Talk:Jaguar Cars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Logo

Jaguar F-TYPE 12V Kids Ride On Battery Powered Wheels Car with 2.4GHz RC   Remote, Red: http://kidstoys.cloudaccess.host/product/12v-kids-ride-on/ 

As of March 2012 Jaguar has a new logo: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/jaguar.php Can someone Please update the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.238.36 (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This really needs to be changed, the new logo has been in effect for a long time now and can be seen directly on Jaguar's homepage www.jaguar.com. --95.128.8.186 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Browns Lane

The article states:
"Jaguar Cars Limited is a luxury car manufacturer, originally based at Browns Lane, Coventry". As SS cars became Jaguar cars in 1945 and the Wiki article on Browns Lane states that it was home to Jaguar from 1951 what's happened to the 6 years? Wasn't Jaguar Cars originally based at Swallow Lane (home of Swallow Cars), Hollbrooks, Coventry?
LewisR 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

XJ Picture

I feel that the XJs are the most "typical" and easy to spot Jaguars. It would seem nicer to have one of those in the pictures. --blades 00:39, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Too many pictures!

As it is, the page is jam-packed with images, and it makes the page look crowded and difficult to read. I suggest that either some of the images be removed from this page or that they be placed on the page in a manner that is more visually friendly. --Jagvar Mar 30, 2005

Keep the pictures, even add more, I don't see the issue with it being jam-packed with images or difficult to read ... but as you say, they it could be redesigned to be more visually friendly. Mar 31, 2005

Done (I've made a gallery) - Adrian Pingstone 16:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea that gallery, Adrian, getting there. I've got more pics, wondering whether to add them. --Solander Apr 01 2005

Please do. Thanks for the compliment - Adrian Pingstone 07:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

S-type picture

The caption to this picture should be amended (for instance with a year of manufacture) to clarify that it's the current S-type, not the original S-type. rossb 15:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bad links

I noticed that the URLs for Jaguar car models goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar which is the link to "Jaguar" the animal. This should be fixed but I don't know where it should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrian (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Jaguar Stype front.JPG

One image in this article (Image:Jaguar Stype front.JPG) does not currently have any source or copyright information - and so it can now be deleted. I've looked around on google images for the original but can't source it. Does anyone here know where its from or have a free replacement image they could upload? Cheers Agnte 07:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

Timeline is missing the midsize 420 Compact 1966-68 if someone wants to do. I notice the very early cars have been removed from the timeline too, eg SS1 and Jaguar SS100. There were links to pictures which are now broken. I know they are pre Jaguar naming but I think they should be present. Solander 20 November 2005, 13:40 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi, I have created a userbox for Jaguar fans. The mark-up is "User Jaguar fan." See the userbox below:

This user is a Jaguar enthusiast.

Thanks for contributing, Signature^brendel 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Templates

The bottom of this page is now suffering from serious template overload. JW 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You'd think an article about a British car compnay could use English(UK) as opposed English(US). For Example, Jaguar produces saloon and estate cars rather than sedans and wagons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.33.246 (talk • contribs) 19:58, September 4, 2006.

Well, it's just one section, in a part of the article which deals with the US market, and was only edited a couple of weeks ago. Otherwise it's all British litres, saloons and so on. Someone will be along to revert it soon, I'm sure. --DeLarge 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Aluminium/Steel production

I've slightly altered the line that said that the aluminium vehicles are made at Castle Bromwich and the steel at Halewood. S-Type is steel and is made at Castle Bromwich, so doesn't fit the rule. I've intead explicity listed the production site of each model.

The only Jaguar, ASAIK, made in Halewood is the X-Type. All others being made in Castle Brom.
LewisR 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is already stated in the article.

Reliability Issues Under Ford Ownership

At the top of the article, in the introduction, it states that reliability, always Jaguar's nemesis, has got worse under Ford ownership. Which is false, frankly. So, I've changed that to 'improved dramatically', and have added a few supporting figures there.

Good. That is, indeed, correct. Under Ford, Jaguar had access to Ford's quality control processes and had the clout with suppliers to deliver quality components (eg "Supply us with ABS units or Ford will stop buying 400000-odd units a year from you") —Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisR (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

More Jaguar Userboxes

• For fellow Jaguar lovers, here are two more userboxes you might wish to use. Note: the image is a Creative Commons photo of the Jaguar animal, not the Jaguar automobile trademark. JGHowes ^talk - 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is the proud owner of a Jaguar V-12 XJS   User:JGHowes/Userbox/JaguarXJS	This user drives a Jaguar car User:JGHowes/Userbox/Jaguar

Jaguar owners, I need to hear from you!

Hello, my mom and I are considering purchasing a Jaguar for our next car. (I have a Hyundai Accent and she has a BMW.) We've never owned one before and we have heard Consumer Reports state that they aren't exactly the most reliable cars around. But I'd like to hear from someone whom actually owns one rather than a biased magazine. So how reliable are they? Do they handle cold weather and ice well? How about hot weather? (We live in Indiana, and it can snow and be 80 degrees three days later.) Do they get good milage? Anything and everything will be helpful! Thank you so much! --Sharpay Evans 08:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please google your question or something, or maybe even a Jaguar dealer could tell you a thing or two about Jaguars (who knows?). This is an encyclopedia. 81.246.93.2 13:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jaguars in fiction and the media

Some of you may have noticed that I have nuked the absurdly large trivia (cough, "Jaguars in fiction and the media") section. What I should have done, according to WP:TRIV is move it here, so someone can sort the wheat from the chaff. So here it is!

Jaguar XK

Jaguar XK

• The Jaguar Mark 2 saloon gained a reputation as a getaway car among the British criminal fraternity in the 1960s. As a result, Mark 2s have featured in many British crime films, including Robbery, Get Carter and Mona Lisa, as well as in the popular television series The Sweeney. However, the best known fictional Mark 2 is probably the car driven by Inspector Morse in the British television series of the same name (also seen on PBS).
• Popular 1980s British television series Minder regularly saw character Arthur Daley initially driving a silver Jaguar XJ6 Series 2, then later a pale primrose Daimler Sovereign Series 3.
• Robert McCall (Edward Woodward) in the 1985-89 CBS TV series The Equalizer drove a black '85 Jaguar XJ6 with the licence plate "5809-AUG".
• British Prime-Minister Tony Blair is driven in a bottle-green Jaguar XJ8. His predecessor, John Major, used a modified XJ6. Blair's Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott gained the nickname "Two Jags" for his use of two Jaguars, one of his own and one supplied by the Government, when he was supposed to be promoting the use of public transport.
• Jaguar E-types are featured in the films The Italian Job, Robbery, The Odessa File, Brannigan, Silver Streak, 52 Pick-Up, Car Trouble and About Adam. An E-type also replaced Emma Peel's usual Lotus Elan for the 1998 film The Avengers. Harold, of Harold and Maude, had an E-type hearse.
• In the 1968 movie Danger: Diabolik, Diabolik drove a black E-type. His love interest, Eva, drove a white one.
• In the film "The usual suspects", Pete Postlethwaite drives a black Jaguar XJ saloon
• In the 1997 film L.A. Confidential Pierce Morehouse Patchett (David Strathairn) is shown to have a Jaguar XK120.
• In the 1980 film The Blues Brothers blonde model Twiggy is seen in a metallic gold E-type, from which she speaks to Elwood (Dan Aykroyd).
• Austin Powers drove a Union Flag-decorated E-type, calling it a Shaguar in Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.
• In Austin Powers in Goldmember, an XK cabrio painted in the same Union flag style as the E-type of the 1st movie. The car was driven by Tom Cruise spoofing Austin Powers.
• Mike Gambit in The New Avengers and Simon Templar in Return of the Saint, both had an XJ-S as their usual transport.
• The made-for-cable 1989 film The Heist (shown on HBO) featured two dark green Jaguar XJS coupes - they were used during a bait and switch scene where contraband was hidden in the trunk panel.
• The 1970s cross-country race comedy The Gumball Rally features a Jaguar E-Type that never leaves the starting line in New York due to electrical problems.
• Sting was ferried in an S-Type in the music video for his song Desert Rose. Because of this, the song has been used in past Jaguar commercials. While Jaguar does not use the song anymore, the song is still associated with the firm.
• The Jet Li movie Danny the Dog (AKA Unleashed) featured a Series 3 XJ, .
• The nickname for a Jaguar - "Jag" - is mentioned in many songs, such as Snoop Dogg's Riders On The Storm, Usher's Yeah and Lil' Flip's Rollin On 20's.
• In the song Jaguar and the Thunderbird, Chuck Berry describes a race between a "sky-blue Jaguar and Thunderbird Ford."
• 1950s Jaguar XK120s were used in the films The Green Man and Too Many Crooks, while XK150s were featured prominently in Play Misty for Me, To the Devil a Daughter and Blue Ice.
• Leonard Shelby, the main character of Memento (2000), drives a Jaguar XK throughout the film.
• The 2002 film Die Another Day of the James Bond series of movies featured a Jaguar XKR. The car was driven by the character Zao in some scenes of the movie, including a chase/battle against Bond's Aston Martin.
• In the movie Love Actually, The British Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) is driven around in a silver XJ.
• Angelina Jolie stole a silver XJ220 nicknamed "Bernadene" in the movie Gone in 60 Seconds. There was also an obscure XJ stolen by another character.
• A maroon XJ6 and a silver XK8 convertible were driven in The 51st State, also known as Formula 51.
• Halle Berry drove a red XK8 convertible in the movie Swordfish.
• In a scene of the film Election, Matthew Broderick fantasizes himself greeting everyone suavely while he is driving along a highway on the Italian coastline in a Jaguar.
• Ryan Phillippe can be seen driving a black XK140 roadster in the film Cruel Intentions. It is also at stake in a wager between his character and Sarah Michelle Gellar's .
• In the film Aldrich Ames; Traitor Within, Timothy Hutton purchases a Jaguar with the espionage profits he receives from the Soviets. The real Aldrich Ames had purchased a Jaguar with the money he made from spying; eventually drawing attention to himself as he could not afford one on his legal CIA salary.
• In the song "Call Me Lightning" by The Who, there is the line "my XKE is shining so brightly" (which mis-identifies the E-type). In their song "Jaguar," there is the line "Every lovely spot near or far,/ You can reach them too in your car,/ Or you might be there now if you own a jag already."
• In the song "Deadman's Curve" by Jan and Dean, the Corvette races an E-type (which is mis-identified as an XKE).
• On the British motoring show Top Gear, in the "Cheap Coupes that aren't Porsches" challenge, James May bought a "1000 year old antique" Jaguar XJS (for £1500 - approx $2500 US) which broke down all the time, probably due to going round the track at 140mph in the first test. Due to very good results in the first two challenges and a fixed engine in the endurance race, May won on points, but conceded the win to Clarkson, who would have won the challenge if he hadn't "ruined" his car. Top Gear also featured a stunt involving a XJS being driven at full speed over the lauch ramp on the Royal Navy carrier Ark Royal and into the sea.
• Most recently, many Jaguar XJs were featured in the James Bond film, Casino Royale. They were driven by the villains, but James Bond was chauffeured in a Mk IV.
• Sacha Baron Cohen was escorted in an X308 Vanden Plas in the film Ali G in da House.
• The eponymous characters of the 1987 British film Withnail and I drive from London to the countryside, and back, in a worn out, S-type, Jaguar.
• Angelina Jolie has an XJ220 in the film Tomb Raider.
• A left-hand drive German-registered XK150 featured in the 1974 film the Odessa File.
• A white Jaguar XJ featured in the promo video for Here I Go Again by rock band Whitesnake. In the video, Tawny Kitaen dressed in white is dancing seductivley on the bonnet of the car. At the time, she was lead singer David Coverdale's girlfriend. This was parodied in the video for '1985' by pop punk band Bowling for Soup. In the video, a mother longing for her youth dances on top of a white Jaguar XJS. The line 'she was going to shake her ass, on top of Whitesnake's car' relates to this parody.
• Rock star Pete Doherty has a fondness for Jaguar XJ's and has bought several. This has been mainly down to the fact that he has either crashed them or had them impounded.
• In the film Drop Dead Fred, Elizabeth's cheating husband works as a salesman at a Jaguar dealership.
• In Romy and Michele's High School Reunion, Romy works at a Jaguar dealership. She 'borrows' a XJS to make a grand impression at her high school reunion.
• Hannibal Lecter drove a Jaguar XJR.
• An XJ features in the promo video for 'Just Looking' by rock group The Stereophonics. In the video, the band drive it into a lake.
• In the film The Big Steal[1]]Ben Mendelsohn plays Danny Clark, a shy 18-year old who only wants two things out of life: to go out with Joanna (Claudia Karvan) and to own a Jaguar. When he is given the familys immaculate 1963 Nissan Cedric for his birthday he trades it for a 1973 Jaguar but crooked car dealer Gordon Farkes (Steve Bisley) switches engines on him. Danny and his friends help him steal back his engine.
• Forest Whitaker's character steals a red XJS in the film Ghost Dog.
• A 4.2 litre Mk.I Series III Jaguar XJ Sovereign is featured in the 2000 film Snatch., driven by Vinnie Jones's character 'Bullet Tooth' Tony. The car has the distinctive 'pepperpot' alloy wheels.

