Talk:Daimler Motor Company

I re-hashed the following from 63.159.194.142

One of the confusing things about the modern car industry is that the corporate name "Daimler" is attached to Chrysler, while Ford, which owns Jaguar, has the right to call a car "Daimler". Perhaps it's time to bury the name entirely, with Jaguar to come up with some suitably meaningless initials to denote a top model, and DaimlerChrysler to become simply "Chrysler".

Does anyone know if Jaguar (Ford) are still using "Daimler"?

Yes, it is mentioned quite a bit on their web site.--SFoskett 02:27, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

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)

Go ahead but don't destroy any information (unless you can show it's false) Andy G 17:52, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Additions/revisions to the Daimler article

I have made a number of additions and corrections to the Daimler page. I have solely been preoccupied by the British version of Daimler.

Indeed, in North America Daimler and Daimler-Chrysler are equated by 99.9% of people as being one and the same.

I had to go through detailed and repeated explanations on how these were unrelated Marques to every single individual I dealt with at U-Haul (to rent a trailer to transport a Daimler), my insurer, both US and Canadian Customs, the DMV,... and whenever I drive around in my classic Daimler, people keep asking what it is and when I answer "Daimler", I have to go through the same explanation all over again...

JPE July 5, 2005

Just made a minor correction to the Daimler page. It stated that the Queen Mother's funeral was with a Daimler DS420 hearse. It was a Daimler indeed, but not a DS420. I am certain about this because I am a DS420 freak (I run the Daimler DS420 site) and watched the funeral on TV (April 9, 2002) especially to see this. B.t.w.: the same was true for Princess Margaret (Feb 15, 2002).

hjt@ATComputing.nl August 17, 2005

Daimler Corsica

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)

Body electric

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)

More trivia/content

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)

Incorrect?

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).

What is this, please?

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)

Daimler Super Eight

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)

Infoboxes

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)

This article primarily covers the Daimler Motor Company. That company is defunct - according to the article it merged into BSA in 1910. The marque still exists, being owned by Jaguar Cars, and that is also covered by the article. -- de Facto (talk). 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the discussion page at last. The company is clearly not defunct. It would appear that every so often it makes a little more product to keep its extremely valuable rights to the Daimler name alive.

It is the Daimler Motor Company (the primary subject of this article) that is defunct. It ceased trading as a separate entity many years ago. However, the Daimler brand has lived on, owned by Jaguar, and used as a badge until quite recently on limited ranges of Jaguar-built cars. -- de Facto (talk). 22:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The available evidence would suggest quite different. Why do you think the company has become defunct? Eddaido (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What available evidence? If you have reliably sourced data showing that the Daimler Motor Company still trades then please provide it, or update the article citing it. -- de Facto (talk). 23:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I only update references (by adding the newspaper's headlines) to make them easier for hasty casual readers to follow. I don't mind if they are all moved to the end of the sentence. "The company is clearly not defunct. It would appear that every so often it makes a little more product to keep its extremely valuable rights to the Daimler name alive." (from above) I think we may be discussing a readily ascertainable fact. I would put money on it (five USD by Paypal, you can respond with 64 USD if you wish) that a quick online search of (UK) companies records will show that in order to protect its ownership of that very valuable brand name a company prob called The Daimler Company Limited is alive and well with currently filed records of all its annual accounts and minutes of meetings and showing that its taxes are paid etc etc and so forth. Unfortunately I am not in a position to make that quick online search. Are you? Eddaido (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Eddaido, I'm not interested in playing games, just in getting the facts correct. In the absence of new data I'm happy with the status quo - if you have new information please use it and reference it and I'll support you. Remember there are two sides to this article: a) the company, b) the brand. -- de Facto (talk). 09:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an extract from the Companies House register, giving all companies whose name starts with the word Daimler. It suggests that the original Daimler Motor Company is still extant, presumably as a dormant shell; although it is possible that the name has been revived for a new company rather than remained in existence continually.

