
The owners (Parent) are without doubt Tata Group and they operate from India - in the lower box, "country" applies to the owner - does it not?
Ford PAG as a previous owner because it ties to Ford's particular grouping of this type of product as well as still linking directly to Ford, a better known brand than Jaguar or Tata.
If what I have done is not recognised to be an improvement can we first discuss more amendments to it here?
Why is it the upper info box refuses to show the listed subsidiaries? Can it be fixed - Please! Eddaido ( talk) 03:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks DeFacto for making the subsidiaries show. Is it correct that the subject of this article is "defunct"? Eddaido ( talk) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
02954323 DAIMLER LIMITED
05381148 DAIMLER & LANCHESTER LIMITED
01354709 DAIMLER AND LANCHESTER OWNERS' CLUB LIMITED(THE)
03323663 DAIMLER ESTATES LTD
03180691 DAIMLER FINANCIAL SERVICES UK (TRUSTEES) LIMITED
02556005 DAIMLER FLEETBOARD UK LIMITED
03534682 DAIMLER FLEET MANAGEMENT UK LIMITED
05379712 DAIMLER GREEN CARE HOME LIMITED
05586393 DAIMLER GREEN COMMUNITY RECREATION TRUST LIMITED
00268439 DAIMLER HIRE LIMITED
03232980 D DAIMLER HIRE LIMOUSINE SERVICE LIMITED Dissolved
03510012 DAIMLER INSURANCE SERVICES UK LIMITED
00112569 THE DAIMLER MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED
05207700 DAIMLER SQUARE (COVENTRY) MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED
00322903 DAIMLER TRANSPORT VEHICLES LTD
01140745 DAIMLER UK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
05328119 D DAIMLER UK FINANCE LIMITED Dissolved
04293667 DAIMLER UK SHARE TRUSTEE LIMITED
01630664 DAIMLER UK TRUSTEES LIMITED
RGCorris ( talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Copy and paste from Companies House website, 22 March 2011. data available free of charge. my notes in italics:
Name & Registered Office:
'THE DAIMLER MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED'
ABBEY ROAD
WHITLEY
COVENTRY
CV3 4LF
Company No. 00112569
'Status: Active'
Date of Incorporation: 07/11/1910 [refer: Motor Trade Amalgamation. The Times, Monday, Sep 26, 1910; pg. 6; Issue 39387]
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7499 - Non-trading company
Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/12/2009 (DORMANT) [but Active - see above???]
Next Accounts Due: 31/12/2011
Last Return Made Up To: 01/05/2010
Next Return Due: 29/05/2011
Last Members List: 01/05/2010
Previous Names:
Date of change Previous Name
20/12/1988 DAIMLER COMPANY LIMITED(THE) [a technicality about the The?]
03/01/1996 T.C. LAVIN LIMITED [???]
Best I leave it to someone else to interpret this. Best, Eddaido ( talk) 23:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Eddaido, earlier you restored BMC as a previous owner of the Daimler brand. According to the BMC and BMH articles, BMH was formed by the merger of Jaguar Cars (at the time the owners of the Daimler brand) and BMC. That would suggest that BMC never owned the Daimler brand, but that it was brought into the newly formed BMH company by Jaguar. Do you have information or reliable sources to support the view that BMC did own the brand before BMH was created? -- de Facto ( talk). 20:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It's very clear to me that Eddaido is wholly good faith and very committed to improving this article but I must say that I do find their reverting style somewhat frustrating.
There are a few issues here. Even though the Daimler Motor Company technically still exists as a company registered at Companies House, it is clear that the company does not trade, does not form a subsidiary of Tata Motors or Jaguar Land Rover with its own mangement etc, and does not own any assets. Daimler is now a brand owned by Tata, but that it not the same as Daimler forming a division, subsidiary or business unit of any kind within Tata. It currently does not, so far as I am aware, even have any products.
Beyond this there is a broader need for a clear distinction to be made in the article between the original company, which once owned its own assets, traded and owned the Daimler marque, with the Daimler marque itself. The current lead completely fails to address this. I feel that the issue would be best addressed through a split into two articles, one for the Daimler Motor Company which ended in 1910, with the end of the company's indepedence, and another for the Daimler marque under all owners. The current lead is simply not right though.