Lewis Collard 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jaguar logo caption

There is no need for a caption stating that the image of the logo is a logo. This is according to the WIKI caption policy. Showing the logo of the brand or the company is not an attempt at advertising. The notion of putting a caption stating that the logo is a logo will somehow reduce the effect of "advertising" is false. Showing the logo as part of a Wikipedia article is not advertising according to the definition of advertising --

"Advertising is paid and/or sometimes free communication through a medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled. ..."

Therefore, including a “fair use” image of the logo within a Wikipedia article about the item or organization identified with that particular logo does NOT make it advertising. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that no caption needed for company or product logos, where the logo is current, and the article is about the company or product. -- Thank you CZmarlin 07:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Update June 2007

Jaguar is now up for sale (a "fire sale"?) together with the associated Land Rover business.

84.68.81.11 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"In September 2006 Ford also bought the rights to the Rover name and it is now part of Ford's Premier Automotive Group."

Not sure what this is trying to say, but in current circumstances will the Rover brand be sold on with Land-Rover?

84.67.228.223 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Overtaken by recent events:

" Recent reports speculate Ford might sell Jaguar in order to infuse much needed capital into its own operations. [2]."

84.67.228.223 18:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'd like to propose moving this article to Jaguar Cars (currently a redir) since that's the name of the company. Anyone oppose? --SFoskett 16:19, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Let's get on with it! BomberJoe 18:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Moving.   user:justen    talk   08:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, maybe not. Unfortunately, Jaguar Cars has one other revision in its history, which means I can't do the move. I'll see about having the extra revision deleted.   user:justen    talk   08:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So, I've requested the move. Additional thoughts can go here.   user:justen    talk   11:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support the move. Seems uncontroversial to me, but I could be wrong. Andrewa 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support as it is the official name. Reginmund 16:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support officially.   user:justen    talk   15:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support the move. As already mentioned, it ties in better with the company name. Besides which the pluralization of car in the title is more logical. Daviddurban 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Jaguar (car) to Jaguar Cars as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark 1 Saloons - Expansion needed

Info on "Mark 1 Saloons" needs to be expanded. The designation Mark 1 was retrospectively applied. The contemporary UK names were "Jaguar 2.4 Litre Saloon", and "Jaguar 3.4 Litre Saloon" or something very much like that. Before it was replaced in 1959, the 3.4 was available with disk brakes all round, compression ratio options of 7:1, 8:1 and 9:1, manual gearbox with overdrive or auto, steel or wire wheels.

Performance: With disk brakes, the best available late-60's radials and uprated shockers the 3.4 could cruise all day at 80-90mph, 100mph was unexciting on suitable roads but mine overheated at that speed, top speed was 120 but its aerodynamics made it very twitchy in cross-winds. 0-60 time is quoted as sub 10 sec, fast for its day. GilesW 09:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronuciation

I know "jag-u-ar" is the proper pronunciation in the UK, but on the American side of the pond you'll almost never hear it that way, especially in dealerships. Same goes for the cat. I think that deserves mention under pronunciation as well, at least that it's usually said differently in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.74.87.87 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that the Indians (people from India) own Jaguar, it is pronounced Jagwar. You can place your order at the Kwik-E-Mart.209.29.94.114 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Which no doubt is a step up from placing your order at British trailer park. DemolitionMan (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Tata yet!

The deal has been announced but not consummated. The infobox has been prematurely changed. 66.92.132.155 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The following paragraph has been added to the introduction to reflect the size of the sale:

"It is understood that Ford Motor Company Ltd. will not retain any shareholding in either the Jaguar or Land-Rover companies, unlike Aston Martin where on its sale a small shareholding was retained; the total sum to be paid in cash by Tata Motors is approximately US $ 2.3 billion, Ford will then contribute up to US $600 million to the Jaguar Land Rover pension plans."

91.108.50.27 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph: improvement

"with two UK production plants at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham and Halewood, Merseyside" has been added!

As far as the TATA takeover is concerned, it's now a DONE deal - whatever you may think of it!!

IF anyone has any doubts about the deal, just read what Ford themselves had to say about it:

FORD MOTOR COMPANY ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT TO SELL JAGUAR LAND ROVER TO TATA MOTORS

DEARBORN, Mich., March 26, 2008 – Ford Motor Company [NYSE: F] announced today that it has entered into a definitive agreement to sell its Jaguar Land Rover operations to Tata Motors.

The transaction is the culmination of Ford’s decision last August to explore strategic options for the Jaguar Land Rover business, as the company accelerates its focus on its core Ford brand and “One Ford” global transformation.

The sale is expected to close by the end of the next quarter and is subject to customary closing conditions, including receipt of applicable regulatory approvals.

The total amount to be paid in cash by Tata Motors for Jaguar Land Rover upon closing will be approximately US $2.3 billion. At closing, Ford will then contribute up to approximately US $600 million to the Jaguar Land Rover pension plans.

"Jaguar and Land Rover are terrific brands," said Alan Mulally, president and CEO, Ford Motor Company. "We are confident that they are leaving our fold with the products, plan and team to continue to thrive under Tata’s stewardship. Now, it is time for Ford to concentrate on integrating the Ford brand globally, as we implement our plan to create a strong Ford Motor Company that delivers profitable growth for all."

"This is a good agreement. It provides the Jaguar Land Rover management team and employees with the assurances needed to maintain their focus on delivering the best results for the business," said Lewis Booth, executive vice president, Ford Motor Company, who has responsibility for Ford of Europe, Volvo and Jaguar Land Rover. "I am confident that, under its new owner, Jaguar Land Rover will continue to build upon the significant improvements and product successes it has achieved in recent years."

As part of the transaction, Ford will continue to supply Jaguar Land Rover for differing periods with powertrains, stampings and other vehicle components, in addition to a variety of technologies, such as environmental and platform technologies. Ford also has committed to provide engineering support, including research and development, plus information technology, accounting and other services.

In addition, Ford Motor Credit Company will provide financing for Jaguar and Land Rover dealers and customers during a transitional period, which can vary by market, of up to 12 months.

The parties believe these arrangements will support Jaguar Land Rover’s current product plans, while providing Jaguar Land Rover freedom to develop its own stand-alone capabilities in the future that will best serve its premium manufacturer requirements.

The parties do not anticipate any significant changes to Jaguar Land Rover employees’ terms of employment on completion.

Speaking about today’s agreement, Mr. Ratan N. Tata, Chairman of Tata Sons and Tata Motors, commented: "We are very pleased at the prospect of Jaguar and Land Rover being a significant part of our automotive business. We have enormous respect for the two brands and will endeavor to preserve and build on their heritage and competitiveness, keeping their identities intact. We aim to support their growth, while holding true to our principles of allowing the management and employees to bring their experience and expertise to bear on the growth of the business."

Jaguar Land Rover’s employees, trade unions and the UK Government have been kept informed of developments as the sale process progressed and have indicated their support for the agreement.

Speaking on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover, Geoff Polites, chief executive officer, said: "Jaguar Land Rover’s management team is very pleased that Ford and Tata Motors have come to an agreement today. Our team has been consulted extensively on the deal content and feels confident that it provides for the business needs of both our brands going forward.

"We have also had the opportunity to meet senior executives from Tata Motors and the Tata group," Polites continued. "They have expressed confidence in the team that has delivered significant improvements in Jaguar Land Rover’s business performance. We feel confident that we can forge a strong working relationship with our new parent company, and we look forward to a bright and successful future for Jaguar Land Rover."

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27953

91.108.50.27 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. The papers have been signed but the money has not been delivered. That means it's not done yet. 65.166.89.2 (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But I think you will find that the Jaguar and Land-Rover companies (assuming there are two) are now no longer showing on Ford's global balance sheet from an accounting perspective; the real mystery is why they were bundled together in the first place instead of being sold seperately? Which one of them might theoretically have remained unsold if they had been seperate sales or was it simply that the joint production at Halewood meant a single sale rather than two sales.

Most people would regard Jaguar as a so-called 'trophy asset', similar to Aston Martin, and therefore attractive to investors with Middle Eastern oil money. Eventually we will get to know exactly what is in the contract between FoMoCo and Tata, eg for exactly how long will JLR benefit from Ford's global purchasing system for example? Eventually based on much reduced volumes, JLR parts could be very expensive, especially when new Jaguar cars are no longer based on common Ford platforms. At some stage Jaguar/Land Rover will be fully exposed to the full reality of competing in the global automotive market and having to negotiate with component suppliers who are used to supplying in multiple millions, and not in <100,000's like JLR want.

The only change is that the tough decisions like Ford moving Jaguar production to the USA or by threatening to close Solihull in favour of putting all Land-Rover production into Halewood will be taken by TATA in India and not by Ford in Detroit - it's crystal ball time for JLR in the UK!

At some stage in the not too distant future TATA could be looking at trying to replace the Ford-produced power train/components in Jaguars and Land-Rovers with less costly non-Ford parts produced in China or India rather than say Bridgend, South Wales (or Dagenham, Essex?) by Ford; the pressure to reduce costs will still be there under TATA's ownership, rather than Ford's.

The actual timing of the deal is a red herring, my friend: goodbye Ford and hello TATA Motors!

91.108.29.99 (talk)

Indian or British

I contend that the company is certainly British. It is registered in Britain. It manufactures its product in Britain and always has done. It's (now) parent company is Indian but that doesn't and cannot re-write history. My mother is from Venus, my father from Mars but my place of birth, upbringing and residence is Earth, therefore I'm an Earthling.