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)

re Origin. The template shows origin immediately after the name of the owner. It is not made clear in the template instructions as to which origin is being referred to, product/owner. Can you point to anything that makes it clear? We'll come back to the 'merged' note later. Thanks. Eddaido (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As I put in the comment to my edit, the 'origin' field is described in the template:infobox brand as for the country of origin - that seems clear to me. -- de Facto (talk). 22:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the communications difficulties. I realise perfectly well that is your own interpretation. All I ask for is some back-up for your personal interpretation in the notes to the template. Are you unable to provide that? Eddaido (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

All I have is the line: 'origin: Country of origin' in the documentation of the template parameters. I suppose you could argue that it originated in Germany, but I'm struggling to see why you chose India. -- de Facto (talk). 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. The line immediately above says 'owner', so I assume 'origin: Country of origin' relates to the owner (of the business). You believe country of origin relates to the product - if so why is the line above described as 'owner' (of the maker of the product, not of the product). The corporate entity that now owns the business is Indian and based in India. How did Germany get in to this!! Eddaido (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The infobox in question is the one relating to the brand (not any business or owner of any business or any particular product). With that in mind, the infoxbox parameters logically apply to the brand (and not to the current owner of the brand). So, 'origin' (described as 'Country of origin') logically implies country of origin of the brand - and not of the current owner of that brand. According to the article the company originated in the UK, but it was created to use the Daimler brand name bought in from Germany. -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Was the Daimler marque ever owned by BMC?

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)

Defacto. Are those articles correct? I don't think so. Please see the references in the Daimler article. Eddaido (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

One other thing, isn't the word "marque" just a little, er, affected? it simply means brand. Eddaido (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Eddaido, which reference(s) in particular should I read? Marque is the word traditionally used for a car, err, brand, yes. ;-) -- de Facto (talk). 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So "Traditional" it reads as being quite strange. Why use it?

If you check with the index for the article you will see a paragraph that begins BMC, BMH and there you will find the two references concerned to the announcements of the two separate events.

Any thoughts about a reply to my above questions? cheers, Eddaido (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference pointers. However, I don't see anything there that contradicts what the BMC and BMH articles say. The Times of 12th July 1966 says Jaguar and BMC are to merge to form a new group, and The Times of 15th December 1966 confirms the creation of BMH as a merger of Jaguar and BMC. There is nothing there to say that BMC ever owned the Daimler brand. -- de Facto (talk). 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is there—more clearly now if you do not have easy access to old newspapers. Consequential notes made by me on articles for BMC and BMH just before I came back to look here. Eddaido (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Times articles you cite give very tenuous support to the assertion that BMC ever owned the Daimler brand. There are actually two articles in the Times of 12th July 1966 about the merger. The first - the one you cite - states that the two companies (BMC and Jaguar) are (future tense) to merge, but that technically BMC will takeover Jaguar. The second article, which follows on the same page, says that although it is, financially speaking, a takeover, that the intention is to create a new single group (to be called BMH) to hold both Jaguar and BMC (and its subsidiary PSF). The second cited Times article (14th Sep 1966) describes the response of the Jaguar shareholders to the deal - 90% of them have accepted the terms. The third cited Times article (15th Dec 1966) confirmed that the new holding company (BMH) had been created on 14th Dec 1966 to incorporate Jaguar, BMC and PSF. What still isn't clear is the date that BMC took ownership of the Daimler brand. Do you have knowledge of anymore evidence or data that might clarify that? -- de Facto (talk). 10:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You have misread some of those press statements if you think you have written an accurate description of them above here. There is simply no reason to ask the questions you put. Go back and read it again. Eddaido (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge BMC never actually owned the Daimler name. Jaguar bought the car assets of BSA including Daimler in June 1960. In 1966 Jaguar and BMC merged to form BMH. Surely there was never a point in this chain of mergers when Daimler came under BMC control? Malcolma (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Then there is something really wrong in my logic - you had better explain it to me, slowly. In 1960 Jaguar buys Daimler. In 1966 BMC buys Jaguar. Has not BMC bought Daimler along with Jaguar?? Eddaido (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends whether the ownership of Jaguar passed to BMC before the creation of BMH, or whether the two companies continued to exist as legally separate entities until they both passed into the ownership of BMH. The newspaper articles quoted do not clarify which scenario occurred as it wasn't really very important except to pedants. The latter seems more likely but unless you have access to the shareholders register to see which company the Jaguar shares were transferred to it is difficult to be certain either way RGCorris (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Most towns have public libraries. Most public libraries give their members online access to The Times from home for no charge. If people are unhappy with my statements please don't just tell me, just go and find out for yourself - it is So easy. By the way the difference between BMC and BMH is just the exchange of the word Holdings for the word Corporation in the name. That is all. But I might be wrong mightn't I so please don't just tell me you don't believe me and instead go find out for yourself - it is So easy. (getting irritable) Eddaido (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Very Sorry, must have had a blood tsunami. Didn't notice the long list of Daimler companies above so Big Thank You RGC. I take it your suggestion is that it is possible BMC may have just held all the acceptances by Jag shareholders until they had changed the name of BMC to BMH, fair enough though once past 50% shareholding they would be in control wouldn't they. I must say that what I write should be viewed in the same way as anything I write about computers, use of a technical word or phrase does not mean I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Is this discussion over? Are consequential amendments needed to articles? Should The Daimler Motor Company article now be freed of its defunct infobox? I await all yours, no, I mean wait on each of you, with great interest. Eddaido (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the issue perhaps one of perceived ownership—I mean exerting control—rather than technical ownership by BMC/H? Is it possible that in practice BMH's board believed it wisest to use no financial influence over an independent-minded Jaguar until William Lyons retired in late 1967 (or 1972)? At this era Jaguar slowing? Mk X slow-seller, XJ in expensive? gestation. Eddaido (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Eddaido regarding ownership, marque etc