Marque is a very commonly used name for an automotive brand, including in Wikipedia. I am puzzled at to why this has been reverted back to brand. Rangoon11 ( talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Having gone through this incredibly stuffy yet not very formal article, and having found an automatic peer review program (West Indian convention: English spelling of "programme" used except when referring to computer programs, where the American spelling is used), I ran the article through the program and got this:
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. [?]
- Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions. [?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 litre, use 5 litre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 litre. [?]- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb. [?]
- Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style. [?]
- This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. [?]
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), counsellor (B) (American: counselor), programme (B) (American: program ).
- Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
Allpigs are pink, so we thought ofa number ofways to turn them green.”- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
I hope editors of this article will find this information useful.
Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 13:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Daimler DS420.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Daimler DS420.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
"...though it is currently marked 'non-trading'."
Could it be that it is marked "non-trading" because its shares are not being traded?
Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 16:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In the article, it is claimed that the list of cars given in Rolls-Royce Phantom IV#List of the 18 units "shows where what should have been Daimler repeat-orders went to." To an extent this might be true, since Daimler held the Royal Warrant to supply the British Monarchy, and the Aga Khan and the Spanish Monarchy had also bought Daimlers (although Alfonso XIII of Spain was a car enthusiast and had several cars, including Hispano-Suizas), but nowhere in the article does it state that any of the Royal Families of Iran (purchasers of 4AF6 and 4CS6), Iraq (purchasers of 4BP1, 4BP3), Saudi Arabia (purchasers of 4AF22), or Kuwait (purchasers of 4AF8, 4CS2, and 4CS4) had ever bought a Daimler. It also does not state in the article that Francisco Franco (purchaser of 4AF14, 4AF16, and 4AF18), or anyone else in power during Spain's interregnum, had ever ordered cars from Daimler. With no mention, much less evidence, that any of these had ever bought Daimlers before, and with 4AF4 used internally by Rolls-Royce and 4AF12 going to Rolls-Royce director Ernest Hives, only six of the eighteen Phantom IVs built can be said to go to ex-Daimler customers. The idea that the list of Phantom IV is a list of ex-Daimler customers is therefore invalid and the statement of that idea shall be removed from the article again. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 13:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Blue Clover and Golden Zebra are featured in the article. Are the whereabouts of her other Daimlers known? -- 76.115.67.114 ( talk) 05:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems (and I may be wrong) that since 2008 what were formerly Mercedes-Benz trucks are now in USA sold under the brand name Daimler.
This suggests that (in spite of other announcements which would seem to rule it out) Ford sold Daimler AG (and not Tata) certain rights to the Daimler name previously owned by Jaguar. Can anyone show mention of or speculation about these arrangements in print? Eddaido ( talk) 10:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Daimler Company's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "BES":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned this section has no references:
It sounds a bit...odd. Is this a very well disguised attempt at vandalism or was this report actually made? Any references? Mongoosander ( talk) 21:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've heard Daimler in 1946 introduced the first electric side windows in cars--except, I can't find which Daimler. Anybody know? Trekphiler 10:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! You're right, of course, it was the 1946 Daimler Thirty-Six DE 36. CyanIsland ( talk) 14:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The article suggests that acquiring Browns Lane was one of the reasons for Jaguar taking over Daimler. However I believe that Jaguar had had the use of Browns lane since the early 1950s and it was the Radford plant that they wanted for expansion in 1960, which was then Daimler's primary manufacturing base. RGCorris ( talk) 11:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I hereby propose the following structure for the article:
1. Lead section, to be constructed as per WP:LEAD at the end of the restructuring, to summarize the article.
2. "Origin", regarding the foundations built by F. R. Simms
3. Section on the history of the Daimler Motor Company from 1896 to 1910 (how can this section be titled without including the word "Daimler" in the section title?)
4. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under BSA from 1910 to 1960, with subsections about (a) World War I, (b) the inter-war period, (c) World War II, (d) the postwar Docker era, and (e) the Sangster/Turner years.
5. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under Jaguar Cars from 1960 to 1966
6. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under BMH from 1966-1968 and under British Leyland and its successors from 1968 to 1984
7. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under Jaguar Cars from 1984 to 1989, including the renaming to Daimler Motor Company that allegedly took place in December 1988 (any sources to be cited, anyone?)
8. Section on the history of the Daimler Motor Company under the Ford Motor Company from 1989 to 2008, including the revival model proposed under Ford ownership
9. Section on the history of the Daimler Motor Company under the Tata Motor Company from 2008 to the present, including the revival model proposed under Tata ownership
10. "Other concerns of similar name", basically as it exists at this time, except later in the article
11. Section on the details of the Royal Warrant, how it was obtained, maintained, and lost
12. "Current status"
13. "List of Daimler cars"
...closing with the usual last sections as per WP:FOOTERS
Any objections?
Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 18:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed this crazy bit among the references as I flashed past.
*The Electrical Journal (D. B. Adams) 29: 438 http://books.google.com.jm/books?ei=IFHBUZvZKYP48wT_l4D4BQ&id=ymZOAQAAIAAJ&dq=Pears+electric+motor+%22eel+pie+island%22&q=Pears+%22eel+pie+island%22#search_anchor |url= missing title (help). Retrieved 2013-06-19. "THAMES ELECTRIC AND STEAM LAUNCH COMPANY—Mr. Andrew Pears has taken over the Electric and Steam Launch Buildings and Public Charging Station, now in course of construction upon Eel Pie Island, Twickenham, formerly the property of Mr. W. S. Sargeant, of Strand-on-the-Green, Chiswick and Twickenham, and the firm in future will be worked as the "Thames Electric and Steam Launch Company"."*The Electrical Review (Electrical review) 36: 714. 1895 http://books.google.com.jm/books?id=p-VQAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Thames+Electric+and+Steam+Launch+Company%22+Pears&dq=%22Thames+Electric+and+Steam+Launch+Company%22+Pears&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xFTBUY-sLInU8wSPpICwBw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA |url= missing title (help). Retrieved 2013-06-19. "Business Announcement, — A circular signed "Andrew Pears " states that from June 1st the works of the Thames Electric and Steam Launch Company, of Twickenham, are under new management, and all communications should be addressed to the company and not to employis (sic)."
It would be best if the reference to the works there was simply reverted to what I originally wrote. Subsequent editors are, of course, quite unaware that Mr Andrew Pears was just the enormously rich owner of Pears Soap though it has been pointed out by me a number of times but disregarded. Eddaido ( talk) 06:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of these have since been corrected, but...
This is not the end. This is not even the end of the beginning. There is just so much to plough through!
Смерть Интернет тролли! Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 04:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The peer reviewer program, which might be going away in September, now has this to say about this article:
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 Litre, use 5 Litre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 Litre. [?]As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day. [?]The last remaining use of "th" in a date is in a quote, which should not be altered to match the MoS. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)- Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style. [?]
- This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. [?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- it has been
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, pleaseWeasel words removed. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)strikethis comment). [?]Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).This one was my fault, and I have corrected it. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
I will look into these suggestions next. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 17:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I hereby propose that we archive the talk page. I further propose that we use an automated archiving system similar to the one in use at Talk:Straight-twin engine. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daimler Company. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As with the Jaguar Cars article, I've tried to align the brand ownership content (prose and infobox) with what I have been able to glean from the UK trademark registry. The records are very complete for Daimler, so some interpolation based on what I found out about Jaguar might have crept in, but that website is surely the most reliable source available for this information. Any ideas about how this information might be improved upon and made more accurate or reflective of the reality would be appreciated. -- DeFacto ( talk). 23:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I've tried to rationalise the categories applied to the article. Because this company no longer trades as a car producer, I moved all the categories used for car producing companies to Category:Daimler (this article is in that category, so it still inherits all of those categories) and kept only the categories applicable to a car marque. Please discuss if you disagree with this approach, as I am not completely confident that my reasoning is sound! -- DeFacto ( talk). 23:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Eddaido: a hatnote is not a place to explain complex company histories; articles and disambiguation pages are. Please have a look at
WP:1HAT. The main question to consider when adding hatnotes is: how likely is it that readers searching for other Daimler-related articles will end up here by mistake? Arguably, not very likely, since both
Daimler and the more common
Daimler-Benz already take you to the relevant pages.