I contend equally that the marque is and always will be British, for much the same historical reasons. It's a question of where it was created, not to who rights over it were subsequently sold. Did anyone seriously claim that Jaguar was an American marque (or company) under Ford's ownership? -- Timberframe (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Jaguar is a British brand, so, it would appear, do the Hindustan Times and The Times of India. -- de Facto (talk). 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To User:DemolitionMan and others who change the article's category from "British brands" to "Indian brands" on the basis that "The parent company is Tata; can't be British", would you apply the same logic to say that in the days of the British Empire Mumbai was a British city? Sorry if that's a bit close to the bone, but I feel that it's a valid comparison with what you're claiming for a brand which is and always has been intimately associated with Britain. The financial ownership of a brand doesn't re-write history or the reality of geography. Nobody claims that Chelsea changed from a British football club to a Russian football club when it was bought by a Russian, the same applies to Land Rover and Jaguar. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I agree that in the days of the erstwhile Raj, Calcutta and Bombay were British cities. They no longer are since ownership switched hands. They are now Indian cities. Just as the British flag flew over the Red Fort but now the Tricolor flies, the same applies for an acquired brand. Bacardi is known as an American brand of rum even though it originated in Cuba. Even though Smirnoff clearly originated in Russia, in Wikipedia - the article clearly states that it is owned by a British company - Diageo. So while we can state that the Country of origin is the UK - Jaguar is now an Indian brand. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight, I agree that it can be classified as a British brand - Reebok still is; although it is now owned by Adidas. However, it clearly states in the infobox that is a subsidiary of Adidas AG - a German brand. Perhaps such an arrangement can be made with this page as well.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. For me, a "brand" is inextricably linked with the product and is primarily used as a marketing tool. Thus, to use your examples, Bacardi "is known as an American brand" because it has a long history of production and marketing in America. Smirnoff still "brands" itself as a Russian product despite being owned elsewhere - check out the Cyrillic writing embossed into the bottle and the reference on the label to the Russian Imperial court. The conclusion I draw is that the "nationality" of the brand is derived from the long-term associations promoted by its marketing rather than from the nationality of its epehemeral owner. If Tata Motor replaced the familiar Land Rover and Jaguar Icons with symbols relevant to Indian culture and marketted the vehicles as Indian products I would agree that the brand had changed nationality, but that has not yet come to pass. In these days of multinational companies and ownership the lines are blurred and perhaps we need a category of "Indian-owned brands" -- Timberframe (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right; the distinction needs to be made between the brand equity that is marketed to consumers and the brand ownership. Regarding Bacardi - it's been made in the US only since the 1960s - before that for a very long time it was Cuban. Anyways, no point beating a dead horse, now that we are in agreement. As it is a multinational brand doesn't really doesn't have a nationality - McDonalds was at pains to point this out in the Middle East - but I guess Coke will always be associated with the US. Thums Up - an Indian cola brand was acquired by Coke in the early 1990s - it is still available and marketed in India and neighboring nations - I guess it is an Indian brand and not an American one. It varies from case to case. DemolitionMan (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel the category is itself a little misleading, and lacks any objective definition. I mean, if we have already mentioned that Jaguar originated in Britain, what does the Category: British Brands add to that? The simple fact is: Jaguar as a car company originated in Britain, and has manufacturing plants there. This is amply stated in the opening pragraphs. Beyond this I see no point of having the categorization based on nationality. I would recommend:

1) We do away with it completely (like with Reebok, I see no Nationality to its brand mentioned in the categories),

2) Or, modify it to Indian Owned Brands

But keeping British Brands is incorrect, as merely originating there doesnt make it British, like Bacardi . And unlike Thums Up, Jaguar isnt a Brand whose products are restricted to Britain. And comparing Indian cities, during the British occupation with a Jaguar is absurd. Jaguar isnt a city, whose geographical coordinates can never change. If it helps, we can make it Brands Originated from Britain. AJ-India (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - too much ambiguity. Thums Up is sold in Sri Lanka as an Indian brand, although owned by Coca-Cola - an American company. The point is of course - Brand Positioning - it is positioned as a British brand. However, to look at the same industry I looked at [3] - there is no category called British brands there - but there is none called German either. Perhaps the best course of action is to remove the categorization altogether like it is done in the case of the Mini but we can have a category called [Motor Vehicle Manufacturers in the UK] DemolitionMan (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasnt aware of Thums up being sold in Sri lanka. Its true, positioning is the key. But invariably its the ownership that weighs in on the long run. If Coke decides to make Thums up a global brand, (selling it worldwide), I doubt it will position it as an Indian Brand. The whole idea of positioning is just to derive a marketing advantage. It suites to call Jaguar "a symbol of British Luxury". So to that extent, I agree, Jaguar is a "British" Brand.

I agree with the removal of the category as a whole, as it is (to me) redundant, and meaningless. The existing categories suffice.

With reference to the comparison with the Indian cities, a second thought crossed my mind. If we draw another analogy: I happen to have a Canadian friend, who was born in the UK, spent like 25 years or so there, migrated to Canada in the 70s. What would he be called? A Canadian, not British. Yes, he is of British origin, has british traits,(can tell from his accent a bit, and such) and that fact is inseparable from his history.

All the same, I am all for the removal of the category, to make the article better. CheersAJ-India (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've enjoyed reading the discussion here, you've brought out a lot of good and interesting points. Concensus seems to be moving towards scrapping the "national brands" categorisation for this article, and I would support that. Categories exist to allow readers to find articles relevant to a particular interest, so we should ask whether it's likely that a reader would want to find articles relating to "British brands". My guess is no, it's far too vague, subjective and wide ranging to be useful and, as has been pointed out, isn't used in a consistant manner anyway. I suggest that if nobody speaks up to the contrary over the next week or so we remove the national brand category from this article and the Land Rover article -- Timberframe (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that categories are a valuable way of finding information, and therefore, the more (relevant) categories the better. The category names though, do need to be unambiguous and accurately reflect their use. So my suggestion would be, not to remove Jaguar Cars (or Land Rover) from the controversial category, but to create a new category Category:Brands owned by companies of India (or similar) and add it (them) to that, and to rename Category:British brands to Category:Brands originating in the United Kingdom (or similar). -- de Facto (talk). 10:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think either of the two suggestions are fine. I guess it's not a bad idea to create a new category, and rename the existing one. That way we fine tune the category, to remove the ambiguity. AJ-India (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article say that Jaguar is a British automaker? It did start as a British company, but it is not anymore. Yes, the production is still in England, but it doesn't mean much. Many Nike products are made in China, but it does not make Nike Chineese. Jaguar is an Indian automaker: read thisTheGreatKhali88 (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Let us consider facts: Jaguar Cars Limited is a company registered at Companies House in London (Company Number: 01672070). The registered address is shown as Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry, CV3 4LF. The fact that all the shares are held by an Indian company does not make it an Indian company. However, if the company was registered in India with a registered office in India, it would be a different matter. One final thought, if you wanted to take legal action against Jaguar Cars Ltd you would do it in Britain, not in India.

Sky120liner (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

26 July 2013 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jadeep.cp : >> Read through all comments and thoughts. I strongly feel that the content in the first paragraph is not apt. It says ((since December 2012 officially incorporated as Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, is a British multinational car manufacturer )). It clearly is not a correct statement if we look into it from the 'Nationality' point of view. The word 'british' is not necessary in that sentence but just multinational car manufacturer would suffice. If british readers are so insistent in having there name mentioned, the word british origin would the the appropriate one. I have also noticed some readers mentioning about history, geography, finance, time, biology, physics and so on. I if that be the case, we will come back to this article after few more years when Tata motors shifts the jaguar headquarters from UK to India and replacers all the commercial heads which is not that too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeep.cp (talk • contribs) 04:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed over and over again. Jaguar is a British car marque, not Indian. Just like Chrysler is an American car mark, not an Italian one. The nationality of the person or company who currently owns the shares in Jaguar Land Rover doesn't change that. So don't change the "nationality" in the lede again. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 07:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr.Thomas.W, i respect yours and your congress men's efforts, but few of you people discussing over and over again does not give you the privilege to force in stuffs which many others are not ready to accept. More over you have no right to insist IS BRITISH when there are so many objections raised. Looking into the facts you have no authority to press on this issue since you are not the person who owned this company for all these years, or the person who sold it or the person who bought it. Please be within you polite limits when addressing such issues over a platform which would be viewed by millions. Yes, true you pointed out many examples to prove that i am wrong, but be aware that it accounts only to a minute fraction of whats is happening around the world. Well, let me tell you my stuff, i work for a shipping company of which the owners are italians, but the company is registered in France, and they have office in singapore and italy. despite this, in international shipping market the company is called italian ( just because the owners are italian nationals) , it goes the same for all shipping companies. Mr.Thomas if you are so obsessed about history, let me point something out to you - 'Paleo-indians' migrated from Asia to what is now the United States mainland around 12,000 years ago. European colonization began around 1600 and came mostly from England. Then as per your logic America should have been Asian or British. Then why you still claim a british badge on Jaguar alone, go ahead and claim it on america too. Im not saying that you should not mention british at all or only indian. Be apt and polite with your sentences. you could say <WAS A BRITISH > or even more appropriate <USED TO BE A BRITISH>. If you could incorporate this change, it will be done for all and this dispute will end here, else it will continue for ever. Mr. Thomas, All new nations formed as a result of revolution and not out of few peoples discussion, but Nagasaki & Hiroshima Nuke attack was an outcome of few congress men's discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeep.cp (talk • contribs) 08:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed over and over again, and Jaguar is a British company, period. The nationality of a company, no matter which company, does not change every time the stocks/shares change ownership as long as the company itself isn't moved to another country. There are literally thousands of major companies around the world that have majority owners located/headquartered in other countries, not just Jaguar, and none of those companies is regarded as having changed its nationality because of that. So among car manufacturers Rolls-Royce and Bentley are still British companies even though they are now German owned (by BMW and VW), Volvo is still a Swedish company even though the owners are Chinese (Geely), Chrysler is still an American company even though its owners are Italian (Fiat), Holden is an Australian company even though its owners are American (GM), SEAT is a Spanish company even though its owners are Italian (Fiat), Skoda is a Czech company even though its owners are German (VW), and so on. And to give an example closer to you, Maruti Suzuki is seen as an Indian car manufacturer even though it is Japanese owned (Suzuki). So Jaguar has always been a British company, in spite of now having an Indian owner and before that having been owned by Ford of the US. Nationalistic pride has no place here, neither for or against, it's just how things work in the business world. And also how things work on Wikipedia in articles about those companies. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My Edit

Although we had a pretty extensive discussion (above) on the subject, since we still seem to have a disagreement, I would clarify my view, once more: 1) Stating that Jaguar is based in England essentially covers that it is "British". Anything beyond is a redundancy. 2) Jaguar Landrover business is a result of the take over (it did not exist prior to the take over by Tata Motors),hence if we mention that it is now operated as a part of JLR business, we should mention this too. Lastly, I would request that the above discussion be read as well. Just as an aid, please refer to Tata Motors page itself. The opening line does not say it is an "Indian Automaker based in Mumbai India". This, dispite the fact that its vehicles have been made in India for over 60 years.

Also, if you refer Tetley, the Tea company, again, this was based in England, and later taken over by Tata Tea.

Hope the above helps. Am still, however, open to discussion,

AJ-India (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

why so many photos of old cars??

Why some many of them? you guys need some photos of the new stuff here also, the jaguars we see in the streets ok? (Sunsetterxxx (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)).

My Edit

ALthough we had a pretty extensive discussion (above) on the subject, since we still seem to have a disagreement, I would clarify my view, once more: 1) Stating that Jaguar is based in England essentially covers that it is "British". Anything beyond is a redundancy. 2) Jaguar Landrover business is a result of the take over (it did not exist prior to the take over by Tata Motors),hence if we mention that it is now operated as a part of JLR business, we should mention this too. Lastly, I would request that the above discussion be read as well. Just as an aid, please refer to Tata Motors page itself. The opening line does not say it is an "Indian Automaker based in Mumbai India". This, dispite the fact that its vehicles have been made in India for over 60 years.

Also, if you refer Tetley, the Tea company, again, this was based in England, and later taken over by Tata Tea.

Hope the above helps. Am still, however, open to discussion,

AJ-India (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) business unit did exist before Tata became involved. Ford even used the term in their March 2008 press release announcing the agreement to sell the enterprise. -- de Facto (talk). 13:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks that way:) Though, I think they refered to them as a part of PAG (Premier Automotive Group) more, and hence atleast I never heard of this (JLR being a single entity) before.AJ-India (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph revert

User:AJ_India has been actively changing the article to a previous nonsensical, poorly-worded revision based on an irrational view of the company. The difference is that this blind patriotism has led said user to rather subdue any mention of Land Rover being a British marque, which I contend that it is; the company is based in UK, its employees are British and furthermore, the vehicles are designed and manufactured in Britain. Tata's ownership is purely fiscal and even Tata's CEO said that he aims to keep the brand British. I think my paragraph highlights the essence of Land Rover and consolidates the information in a much clearer fashion than the alternative.