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)

re peer review. I'm very pleased to have some discussion about my edits, otherwise its lonely and errors creep in, occasionally—but rarely—deliberate minor ones in the hope of raising some discussion, not that it always works very well(!)

Marque: is an old-fashioned term apparently resurrected by some. If you look at the Lagonda page where it is noted that their PR people have made some recent releases, one would imagine those PR people would impress the brand's 'heritage' on their Russian? Francophone? potential customers by using that word. They do not. They use the word brand because that is the word used for the purpose by all the literature about the intent and value of branding, famous brands etc etc and so forth.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe all Chrysler RHD vehicles are put together by a company in Austria which is not a subsidiary of Chrysler. Are you telling me that Chrysler in relation to those vehicles is not the manufacturer? (The various bits may well be gathered together from many strange parts of the (non-Chrysler) world, I gather the tsunami etc in Japan has slowed up a lot of unexpected businesses). What do you believe is meant by 'a company'? I won't give here an essay on corporate structures and the various legalities concerned (not to mention 'ownership') but ask you to clarify your own thoughts with someone you feel is knowledgeable on that subject. It seems to me more and more clear that The Daimler Motor Company Limited remains in existence simply to protect its most valuable asset, its name. Occasionally it makes a little more product so no-one can say in truth it is no more than a file in Companies House. It is in an extraordinary situation, I mean beyond the ordinary. A few Saturday's ago with a question about the use of the name Sovereign I phoned the local Jaguar main dealer and was passed by stages to the (elderly) national distributor principal. I mentioned it had been a Daimler name and he responded with "and there may be a new Daimler very soon". I assume (perhaps wrongly. I acknowledge) that as in the past once production of a new model Jaguar has settled they will bring out a Daimler version of the XJ351.

Your new issue described by you as The Daimler Motor Company ended in 1910 floors me and I have to refer back to my comment about corporate structures, same with their relationship to Tata Group. Ask someone you regard as knowledgeable to explain to you. Do you realise that if you say Daimler disappeared in 1910 then Jaguar disappeared in the 1960s? and now you would say they are made by an Indian company called Tata Group.

Please refer to the second listing above from Companies House records dated 21 March 2011 where it seems you missed the opportunity to discuss this issue. I waited one week before taking action. Eddaido (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Re 'marque' as a suitable word, it is used widely on Wikipedia e.g. Land Rover, MG Cars, Mini (marque), Mercury (automobile), Saturn Corporation and elsewhere [1]. It is not an archaic word but one in very wide common useage and its use is not one of pretentiousness but precision, as it means a brand in a highly specific sense, a top level automotive brand. Its use here is therefore absolutely correct.

The company/manufacturer issue in my view is as follows. A company can of course be owned by another company. If a company is acquired by another company it may be completely merged into the acquirer, and be formally de-registered, or it may continue as a legal entity within the new parent, but it is then best described as a subsidiary.

The nature of that subsidiary can change over time however. It may be retained as a registered entity, perhaps simply to stop the name being used by someone else, but become an asset-less legal shell with no operations and no income. It seems that the Daimler Company has remained registered at Companies House for this reason. It is clear that there is currently no Daimler division within Jaguar Land Rover or Tata Motors, and that there is no Daimler management, factory, R&D facility, or even web site. In order for Daimler to be properly called a manufacturer I belive that it would need, at minimum, to be a clear division within Jaguar Land Rover or Tata Motors, with its own management, personnel, accounting processes etc. Skoda, SEAT, Bentley and Audi all have this status with the VW Group, and can be therefore, in my view, be described as both manufacturers and marques. This does not mean that all of their products must be made in plants owned and managed by those respective divisions, but they are clearly more than just badges attached to products.