Chances are that readers landing on
Daimler Company did indeed want to read this article, and having to go through a three-line hatnote simply to learn that they have found the right article is a waste of their time. Check out the hatnote at
Daimler-Benz; that's how a sensible hatnote would be. --
Deeday-UK (
talk)
12:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
No, Eddaido, I won't leave this article alone because I want to improve it. But you were right: the cut I first proposed was a bit too drastic. Now the hatnote contains all the main Daimler-related links, but in a concise form (and consistent with the hatnotes at Daimler-Benz and Daimler AG), while in the opening lines it is immediately clarified the relationship between The Daimler Company, Gottlieb Daimler and the German businesses. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 17:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Deeday-UK: Entirely from my memory. A boy grew up in Germany. his name was something like Demler. He became a good engineer, he changed his name to Daimler. It was unique, no-one else anywhere used that name. He was a very good engineer and not interested enough in money and stuff like that. He let other people use his name, Daimler, when they were involved in business with him. After a time they all got worried about the use of his name and they settled it this way:
Daimler Motors Company merged with Benz and they named themselves Daimler-Benz and made Mercedes-Benz products
Tata An Indian company, distributor of Mercedes-Benz in their part of the world bought Jaguar (and Daimler Company) from Ford and sold Daimler-Benz some of the rights to the use of the name Daimler. We don't know exactly what or how much or anything.
Does this make it clearer? Its just on 3 am here. Eddaido ( talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Deeday-UK: While I wind down. What's RFC is it a flying corps, royal? Eddaido ( talk) 14:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Eddaido: [2] There does seem to be some serious issues with the hatnote and misleading to readers with no prior knowledge on the subject, but correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation. As it stands:
1. Isn't Austro-Damiler older than Daimler-Benz, so isn't it better to list it before the latter?
2. It mentions "Daimler's original enterprise" but doesn't specify what that is (i.e. DMG) which makes the reader assume it's the one we are reading right here (i.e. Daimler Company Ltd, UK).
3. The hatnote begins with "Daimler brand and its owner the British automobile manufacturer" but this is also misleading because the 'Daimler brand' name is separately owned by both Daimler Company (Jaguar) and by Daimler AG, that's something even mentioned in the footnote in the latter's article.
Welcome to hearing your thoughts. DA1 ( talk) 16:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Watching ! Cheers, Eddaido ( talk) 13:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, we need to put some clarity here. Let's start with what a dab hatnote on this article should achieve. It should:
Instead, what a hatnote should not attempt to do is:
So this could be a good start, for example:
-- Deeday-UK ( talk) 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Eddaido ( talk) 23:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The link in the first line of this article: "For the disambiguation of other Daimlers, see Daimler..." actually links to a disambiguation of "see", not "daimler". I would make this correcting edit myself, but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.88.129 ( talk) 22:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I re-hashed the following from 63.159.194.142
Does anyone know if Jaguar (Ford) are still using "Daimler"?
Also - History of German daimler anyone? - British bus info? The logo's the same as the Jaguars, but I know no more. Andy G 19:38, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I will mark this page as an {auto-stub} because it does not help avoid confusion. Except their inception, there is nothing in common between German Daimler company, founded by Gottlieb Daimler in 1890 (sometimes called Canstatt-Daimler) and the British Daimler company (founded by British importer of German cars, H. J. Lawson of Coventry in 1896 using Daimler's name by permission of the German firm). First British Daimler cars were based on the contemporary French Panhard and were not influenced by the German Daimler firm which made the immortal Mercedes. By the way, German Daimler stopped manufacturing cars in 1902. Afterwards, Austro-Daimler of Austria was run by Gottlieb Daimler's son, Paul. So, the further histories of the German, Austrian and British Daimler firms are not connected at all. I propose to make a "diasmbiguation page to reveal what I have told before. What do you think?
-- Millisits 15:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)