The infobox is where one adds the location where the company is based. The first paragraph gives you a broad generalisation, hence my version stating Land Rover being a "british automobile manufacturer" - a factual statement.

Extract from other edit:

"Land Rover is one of the longest lived Four-wheel drive (4WD) brands, second only to Jeep and is not a truck."

1, the term 'longest-lived' is wrong as Land Rover is not alive. 2, What does "and is not a truck" mean and how does it relate to the sentence? The whole paragraph is badly constructed and wikipedia should not tolerate emotional responses.

-Yosh 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, "blind Patriotism" is being exhibited by user Yosh, not me. Did I mention it is "Indian" anywhere in my edit?

Instead it is he who is doing so, by over enphasizing its Britishness, which spoils the article. As has been amply debated above, its Britishness is covered in its being based in Britain. I have never heard or seen a sentence like "It is British & based in Britain"!! Its pure redundancy.

As we had all agreed (above) these things are less facts and more about brand positioning. I gave the example of Tetley Tea, again (incidentally) owned by Tata.

If being made in Britain is the criteria alone, what about the iphone? or for that matter any phone that Nokia makes? Bulk of them are made by Chinese guys. Obviously there is no set "rule" for deciding all this. And hence it (being British) isnt a fact.

What is a fact, instead is: Its made in Britain, by a labour which is British, and designed by guys, who must be British, with Money coming from Tata Motors.

Last but not least, Tata Motor's ownership is anything but fiscal. Just because they intend to keep its brand identity doesnt mean it is just a financial take over. Read This BBC Article The clear intent of the company is to grow worldwide, and for that, it is going to be in the driver's seat. Again see Tetley Tea. It is fully integrated into Tata Tea, globally. Have a look at the pack of Tetley tea, you would find "A Tata Enterprise" on it. This process took a number of years. Do read this Ratan Tata's statement.

Therefore, I feel the opening line sums up the way it is today. Regarding the rest, (ie Land Rover being the oldest, or second oldest), I have no issues. feel free to correct if any of that is wrong. My only appeal is, please keep patriotism out of this, in the interest of a good encyclopedic article.AJ-India (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, I feel the opening line sums up the way it is today. Regarding the rest, (ie Land Rover being the oldest, or second oldest), I have no issues. feel free to correct if any of that is wrong. My only appeal is, please keep patriotism out of this, in the interest of a good encyclopedic article"AJ-India (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• See BMW's article. Motoring articles open with "[name] is a [country] automobile manufacturer".
• Country of origin is a notable field in the automotive industry, as cars are often clumped together when similarities arise between manufacturers from a particular country. Jaguar is still a British company, invested in by an Indian one.
• One mention of the marque being British is not "over-emphasizing" as AJ_India claims. There is no redundancy.
• In my edit, I have removed mention of where the company is based from the opening paragraph. That is already stated in the infobox, therefore we can leave the word British in the article.
• This is an automotive article. This is not about Tetley Tea, which is run in a completely different way. The original Tetley company has been dissolved and integrated completely into Tata. This is not the case for Land Rover/ Jaguar.
• iPhone is in fact American because it is designed in USA by an American company and made in China by factories with exclusive contracts with Apple. Similarly, Land Rover is British with the manufacturing process remaining in the UK.
• Was Jaguar considered American under Ford ownership?
• Tata Chairman: "We have enormous respect for the two brands and will endeavour to preserve and build on their heritage and competitiveness, keeping their identities intact." = British
• I'll say it again, AJ-India's opening paragraph is poorly worded and badly constructed, which is unacceptable. I have reorganized the information to make it more coherent overall.
• This article has always opened with Jaguar being British, but as soon as the Tata deal was completed, some zealot Indians removed the word in a fit of ignorance. Same is true for the UK flagicon in the infobox. This exhibits a complete disregard for the standard set by other automotive articles on wikipedia.
• User:AJ-India is attempting to further his own nonsensical agenda. Taking a look at his talk page, you can clearly see repeated violations of the three revert rule and a general bias against the United Kingdom. He has been caught removing factual content from articles pertaining to the British Empire. I contend that he is trying to alter articles on Wikipedia to falsely improve the way India is portrayed.

Sorry about the last revert -Yosh 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at Toyota , Nissan , Honda or General Motors Where is the "Norm", to mention the country? By removing any mention of Jaguar being a part of Tata Motors in the first line, it is clear who is "biased" here, and trying to hide facts.

Do any of the four automakers mentioned above have "Japanese Automaker" or "American Automaker" mentioned? Despite the fact that they are anything but Japanese (or American), by any of your yardsticks. (Yes, Renault is a big stake holder in Nissan). The simple reason is: such terms are subjective, giving the reader little clarity. Iphone is designed in USA, so it is American, Does that include the phone's hardware as well? The LCD? The chips? We know the Motorola Razr uses LCD screens designed by Toshiba & Sharp. Yet both Iphone, and Motorola are called American. Why? And you yourself mention this! Iphones are made in CHina by plants commisioned by Apple. So? Ownership weighs in doesnt it? So, why is Tata Motors' ownership so insigificant?

And, by retaining Jaguar's identity, the intent is to retain it's image, which is a whole lot more than the country of its origin, or manufacture.

Thus, by being objective, not subjective, we make the article better.

Lastly, i give the example of Sony Ericsson. Based in UK, owned by Japanese & Swedish firms, where is the mention of any the countries in the opening line? Instead it mentions the countries of the owners, something we dont even have here. You want to even remove mentioning Tata Motors!

I understand this will require some British patriots like User Yong to change their "view", but I am sure, in the interest of a good article, it can be acheived.

And needless to say, by bringing unrelated (and untrue) issues into this, user Yosh is only trying to divert attention. But for the interest of those who wish to know what he is talking about, I welcome them to my talk page. If you require we can talk about that there:) My only appeal is to desist from patriotic jingoism, and stick to objectivity.AJ-India (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comments in the parallel discussion about the Land Rover article. --

Just an observation, but I'm not really understanding why it's not okay to mention "British" in the opening paragraph, but it seems it is okay to mention "Indian". Not only does it seem rather absurd to not describe something which is a recognised British marque as such, but there does seem to be a bit of a double-standard going on here. I can't really think of a good, encyclopaedic reason not to identify it as British, but I can see some obviously bad ones.--—Chris (blather • contribs) 00:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I am sorry but you seem to have missed the whole point. No where does anyone say its "okay to mention Indian". The only argument was to be objective. And for as long back as I can recall, the opening line always had British/England/Britain in it, in some form or the other (and it still does). Either as the place where it is based, or the headquaters (like on Jaguar Cars page). This discussion began when we had a line stating something like "jaguar cars is a British marque, based in England" which I found rather repetitive. Hope this clarifies the discussion, and the consensus reached thus.AJ-India (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Citation for the relationship between the XK140 and the 1940 BMW

The article makes the statement that the XK-140 "combined a body shell essentially copied from a 1940 BMW[citation needed]...."

I don't think a citation is needed for that. Anyone wanting to verify the statement could easily do as I did, which is to do an image search for a 1940 BMW.

Given that the qualifier "essentially" means "in many or all important respects," a glance at a 1940 BMW

http://www.supercars.net/carpics/162/1940_BMW_328MilleMigliaTouringCoupe1.jpg

or

http://www.autospies.com/images/users/Newsbot/bmw.jpg

will show that clearly to be true. On the other hand, current usage of the word (in the United States, at least) implies something more, and an American reading that statement would infer that the XK-120 is at bottom a knock-off of the BMW. That clearly is not true, from the pictures; the older BMW is pudgy where the Jaguar is graceful; the BMW is utilitarian where the Jaguar is inspired. Consider the line of the fenders, the shape of the beak, and the placement of the headlamps.

I think it would be more accurate to simply state that the XK-120 "... combined a body shell reminiscent of a 1940 BMW ..." and leave out the 'citation needed' altogether. Kyr-Roger deM (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Jaguar Cars - Improve to 'featured article' level

There's been some controversy over the country of origin. There is no doubt that it is owned by Tata Motors, an indian company, but there is also no denying that Jaguar is a British automaker. Why? Because it operates from England and all design and manufacturing is done in England by British employees. Similarly Saab is owned by American GM but its wikipedia article still says "Swedish Automaker". The company has not been relocated to the owner's nation, therefore its status quo remains unchanged.

On a personal note, I am trying to improve this article so it can be featured and I'm writing an introductory paragraph that is both factual and in a similar vein to other good articles. Therefore I am going to bring back the controversial wording, "British automaker".

Instead of arguing over it, please help improve this article so that it one day might become a featured article. Thanks. -Yosh 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Company name

Jaguar Cars Ltd. (pronounced [ˈdʒæɡjuːər], better known simply as Jaguar or Jag)

Really? I've never heard the company referred to as such. I'll grant that the cars are called Jags in the same way as Peugeots, Land Rovers and Rolls-Royces are called Pugs, Landys and Rollers but you never hear the companies called those names. I propose removing the Jag from the intro.Patrick lovell (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have made that edit. Omnedon (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit: Jaguar is Indian

Why does the article say that Jaguar is a British automaker? It did start as a British company, but it is not anymore. Yes, the production is still in England, but it doesn't mean much. Many Nike products are made in China, but it does not make Nike Chineese.

Jaguar is an Indian automaker: link TheGreatKhali88 (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If you care to read the discussion "Indian or British2 above you will see this has been argued to death and the decision was that the company might be Indian owned but it is in reality British. Malcolma (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Click here and read below the video. It clearly say: "The now Indian automaker, Jaguar". " What do you mean by "in reality"? TheGreatKhali88 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that an Indian company owns Jaguar does not necessarily make Jaguar an Indian automobile manufacturer. Its heritage is British, and presumably the car is still manufactured largely or entirely in Britain. Omnedon (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But you should understand that the British are only LABOURERS. That doesn't mean that the company they are working for is British. For example: Many Nike products are made in China, but it does not make Nike Chineese. TheGreatKhali88 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Go to the Jaguar website www. Jaguar.com and look. It says the company is "Jaguar Cars Limited: Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF. Registered in England No: 1672070" Malcolma (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is same as Lamborghini its Italian , the Germans only owns it, but it doesnt make it German --Typ932 ^T·C 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting parallel. The Italian article on Lamborghini starts out:

Lamborghini è un gruppo industriale attivo nel comparto automobilistico, costituito nel 1963, la cui sede attuale è situata a Sant'Agata Bolognese e che fa parte del gruppo Volkswagen.

In other words (as far as I can make out), it AVOIDS describing Lamborghini as Italian or German. It merely states that the head office is located in Sant'Agata and that it's part of the VW Group.

With Jaguar, I'm sure the company goes to great lengths in England to emphasize the Englishness of the cars. Lots of leather and wood. In England. And there was an outcry when former owner Ford contemplated using spare production capacity in Michigan to build Jaguar cars. Not English.

But I suspect that press releases in India will tend to downplay the Englishness of Jaguar and major on its ownership being Indian. Thus national pride. Till now, I guess they don't sell too many Jaguars in India, but if that were to change and particularly if they start assembling them, the cars may well become less English and more international. Chinese Buicks might then be an equivalent case from further east in Asia.

National pride creeps in to a lot of these issues, and national pride is no bad thing as long as it doesn't spill over into something nastier. But Wikipedia needs to (try and) be encyclopaedic and correct whether the reader lives in Coventry and has never been outside Europe, or lives in Delhi and has never been outside south Asia.

The Italians seem to be less prone, these days, to nationalistic excess than folks in some other European states. You still find significant support there for the idea that government from Brussels might actually be better than government from Rome, which is something you would never hear in the UK about London government vs Brussels government, even though the Brits are currently undergoing another crisis of confidence in their London based government.

So in matters Jaguar, how about following the example of the Italians when describing Lamborghini? "Jaguar is a manufacturer of luxury cars founded in 1922, headquartered in Coventry and owned by the Indian Tata Group" (Except that using "headquarter" as a verb is probably unencyclopaedic and an excessively ugly piece of prose in terms of British English: I think it might work better in Detroit.).

Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But Tata Motors does not "only" own Jaguar, mr. Ratan Tata also makes all the important decisions for the brand. HE decides whether the labourers (the British engineers, technicians and designers) can or can not continue with a new car model. HE decides how many labourers will be fired. HE decides the future of Jaguar. He decides allmost everything. TheGreatKhali88 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So how many Jags does Mr Tata churn out in India then? Like it or not it's an Indian-owned British car company. Having a cheque-book large enough to buy the company does not automatically write off a very long British pedigree. For example Land Rover is owned by Tata, yet it is still classed as a British company, both here and in the real world. BMW makes the Mini Cooper, but it's still classed as a British car. Please do not revert again as you are doing so against consensus. --WebHamster 17:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you just ignored the link I posted. Please read below the video. It clearly say: "The now Indian automaker, Jaguar". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatKhali88 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I could come up with lots more referring to Jag being a British car maker. Either way, consensus trumps a single external link. --WebHamster 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jaguar Cars Limited: Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF Registered in England No: 1672070 --Typ932 ^T·C 18:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But why even mention "Brtish automaker"? Look at the article aboutToyota. It just says that Toyota is a multinational corporation headquartered in Japan. Just because Jaguar consists mostly of British labourers, and is headquartered in England, does not make it British. So therefor the article should say: Jaguar is an Indian(-owned) automaker, headquartered in Coventry, England. TheGreatKhali88 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple really. Indian accountants don't make cars, and they most certainly don't make Jaguars. They are made in Coventry. --WebHamster 20:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, with your logic Nike is chineese, since many Nike products are made in China. You can still mention that Jaguar is mostly made in England, without calling it for a British automaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatKhali88 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not going to change facts to cater to your ego. You are a 21 year old and your lack of experience/knowledge is very evident by your arguments. Please go educate yourself and quit vandalising Wikipedia.

As for Nike, they are not designed, engineered and headquartered in China. Jaguar on the other hand is designed, engineered, headquartered and run by British in Britain. I'll say it one more time, go educate yourself. -Yosh 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jaguar is British

Let's look at the facts:

• Engines: Jaguar AJ-V8/V6: British made
• Platforms: Co-developed by British Jaguar w/ Ford
• Designers: Ian Callum - British
• Engineering: Engineering plant in Coventry, England (not India)
• Manufacturing: Again, in England.
• Executives: David Smith (CEO) - British

So explain, apart from financing, what exactly makes Jaguar Indian?

Jaguar is British and it is owned by an Indian company. BOTH of these facts are stated within the FIRST paragraph. That should be enough to satisfy those who are correct and those who are trying to extend a biased agenda. Jaguar is arguably more British than Saab is Swedish (GM platform, GM engineering, etc.). Saab is not considered American and Jaguar is not considered Indian. You do not see Americans vandalising Saab's wikipedia page to put "American" in the introduction. Is that because Americans are not petty? You decide.

There has been enough discussion on this and a consensus has been reached that Jaguar is British. The only reason this discussion continues is because we have misinformed and egotistical individuals editing the article. Note: I am Indian myself and I know Jaguar is British. -Yosh 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You have convinced me. Just because a company has got British labourers (designers, technicians etc.), the company automatically becomes British. Great logic. And how convincingly you forgot to mention:

Chairman: Ratan Tata

Owner(s): Tata Motors, Ltd.

Yosh said: "So explain, apart from financing, what exactly makes Jaguar Indian?"

The fact that the Indian company Tata Motors owns Jaguar, makes it Indian. Remember that Ratan Tata makes all the important decisions for the brand. HE decides whether the labourers (the British engineers, technicians and designers) can or can not continue with a new car model. HE decides how many labourers will be fired. HE decides the future of Jaguar. He decides allmost everything.

Therefore it should at least say "Indian-owned (British) automaker", like WebHamster suggested.TheGreatKhali88 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a 100% mortgage on my house from HSBC. Despite this, my house remains in England, not China. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The leading sentence already ends with "owned by Tata Motors of India" - there's no need to insert "Indian owned" at the start of the sentence as well. Furthermore, the predominant features of Jaguar are that it makes cars and that it does so in England. Ownership is ephemeral and of far less significance than than the "what" and "where", and the structure of the lead should reflect that. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether Jaguar is British or not has been discussed several times before, without coming to a conclusion. And it's already mentioned that the headquarter is in England, so there is no reason inserting "British" either. Bottom line is that the statement, "Jaguar is Britsh (or even Indian)" can be discussed, but "Jaguar is an Indian-owned automaker" is a fact. TheGreatKhali88 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice: If you're trying to edit the intro

HELP IMPROVE ARTICLE

Instead of arguing that Jaguar is not British, help improve the article. I have redone the entire article in the last 2 weeks and I'm not finished trying to get this article featured. Unfortunately, you all are undermining my every effort, so my advice to anybody changing the intro: respectfully get the fuck out of this article if you have nothing to worthwhile to add. -Yosh 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, regardless of the amount of work you'd done on the article it isn't yours so quit with the insults and threats. Even tossers are allowed to edit the article regardless of whether you like it or not. Mellow out and keep in mind the note at the bottom of every edit page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." --WebHamster 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, whilst you're at it, get your sig sorted. It has to carry a link to either your user page or talk page. --WebHamster 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yosh, you aren't going to be able to do anything to improve this or any other article on Wikipedia if the community blocks you for uncivil behaviour to other editors. I understand your frustration, but you simply can't express it in this way. It might be a good idea to step back and cool off - don't worry, there are others here to keep an eye on the article. Or there are mediation options available, although that really shouldn't be necessary because as you said, consensus has already prevailed on the point in question. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yosh, I've tried to keep the discussion as civil as possible, unfortunately I can't say the same about you. Maybe you should look at meditation, or even ask you parents to teach you some mannerisms. TheGreatKhali88 (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Two personal attacks don't cancel each other out. Comment on content, not the editor.--WebHamster 23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Company Purchase Amounts?

Since the sale to Tata was a US deal, the price should be really llisted in dollars, not pounds.

Also it would be nice to see what Ford originally paid for the brand.

kieranmullen (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

British-Indian car maker

Can we now call it a British-Indian car maker? This makes the most sense. Considering that the owner and the chairman is Indian and Tata makes the big decisions, although production is yet to shift to India. Tri400 (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course not! The British will never allow such thing even if their entire island was bought by the Chinese. Their ego wouldn't allow it. It makes me wonder why is it that with so many anglophiles on Wikipedia writing about the grandeur of their island-country, they have not started an article on one of the most important, The Fall of the British Empire (as of March 16, 2010).--134.71.165.15 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't the British really, it is the rest of the un-biased World. The ones trying to say it is an "Indian car company" are most likely Indians in need of a little boost to their inferiority complex. Not saying all Indians need this, but it is clearly the case for the Indians who keep showing up here. Just cut it out, it is really pathetic to witness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not 'ego'... it's fact! You need to understand the word 'Subsidiary'. It's controlled by TATA motors but it is still a British company; even if the whole company was run by Indians. I think the only way you might just get it to be Indian is moving the head quarters out of Coventry and then to secure it by re registering the company; like 'News Corporation' for an example. Jaguar, Land Rover and Jaguar Land Rover can be sold onto anyone as it stand's now. They are engineered, manufactured and designed in this country with the direction been taken by a foreigner and money going there too. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars is a bit less independent; but they even count as 'British' with all there BMW 3rd rate systems installed. Jonathan Ive is a key person within Apple Inc. does that make them a British company? NO! --Thomas G 00:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Gilling (talk • contribs)

Question re Mark 2 (II)

On the Jaguar Mark 2 discussion page I askded, "Surfing the net gives both "Mark II" and "Mark 2". This article uses both. Which is correct? Does anyone have any authority for either?". I have not received an answer. Does anybody know? Avalon (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Jaguar Cars Merger

The following three articles seem to be about the same manufacturer: Jaguar Cars, Swallow Sidecar Company and SS Cars Ltd. The Jaguar website supports this as well as both Jaguar Cars', and Swallow's, articles plus their references. If this is true then they should not be separate articles with conflicting and confusing information. Hutcher (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As there appears to be no support for this merger I have deleted the tag. William Leadford (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Revision to Mk2 paragraph

I propose revising the Mk2 paragraph along the following lines, compatible with the articles about those cars:

Original: "The 1955 Mark 1 small saloon was the first monocoque (unibody) car from Jaguar and used a 2.4 litre short-stroke version of the XK engine. In 1959, the car was improved with a larger engine and wider windows and became the Mark 2, one of the most recognisable Jaguar models ever produced. It would be popular with British police forces for its small size, light weight, and powerful engine."

Proposed revision: "In 1955 the "2.4 Litre" saloon (subsequently known as the 2.4 Mark 1) was the first monocoque (unitary) car from Jaguar. Its 2.4-litre short-stroke version of the XK engine provided 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) performance. In 1957, the 3.4-litre version with disk brakes, wire wheels and other options was introduced, with a top speed of 120 miles per hour (190 km/h). In 1959 an extensively revised version of the car with wider windows and 2.4, 3.4, and 3.8-litre engine options became the Mark 2, one of the most recognisable Jaguar models ever produced. The 3.8 Mark 2 was popular with British police forces for its small size and 125 miles per hour (201 km/h) performance." GilesW (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems generally OK to me, but I'm not fond of that "outstanding", I'd drop that. I've added some conversions to your suggested text as well. William Leadford (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo should be of a standard Mk2

The photo of the Mk2 in this article shows a lovely but non-original example of the car, with the original spats replaced with non-standard rear wheel arches (or perhaps narrow spats). Such modifications were contemporarily available, e.g. from Coombes of Guildford, but this does not appear to be a Coombes car (no bonnet louvres) - if it is it would be very valuable... The photos in the main Mk2 article appear to be of original-spec cars. I suggest replacing the photo in this article with one of an original-spec Mk2. If this photo is to be used, I feel that it should be in the context of a paragraph in the main Mk2 article about Coombes and other contemporary modifications. GilesW (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

IS JAGUAR OWNED BY TATA MOTORS ?

Can anyone clear my doubt if the jaguar is owned by tata motors limited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.87.77 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the article? If so, why do you doubt the ownership? -- de Facto (talk). 19:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Motorsport

There's no mention of the Broadspeed 'Big Cat' racing programme undertaken in 1977. It featured two Jaguar XJ12C cars or the Tom Walkinshaw XJ-S cars entered in the European Touring Car Championship in 1983/84. Walkinshaw won the Championship in 1984.

Sky120liner (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Unprofessional edits

Why does it say "meow" above the company info box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.85.6 (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Official company name

To be clear, before anyone else makes abrupt changes to the infobox based on their reading of the Companies House data, be sure to note that there is a current, active company, incorporated in 1982, named precisely "Jaguar Cars Limited." You can find it at registration 01672067. It looks like the parent is Jaguar Land Rover Limited, registration 01672070. Aside from the minor reshuffling (really, swapping) of the corporate entity names on December 28 — which does not appear to have been significant enough to have been covered by any third-party, reliable sources — there does not appear to be any notable change in the ownership or naming of the companies that needs to be reflected in the infobox or article. user:j (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good points. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't misread anything. The former Jaguar Cars Limited (Company No 01672070) has changed name to Jaguar Land Rover Limited, as proven by this press release from Jaguar Land Rover: http://www.jaguarlandrover.com/pdf/changeofname.pdf . The new Jaguar Cars Limited (Company No 01672067) was previously named Jaguar Land Rover Automotive Ltd, a name that has now been given to the old Jaguar Land Rover Limited (Company No 06477691). Thomas.W (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Some more info since Companies House don't let you link directly to the relevant pages: Co No 01672067, the new Jaguar Cars Limited has its Nature of Business listed as "70100 - Activities of head offices" while Co No 01672070, the new Jaguar Land Rover Limited, i.e. the former Jaguar Cars Limited, has its Nature of Business listed as "29100 - Manufacture of motor vehicles". Thomas.W (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You're doing original research using a primary source, and you're failing in your interpretation. An entity called "Jaguar Cars Limited" still exists. Period. Full stop. Its parent is, presumably, now "Jaguar Land Rover Limited." It was a legal restructuring of the entities (and likely assets), as you, in fact, pointed out using the "nature of business" information... Jaguar Cars Limited is a legal entity serving as the head offices for the subsidiary. The legal name of the subsidiary is Jaguar Cars Limited, the legal name of the (new) parent is Jaguar Land Rover Limited.