Daimler has, at least for the last three decades, been just a brand attached to Jaguar products, without its own R&D, engines, bodyshells etc. There was no Daimler division under Ford ownership. Daimler is, without doubt, a marque, and hopefully there will be new Daimler products in the near future. It could well be that Tata does decide to create a Daimler division at some point, and it may even use the currently dormant Daimler company as the legal entity for the division, but that is definitely not the current situation.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the 1910 date, I should add that I accept that that was the wrong date to propose for an article split, as it is clear that for numerous decades after that date Daimler Motor Company did remain a clear operating entity - as opposed to purely a legal entity - within its various owners. That situation had clearly ended by the time of Ford ownership however. Creating an article about the marque, rather than a specific legal entity, avoids such complexities. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If you change the last word of your first paragraph from correct to precious I can agree with the whole statement. What does proselytising mean?

I had hoped you might find out by discussing it with someone else just what it is you mean when you use the word company. Two's company and those two-and-a-bit words hold the core concept, the meaning of company don't they. This, it seems, is important to you. Perhaps you could transfer your particular worries to Wikiproject Automobiles and get a consensus there. And of course there are your problems with Aston Martin Lagonda Limited. Then we can come back to the facts of these particular cases which I see are available to the general public at just £1 a time. You might also like to look at the last page of this Daimler brochure: http://www.keycast.com/med/usr/312/eBrochure_UK_200506pdf718381.pdf Can anyone else clear up your concerns for you? Eddaido (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the use of 'marque' it seems that we will have to agree to differ, and either await others joining this discussion, seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion, or as you suggest go to Wikiproject Automobiles (although so far as I understand that project is not able to set binding policy in respect of a content issue such as this for this article or any other). It is nonethless clear that the word marque is widely used both in Wikipedia and in the wider world.

The use of the division wording in the Daimler brochure which you have provided a link to above is, I concede, an interesting find. I strongly suspect that the word division was being used in an exceptionally loose manner. Was there a Daimler building, a separate Daimler management, Daimler accounts or dedicated Daimler employees under Ford? We know that the product itself was little more than a tweaked Jaguar. An analogy can be drawn with Mercedes-AMG, which also 'tweaks' products rather than producing its own, but which has a clear set of dedicated employees, a management structure, buildings, its own accounting processes etc. Was Daimler really like this under Ford? Or was it essentially just the same employees who produced the Jaguar XJ conducting a badge-engineering exercise? It is certainly clear from the royal by appointment that this is to Jaguar Cars Limited as manufacturer of Daimler and Jaguar Cars, and not to Daimler Motor Company as manufacturer of Daimler Cars. Vauxhall Motors, wholly owned by General Motors, has its own Royal Warrant, as does Bentley Motors despite being owned by VW. Ditto Land Rover under its various owners. The relevance being that Royal Warrants are awarded to companies (even when those companies are subsidiaries of other companies), but not to mere brands.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As with any word the use of Marque is a matter of taste. To me it is for expensive open two-seaters without weather protection made in the 1920s and 1930s, names like Alfa and Bentley spring to mind and breeding and pur sang and Standard Swallows were certainly not a marque and men like Terry-Thomas's characters used marque when discussing their cars British motor industry 1969 view. Of course almost everything changes as time passes.

I suspect the current monarch has more than one car, have a look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s9vohRLpm4 I think that's a Jaguar. And then of course numerous functionaries will need vehicles. Eddaido (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the slight delay in replying. Thanks for the Terry-Thomas clip which I enjoyed. I expect re the attitudes to the word 'marque' that it could in part be a generational thing, for me the word doesn't really have those associations - in fact it seems like more of an Americanism if anything - but I can see where you are coming from, although I still think that it is preferable to brand in this specific context. In the second clip I believe that the Queen is driving a X-Type estate, not one of Jaguar's finest hours but at least they were made in the UK.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviewer program results

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.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this 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), 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, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways 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)

File:Daimler DS420.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. 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)

Lady Docker's Daimlers

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)