The issue, of course, is that there has been no reliable, third-party coverage of any of this. Which is why it's even more problematic that you're edit warring to get your interpretation of the changes into the article. It should be restored to what it was before (Jaguar Cars Limited) unless and until a consensus emerges to support your original research. user:j (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Total BS. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The legal entity (Company No 01672070) that makes the cars sold under the name Jaguar, which was formerly known as Jaguar Cars Limited, now carries the legal name Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. And that's a fact, with a proper reference (the press release from Jaguar Land Rover), not original research. And adding the new legal name of the company to the article requires no consensus. Moving the article, that is renaming it, to Jaguar Land Rover Limited would require consensus, but neither I nor anyone else has proposed such a move. As for the rest, the "Nature of Business" of the companies in question seems to indicate that it is the new Jaguar Cars Ltd that is the parent of the former Jaguar Cars Ltd, not the other way around, since the N of B of the new Jaguar Cars Ltd is "Activities of head offices" while the N of B of the former Jaguar Cars Ltd (which is now named Jaguar Land Rover Ltd) is "Manufacture of motor vehicles". So I suggest you try to get your facts right, and check things, before starting to criticize (in a way that borders on patronising) other editors. Thomas.W (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't seem to have update the website as it says "Based in the UK, Jaguar Cars Limited is one...." while at the bottom it says "Jaguar Land Rover Limited. Registered in England No: 1672070 ". Perhaps it would be better to move this article to Jaguar (marque). GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully support a move to "Jaguar (marque)". Thomas.W (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(←) Thomas, your absurdly adversarial attitude is really not making your point any more compelling. Of the four editors to have commented here thus far, you're the only one agreeing with your interpretation of the Companies House registration, which does not, in any way, "make it clear the cars [are] sold under" any name. The only source you're citing is not a "press release," it's a public notice required due to the legal entities swapping names. Let me repeat this again: there is still a legal entity named Jaguar Cars Limited.

Along those lines, the idea of moving the article to a title with a (marque) disambiguation would only be necessary if "Jaguar Cars" was no longer the name of the company or was otherwise ambiguous. It is still the name of a subsidiary, so "Jaguar Cars" is still the correct and non-ambiguous title (regardless of your original research, Thomas, which boils down to an argument that the "Jaguar Cars Limited" that still verifiably exists is not the name of the subsidiary this article is discussing — which, in the current absence of any reliable sourcing, is entirely your opinion and would require that you possess intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Tata's legal and strategic planning).

And, please, stop refactoring the damned section title. Not an ounce of consensus, nor any sourcing, supports your position (calling the opinion of others who disagree with your original research "bullshit" notwithstanding). user:j (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• What you don't seem to understand is that the legal entity is defined by the company number, not the name. If it has the same company number it's the same company, no matter what the name is. But if it has a different company number it is a different company, even if it has the same name. Which means A) that the new Jaguar Cars Limited is not the same company as the old Jaguar Cars Limited, and has nothing to do with this article, and B) that everything you've posted about this name change is total rubbish. So don't discuss things you don't understand. Thomas.W (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am really delighted to see this discussion because it brings up a matter which bothers me a lot, and often, on which Wikipedia project automobiles is hopelessly unclear when writing about — say Austin or MG.
The following things are all different (list from off the top of my head):

• there is 1. the founder a living person or persons
• there is 2. the product or series of products
• there is 3. the business that is making cars of a particular brand
• there is 4, the legal entity that owns that business—almost always an incorporated entity such as a limited liability company
• there are 5. more legal entities further up the chain that may own all or most of 4.

(I suspect this list is not complete)

Wikipedia tells a reader Austin went "defunct" (a special Wiki word I think) when BMC started. This is patent nonsense - just sloppy thinking! By the same logic Jaguar should be "defunct" and the current article on the subject of current Jaguar cars should be about Tata. Imagine what all the articles about Aston Martin would be like!

We very happily muddle them all up and end up with disputes like this. Isn't it better something be done about better defining things? At least above everyone seems to know they are discussing a corporate entity and that, it seems to me, round here is a significant advance :) Eddaido (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A good general rule of thumb, I would think, would be: is there an entity, with the same or similar name that "survived" and carries on the interests of that company (even if as a subsidiary)? That is usually clear cut (but, as we have seen here, not always). Even if another entity owns the entirety of a subsidiary, if that subsidiary continues to do business in its own name, then it likely is not "defunct" in the sense in which I believe the infobox is concerned. For example, if you'll pardon the irony, Autonomy Corporation is owned by but still largely autonomous of HP.

In the case here, the parent company did some rejiggering of its legal entities and assets. For all intents and purposes, it appears to have swapped the entities we previously considered "holding" Jaguar and Jaguar Land Rover: Jaguar Cars Limited became Jaguar Land Rover Limited and Jaguar Land Rover Automotive Limited became Jaguar Cars Limited. The complete lack of any reliable sources indicating this was some sort of a major restructuring (or even an actual press release from the company itself) would seem to indicate that the continued existence of an — any — entity named "Jaguar Cars Limited" should be reasonably assumed to continue to be the closest entity to the existence of Jaguar Cars.

That's an editorial assumption that has been ongoing for several years now at this article by consensus and with reliable sourcing — and, it is reasonable to remain ongoing so long as "Jaguar Cars Limited" remains an active registration (even if as a separate entity), and in the absence of any reliable, non-primary sourcing indicating otherwise. user:j (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a strong case for keeping it short and simple (KISS). Look at the total fcuking mess that is the lead of the Porsche article. That's the last thing anyone needs here. Fundamentally there are three companies here - one is a holding company, one builds Jaguars, and one builds Land Rovers & Range Rovers. The common name (we have a policy about that!) is Jaguar Cars and that's how it should stay. Convoluted disclaimers/explanations about names registered at Companies House are unnecessary and will simply lead us to have another Porsche article. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why all I have done is add the new legal name of the company that actually builds the cars, that is Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, to the infobox, with no change to the intro or any other part of the article. But a move to "Jaguar (marque)", as proposed by GraemeLeggett, is a good idea. Thomas.W (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't you (Thomas W) mean the new owner of the business that builds the Jaguar cars and why move to a new page labelled Jaguar Marque - what is wrong with Jaguar Cars for the business (not owner of the business) of building Jaguar cars. Eddaido (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, judging by their officially registered Nature of Business ("Manufacture of motor vehicles") the company that was previously known as Jaguar Cars Ltd and is now known as Jaguar Land Rover Ltd is the company that actually builds the cars. Unless Tata have been doing some reshuffling of assets behind the scenes, something no outsider would know anything about. Thomas.W (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're basing your original research on a primary source, which is entirely open to your interpretation. Do you have any reliable, third-party sourcing that supports your assertion that the entity now known as Jaguar Cars Limited is no longer the "relevant" entity so far as this article is concerned? user:j (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conf so this responds to Thomas W) Understood but what you do not seem to notice is two separate entities, the business (of building the cars) and the owner of that business. One continues (the one we are interested in) the other has, as you keep explaining, changed. Eddaido (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(this is in response to "j") Go to http://www.jaguar.com/gl/en/marketsel (Jaguar's official website) and take a good look at the bottom line of that page, which says "Jaguar Land Rover Limited. Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF. Registered in England No: 1672070". That is the Company Number of the company that was previously known as Jaguar Cars Ltd and is now known as Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. And that is not something that is up to someone's own interpretation. This article is made up of two separate parts, one that deals with the Jaguar marque, its history and its cars, and an infobox that contains information about the company as such, that is the legal entity that makes the cars. The change of name from Jaguar Cars Ltd to Jaguar Land Rover Ltd has very little to do with the major part of the article, but it should most definitely be reflected in the infobox. Which is why I added the new name of that legal entity in small script at the top of the infobox. The reason I support GraemeLeggets's proposal for a move from "Jaguar Cars" to "Jaguar (marque)" is that given Tata's apparent shortage of cash it is highly probable that Jaguar and/or Land Rover will be up for sale in whole or in part, with further changes of name of the legal entity that makes the cars, and possible further discussions like this. Discussions that could be avoided if the name of the article was the same as the name of the marque and not the company. Thomas.W (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting that Jaguar Land Rover Limited is the parent company of the entity now known as Jaguar Cars Limited, which entirely explains the copyright and registration notice you are pointing out (which is still, by the way, a primary source). Not a single editor who has commented here has agreed with you on your interpretation of the company names or organizational structure, and you have failed to provide any reliable sourcing supporting your original research. The name needs to be changed back unless and until you can provide any non-primary sourcing of your interpretation. user:j (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You not only know absolutely nothing about the subject we're discussing, you also know absolutely nothing about what "original research" and "primary sources" means. A link to an official legal notice of change of name for a company posted at the official Jaguar Land Rover website is not a "primary source", nor is it "original research". So why don't you stick to discussing things you understand? Thomas.W (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. Government documents, organizational records, public notices, press releases, and even company websites are all unquestionably primary sources.^[1] Analysis and synthesis of data from primary sources absolutely is — by definition and policy — original research.^[2] user:j (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You really seem to have misunderstood/misinterpreted things. By your logic none of the sources used at for example List of countries by population would be allowed since all of the population figures are straight from government web sites, all info from manufacturers web sites about their cars and other products would be disallowed for being "primary sources", and no press releases from the White House could be used for anything since they're government press releases/documents. Just to give you a few examples. Sheesh, get real. Thomas.W (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thomas, when confronted with definitions that unquestionably define what you're using as primary sources and that unquestionably define analysis of primary source material as original research, you try to point out that other stuff exists. I'm done with the straw man arguments. You have not a single reliable source supporting your theories of why the names were swapped. Not a single one of the other editors have agreed with your interpretation. You pointed out a public notice earlier, which is posted to the JLR website, and yet you have refused to acknowledge that the front page of that website says the subsidiary is still named Jaguar Cars Limited.

What you're asking for us to do here is to disprove your original research and theory of the intent of Tata and Jaguar Land Rover in swapping the names of two of their subsidiaries. That isn't how Wikipedia works.

I've restored the infobox and lede. There was no consensus supporting your revert and none has emerged after a lengthy discussion. I and several other editors have tried to explain to you why there is a problem with your original research, and you've been unwilling to hear out any facts that disagree with your assertions. I strongly suggest you not continue to revert to reinsert your original research (that is wholly without and against consensus). user:j (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The change to the infobox hasn't even been discussed here, so there is no consensus for or against it. Most of the "discussion" here has been about totally unrelevant things, mixed with uneducated speculations. Which means that I'm reverting your changes, whether you like it or not. And I'm prepared to take it to WP:ANI or whatever to get an unbiased view on whether an official change of name, as posted to the company's own website, is "original research" or not. Thomas.W (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what we've been discussing this entire time, to revert on the basis that it hasn't "even been discussed here" is nothing short of tendentious. What you've basically just said is that you will ignore the fact that not a single editor here has agreed with you — and that you plan to revert (and, in fact, have reverted multiple editors) to protect your novel original research of primary source data, consensus be damned. Every other editor commenting here is not "biased" just because we disagree with your original research. user:j (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your tactics may work on new inexperienced editors, but they won't work on me, because I've been around far too long for that. My edit to the infobox is properly sourced and factually correct, and I know what I'm talking about, while you, time after time, show that you know absolutely nothing about anything. I mean, you didn't even get the company number right in your edit summary when you reverted my edit, and that is really pathetic. The correct Co No is 1672070, as can be seen at the bottom of the first page of Jaguar' web site http://www.jaguar.com/gl/en/marketsel. Which is the company that was formerly named Jaguar Cars Ltd and is now named Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. As has been stated here several times. Thomas.W (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a break

I don't see any improvement to the article resulting from all this. I decided to use my limited spare time to create an additional article (Ralf Speth, JLR CEO) rather than take part in pointless argument about the formal trading name of a company. Why not leave it a week or two and see what Jaguar Land Rover and the press might report? Maybe a bit of Wikipedia:Civility could then return. Warren (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Jaguar subsidiary name

On 28 December, the names of two Jaguar legal entities were swapped:

• Jaguar Cars Limited became Jaguar Land Rover Limited (Companies House registration 01672070).
  • Its registration indicates that it carries on the manufacturing of motor vehicles.
• Jaguar Land Rover Automotive Limited became Jaguar Cars Limited (Companies House registration 01672067).
  • Its registration indicates that it carries on the duties of a head office.

There has apparently been no reliable, third-party coverage indicating why this was done; at this point, we only have primary sources for the swap.

Until December 28, this article referred to the company as Jaguar Cars Limited. Since then, there have been reverts back and forth between listing the company name as Jaguar Cars Limited or Jaguar Land Rover Limited. I hope this RfC can provide a clear(er) consensus on how to move forward, which one editor believes the discussion above did not provide. user:j (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Threaded response moved to discussion section, below. A third entity, Jaguar Land Rover PLC, became Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC, but I think it's best to leave any quagmire associated with that name change to the poor folks at Jaguar Land Rover. user:j (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Restore^[4] to Jaguar Cars Limited as the company name, with Jaguar Land Rover Limited listed as the parent company in the lede and infobox (as indicated on the Jaguar Land Rover site, here). Without any reliable, third-party coverage of the name swap, we cannot do anything but speculate. The fact that reasonable people could disagree on this is why we shouldn't be relying on primary source data (the Companies House registrations, standard public notice forms, and so forth) and novel interpretation of those documents (otherwise known as original research). As long as there's an entity that continues to be named Jaguar Cars Limited, this article should continue to reflect that as the subsidiary name — unless and until reliable, third-party sources indicate otherwise. user:j (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• There are two things that should be looked at and discussed here: A) Whether Jaguar Cars Ltd is now named Jaguar Land Rover Ltd or not, and B) whether "J"'s claim that a link to an official legal notice of change of name posted on Jaguar's own web site is "original research", and thus not a proper source, or not. Thomas.W (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

There was also lengthy discussion in the section just above. Any subsequent discussion could take place here, to try to keep the survey subsection more focussed on determining a clear(er) consensus. user:j (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• According to the primary source there are three companies which have changed their names around. The three together comprise Jaguar (unless there's more companies in the UK or overseas). And the three have changed names. So what? We should stick with the name preferred by secondary sources. Have secondary sources suddenly started giving Jaguar a different name? bobrayner (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• A move of the article from "Jaguar Cars" to "Jaguar (marque)" has been proposed in order to avoid further discussion, because the real problem is that the name of the article is the same as the former name of the company that builds the cars. Thomas.W (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• If we already have sufficient natural disambiguation, then adding a parenthetical suffix - so the title no longer resembles what it's called in the real world - would be a bad idea. Our article title policy is pretty straightforward. bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's correct, Bob, there was a third entity, Jaguar Land Rover PLC, which became became Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC (see Jaguar Land Rover). To try to keep things as simple as possible, I focussed on the two entities directly related to this article (the one now known as Jaguar Cars Limited and the one previously named Jaguar Cars Limited). Reliable secondary sources prior to December 28 referred to the subsidiary as Jaguar Cars Limited. There hasn't been any coverage that I've been able to find since that date. While I think moving the article to a title using the marque disambiguation could be discussed, I think we first have to figure out how we're going to refer to the subsidiary itself. I personally disagree with using a disambiguation title when it's not necessary: Jaguar Cars isn't ambiguous, and it's the name of the subsidiary, to boot (at least pending some consensus from this discussion). user:j (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• The lede is factually wrong (as can be clearly seen in the thread above): Three companies switched names, the former Jaguar Cars Limited (Company No. 01672070) became Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, the former Jaguar Land Rover PLC (Company No. 06477691) became Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC and the former Jaguar Land Rover Automotive Ltd (Company No. 01672067) became Jaguar Cars Ltd. Source Companies House on the web ([5] who unfortunately don't allow direct links to company information). Co No 1672070, which is now named Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, is the company that actually builds the Jaguar cars (Source: Co House Nature of Business "Manufacture of motor vehicles; the Jaguar web site [6] also clearly shows Co No 1672070 at the bottom of the page) while Co No 1672067 deals with administration (Source: Co House Nature of Business "Activities of head offices). Which has also been clearly stated in the thread above. Why it has been done is unknown outside Jaguar/Tata but that the company that builds Jaguar cars is now named Jaguar Land Rover Ltd is a fact: http://www.jaguarlandrover.com/pdf/changeofname.pdf. Thomas.W (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• The third company (Company No. 06477691, also with "Activities of head offices" as its Co House Nature of Business), which is now named Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC, is important enough to have its own article on WP, and is according to that article the Tata subsidiary that directly controls both Jaguar and Land Rover, that is the actual head office of Jaguar Land Rover. Leaving the new Jaguar Cars Ltd without a role that is visible outside their own group of companies. Which is an additional reason why it doesn't belong in the infobox. Thomas.W (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's for a minute forget Companies House, and remind ourselves that this is an encyclopaedia! What will readers be wanting to know? They want to know about Jaguar cars - be that the marque's history, models produced, important people in the company, and who owns it. In my mind the minor issue that is being so totally blown out of proportion is what the aticle needs to be called, and quite frankly for the moment retianing Jagaur Cars is fine. The ownership is clearly Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC, despite the lack of press reports, and anyway that is properly dealt with the Jaguar Land Rover article. What is quite frankly ammusing is why we can't agree on a simple revised line in the lead such as:

"Jaguar Cars (formally incorporated as Jaguar Land Rover Limited) is a British car manufacturer owned by Jaguar Land Rover Automotive, part of the Indian-based Tata Motors company."

or

"Jaguar is an automative marque owned by Jaguar Land Rover Limited, a British car manufacturer owned by Jaguar Land Rover Automotive, part of the Indian-based Tata Motors company."

I suspect the second line is more correct, and is very similar to BMW's relationship to Mini, or GM's relationship to Chevrolet (if you ignore the various smaller subsidiaries dotted around the world!) Warren (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would prefer the first line, but the second line is also fine with me. With "headquartered in Whitley, Coventry, England" added and the infobox left as it currently is. Thomas.W (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Which would give this: "Jaguar Cars (formally incorporated as Jaguar Land Rover Ltd) is a British car manufacturer headquartered in Whitley, Coventry, England, owned by Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC, a subsidiary of the Indian-based Tata Motors company." Thomas.W (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Opening paras can often be read in great haste, and it is easy (I just did it) to read formally as formerly and get a distracting mental jolt. So how about: "Jaguar Cars (since December 2012 incorporated as "Jaguar Land Rover Ltd") is a British car manufacturer.....[continuing as before]"  ? Charles01 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's fine with me. Thomas.W (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing RFC

I came here from WP:AN. I am not familiar with the history of the name change, but I searched Google and found a primary source of the name change. In the absence of a secondary source, the primary source should be used. It appears that a consensus was reached toward the end of the discussion immediately above; see comment of Charles01 at 19:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC) and agreement by Thomas.W. I leave the implementation of the consensus to the regular editors of this page. Chutznik (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Out of date information

Jaguar Cars Limited was renamed to Jaguar Land Rover Limited at the very end of 2012, at which time it also had the UK-based car design and manufacturing business of Land Rover (an unlimited company) transferred to it. At the same time, Jaguar Land Rover PLC (the holding company) was renamed to Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC. Evidence of these changes can be seen on the Companies House website at: wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk. TwoWayStreet (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I made a quick check at Companies House, and you seem to have misunderstood at least some of the information. The company that was previously known as Land Rover is now named Jaguar Land Rover Holding Ltd (Company No. 04019301), but Jaguar Cars is still a separate entity, Jaguar Cars Ltd (Company No. 01672067), meaning that they may well intend to combine the two marques but haven't done so yet. So Land Rover is still a separate company. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Jaguar Cars Limited (company no. 01672067) is listed by Companies House as dormant. Jaguar Land Rover Limited (company no. 01672070) is the only JLR UK car manufacturing company - it designs, manufactures and sells cars under both the Jaguar Cars and Land Rover brands. This article is about Jaguar Cars, now not a registered company at all, but, since December 2012 a brand manufactured by Jaguar Land Rover Limited. JLR's 2012/13 annual report makes the names clear (http://www.jaguarlandrover.com/pdf/Jaguar_Land_Rover_Automotive_plc_Annual_Report_2012-2013.pdf). The "Legal structure" paragraph on page 91 describes the 2012 company name changes, and states "As a result, Jaguar Land Rover Limited is now the primary operating company in the UK for the design, manufacture and sale of all our products." The company list on page 157 also lists Jaguar Cars as dormant. Note that the company called "Land Rover" in the report was renamed to "Jaguar Land Rover Holdings Limited" (company no. 04019301) in October 2013. TwoWayStreet (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the info about Jaguar Cars Ltd being dormant etc from, because a minute ago when I checked Companies House on the Web Jaguar Cars Ltd (Co.No.01672067) was still listed as active, with Nature of Business listed as "70100 - Activities of head offices", while both Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Co.No.01672070) and Jaguar Land Rover Holdings Ltd (Co.No.04019301) were listed as active with Nature of Business listed as "29100 - Manufacture of motor vehicles". Meaning one head office and two companies that manufacture motor vehicles. So the information available from Companies House on the web does not in any way support what you write. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

2nd line of the 3rd block - "Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2013 (DORMANT)". And from the JLR 2012/13 annual report. TwoWayStreet (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is listed as active by Companies House, where I got the information from. Having been dormant in March doesn't mean it is necessarily dormant today, which is what matters, and the info from Companies House is very clear, one head office and two companies that manufacture motor vehicles, with all three companies being active today. The Jaguar Land Rover Group have been doing a lot of reshuffling of names and nature of business between their companies so we should leave the various article as they are until we get reliable secondary sources, or official press releases from Jaguar Land Rover, that clearly state that Land Rover is no longer a separate company. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The JLR 2012/13 annual report makes it clear - on page 91 it states "As a result, Jaguar Land Rover Limited is now the primary operating company in the UK for the design, manufacture and sale of all our products." (my bold). They also give Jaguar Cars Limited as dormant. Also the SMMT account for a drop in signatories to their 2013 Automotive Sustainability Report (http://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/SMMT-Automotive-Sustainability-Report-2013.pdf) as "two signatories [Jaguar and Land Rover] becoming a single legal entity – Jaguar Land Rover Ltd". You'll notice too that both the Jaguar Cars and Land Rover websites give "Jaguar Land Rover Limited" as their registered companies. Prior to 2013 they each gave a different one. The evidence is overwhelming, but I will continue to search and see if I can find any more evidence.

Are you convinced yet - if not, how do you explain away the evidence I have already shown: namely the statements in the JLR annual report and the SMMT statement.

Also you dismiss the Companies House statement of "dormant", but show no evidence of current car design, manufacture and sales by Jaguar Cars Limited. Can you give us reason to assume there is any such activity? TwoWayStreet (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, and here we go by reliable sources, nothing else. What you or I personally know doesn't matter. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything I wrote was supported by reliable sources: Companies House, JLR's Annual Report, JLR's website, SMMT's report. You are denying what they show. Can you provide reliable sources showing that Jaguar Cars vehicles are built by a different company to Land Rover vehicles? TwoWayStreet (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Another reliable JLR document (http://www.jaguarlandrover.com/pdf/JLR_Investor_presentation_23%20Jan_2013.pdf) confirms that their single manufacturing entity serves both brands. It states on page 6 (note 2): "In order to bring our legal structure in line with our operational structure, we have transferred the trade and assets of the Land Rover business to Jaguar Land Rover Limited (previously Jaguar Cars Limited)". That should remove any remaining doubt I think. TwoWayStreet (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• And this from another reliable JLR source (http://www.jaguarlandrover.com/pdf/Investor_Presentation_FY2012_Overview.pdf): "In recognition of how the business is operated, JLR has decided to consolidate its two primary operating companies in the UK (Land Rover and Jaguar Cars Limited) as a single subsidiary (renamed Jaguar Land Rover Limited) of Jaguar Land Rover PLC (to be renamed Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC) later this year." TwoWayStreet (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Exaggeration, maybe?

"seriously misleading image of a much-modified car"

"image of a production car"

Regarding this edit, examination of the two images shows the extent of the modifications to be not particularly great:

• Indicator lights and "SS" badges have been added to the front bumper
• The "leaper" has been added to the radiator cap
• Wire wheels are used in place of the production steel wheels
• The rear wheel covers (spats?) are missing
• There seems to be a rust hole in the side of the bonnet.

Apart from the rust hole, there's nothing added that can't be unbolted, unwired or screwed off. No major changes appear to have been made.

Is the "serious misleading" element of the photo the presence of the indicators (trafficators being more correct for the period) or the presence of the rust hole?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the recently added "Facilities" section

My removal of it was reverted. The reasons I removed it were 4-fold:

1. It is inaccurate. Whitley is JLR, with no separate Jaguar operations. Browns Lane was not Jaguar's original assembly plant - they didn't start using it until 1951. The new Ryto facility will also be JLR, doing LR work as well as Jaguar work.
2. It is incomplete. Neither Gaydon, another JLR design facility, or the Wolverhampton engine plant is mentioned.
3. It is unreferenced. There are no references given for any of it.
4. Jaguar and Land Rover are now just brands of JLR and all facilities are JLR, not Jaguar (or LR), operated.

The reason given for restoring the section was "no reason to delete ad the article does also deal with the history of pre JLR Jaguar". In that case, why keep the "current" and "future" sub-sections. All we need is, subject to correction, just the "past" section.

No information is better than wrong information, especially when no references are supplied to help readers verify it. TwoWayStreet (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

When did "leaper" mascot debut?

I was surprised to find this wasn't in the article. An educated guess would be 1946 when production resumed under the name Jaguar Motors Ltd. Does anyone know? It ought to be mentioned in the article, I think. --RThompson82 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick bit of research on the web has it first appearing on the SS Jaguar in 1938, and a collector who claims to have found a 1937/1938 prototype of it hidden in box in a car previously owned by Sir William Lyons. Here's the Jaguar Enthusiasts Club article: The story behind the Jaguar leaper. Here is the claimed prototype www.jaguarforums.com/forum/xj-xj8-xjr-x308-27/rare-leaper-51507/ (can't be linked due to matching something on the spam blacklist). Obviously forum threads are problematic as a source for Wikipedia, but I'm providing that as some supporting evidence that others believe the date to be around 1937/1938. Murph9000 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be evidence of something but its an absence of leaper. Wouldn't the Heritage Trust at Gaydon come up with exactly the right answer? Eddaido (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the 1939 sales brochure might not be definitive. The leaper started out as a radiator ornament, so did not necessarily feature prominently on sales literature until much later. The logo you would expect to see on 1939 literature would be the SS emblem, although they may well have already stopped using it by then due to similarity to both the German eagle and military. I would certainly expect the Jaguar Heritage Trust to have knowledge and documentation of when both the leaper and growler were first used. Hopefully the trust managed to save much of the documentation when they were turfed out of Brown's Lane. That raises another point, I can't see any reference to the growler in our article; it's the head-on cat's face used on the radiator, wheel hubs, and steering wheel (in the X350 era, at least, but it's been around for a lot of years as well, and I'm fairly sure quite a few of the classic Jags used it on the radiator in one form or another). Murph9000 (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Heritage Trust at Gaydon come up with exactly the right answer? Eddaido (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I already agreed above that the trust should have both knowledge and documentation for when both of the leaper and growler were first used. Murph9000 (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, would you like me to phone them and ask them to call you? I'd need your number. Eddaido (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no thanks. I could certainly call them myself, but calling on a Sunday morning would not likely yield best results, and a phone call isn't really the best way to inspect 70–80 year old archives. A Wikipedian who is geographically close to them and interested in automotive heritage could possibly have an interesting time looking through their archives. Murph9000 (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Heavens. Why do they still advertise open 7 days a week 10am to 5pm, you should let them know. Phone them, (or email) speak nicely and they will put you onto the right historian. Why stuff around like you have been when the true (or at least a satisfactorily sourced) bit of (trivial) info is freely and easily available?

Myself I'd guess leapers around 1950 and growlers around 1955 but then, as I've just said . . . Eddaido (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it would not be at all unusual for many of the staff to be on a Monday–Friday schedule, but that's not really important. The reason for the effort, is to attempt to find a source suitable for citing in a Wikipedia article, and "someone on the phone told me" does not meet that standard. Although I'll admit to being personally curious about the dates, and usually happy to spend a few hours browsing through bits of Jaguar history, this entire topic is about adding interesting historical content to the WP article. I'm mostly certain that you are wrong about 1950 for the leaper, as the club puts it at 1937/1938, and the trust has an online (undated) photo which appears to show it on a SS Jaguar 100 (VRN CKV250, if you fancy calling the trust or the DVLA to find out the history of it) outside the SS Cars Ltd. office (the nameplate beside the door is visible, i.e. quite likely pre-war and before Jaguar Cars Ltd). The growler may be earlier as well, as there's a photo on the trust site of a 1948 XK120 which may show it (insufficient resolution to be certain). We also have a photo of a 1949 XK120 on Commons at File:1949 Jaguar XK120 Roadster.jpg which appears to show it. Interestingly, the XK120 may have had the option of a side-profile growler on the steering wheel (I've found XK120 photos from around 1950 showing the normal head-on growler on the steering wheel as well), going by File:Geneva MotorShow 2013 - Jaguar XK120 steering wheel.jpg. At this point I'm feeling reasonably confident in late 1930s for the leaper and mid to late 1940s for the growler, which narrows down the search for an accurate date from a reliable source. It's unclear, but the leaper may have first appeared on the SS 100, and the growler on the XK120, which also narrows the search a bit. Murph9000 (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You have a problem, I suggest a simple solution, you keep straining to make things difficult for you. All I can do is suggest you listen to what your common-sense must surely be telling you. 'bye, Eddaido (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You are familiar with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, right? Murph9000 (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@RThompson82, Murph9000, and Eddaido: you may be interested in this image which I just came across. It apparently shows the leaper on a 1937 SS Jaguar 100. -- de Facto (talk). 23:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If that is genuine that is fine but is it genuine? Why not contact the Jaguar historian? Sure it will be a matter of record with them and they can tell where it has been published. Eddaido (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Eddaido: here's an interesting piece in the Feb 2014 edition of Jaguar Heritage News (in the "More from the Archive:" section). It describes how Frederick Gordon Crosby was commissioned in 1938 to produce the mascot. -- de Facto (talk). 23:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me but would it satisfy the others above? As I remember it they were only supplied with the Special Equipment versions. It has been very popular to buy and mount mascots for old cars purporting to be the right thing as worn when new when they are not but — until they bore a hole in a pedestrian who cares? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I lied, I took your word for it not noticing the link. Now I began to read the issue concerned and started to laugh. This is myth creation by elision (to avoid any suggestion of inadequacy of Jaguar) "The Jaguar association goes back to 1966 when it merged with BMC to form British Motor Holdings. BMC already owned Fisher and Ludlow, a sheet metal company that took over the Castle Bromwich factory after the war. From 1966 to 1980, the plant produced the bodies for many cars in the British Leyland stable, including all the Jaguars, but Jaguar Cars finally took over control of the site in July 1980. Initially, the plant continued producing just finished painted body shells, but a trim and final assembly line was installed for the new S-TYPE launched in 1998 – the first time complete cars were to come out of the plant!" (Jaguar Heritage News Feb 2014). There I forgot to sign.
Jaguar will pay their PR people a great deal. I am minded of Mother Teresa now, I see, a real saint in spite of, I read, a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I've no plans to take on the writers of Jaguar Heritage, I am, so to speak, defenceless and pedestrian! More regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Eddaido: you've lost me now. What are you saying? -- de Facto (talk). 09:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

That Jaguar PR is very clever and very good at "spin". Eddaido (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Eddaido: where is the "spin" that you see? Is it in relation to when the leaper was first used? -- de Facto (talk). 20:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No. I'm not aware of any other source for the facts and I guess the citation meets the needs of WP. I must say again I do think the issue (leaper) is supremely trivial. In the publication to which you have linked, Yes. Best Eddaido (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071223113125/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/Tata_set_to_clinch_Jaguar-Land_Rover_deal_Report/articleshow/2637533.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Tata_set_to_clinch_Jaguar-Land_Rover_deal_Report/articleshow/2637533.cms

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2015

Please change Phil Popham (Jaguar Land Rover Group Marketing Director) to Gerd E. Mäuser (Jaguar Land Rover, Chief Marketing Officer)

92.17.204.84 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Jaguar Cars → Jaguar (car manufacturer) – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCCORP, as both their website and logo consistently use simply "Jaguar". The UK branch also uses simply "Jaguar", with no mention of "Jaguar Cars", as does DMOZ. Per WP:NCCORP, "whenever possible, common usage is preferred (such as The Hartford for The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and DuPont for the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company)". The rationale for the previous move to Jaguar Cars looks uncompelling now. Brandmeister^talk 19:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to parenthetical disambiguation, when available. RGloucester — ☎ 04:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE. RGloucester is right that the current format is preferable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE and per RGloucester - Current name's preferred so see no real reason to change it. –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

Simple grammatical change from "S. S. Motor Cars" to "S.S. Motor Cars." The extra space is incorrect style. Hughesresearch (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Done KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh?what I'm been doing} 00:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Grammar or that editor's preferred style? It is not "grammar". Here is the correct style. Will amend article. Eddaido (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

KGirlTrucker81 (talk · contribs) Please replace Cyrus Mistry with Natarajan Chandrasekaran as he is currently the new chairman of parent company.

 Done Hammer67 (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jaguar Cars. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royalwarrant.org/DirectorySQL.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1156667&page=0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jaguar-world.com/blogs/editors-blog/773-january-issue-of-jaguar-world-editors-welcome
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://typophile.com/files/1306381302_a13c957db6_4840.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwqh6th15q1qchs1zo1_1280.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531235919/http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2006/08/24/51974/jcbs-sir-anthony-bamford-eyes-jaguar.html to http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2006/08/24/51974/jcbs-sir-anthony-bamford-eyes-jaguar.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Walmsley a founder?

When the company was formed Walmsley may have been a temporary shareholder while his share was sold to the public. He did not found the company, Lyons did that to allow Walmsley to exit and go do other things. Walmsley certainly was a founder of what became the Jaguar business but this note under discussion is in the infobox company. Does that make sense? Eddaido (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There were three assumptions involved here. 1) That the first sentence of the History section is correct. 2) That because the Swallow Sidecar Company was founded in 1922 and was years later renamed to Jaguar Cars, that Jaguar inherited the SSC foundation date. 3) That if Jaguar inherited the foundation date, then it also inherited the founders. -- de Facto (talk). 08:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, all that's mistaken is assumption 2. S S Cars was a brand new company incorporated so Lyons could raise funds from the public to buy out Walmsley (and expand). The lead of SS Cars may explain better. Does all that make sense? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. Would you leave the foundation year of Jaguar Cars as 1922, or change that to the date the new company was founded - 1945? -- de Facto (talk). 09:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Very good point! Sorry about that, have changed it. I've also made some other changes which I think improve accuracy but as always I just might be wrong. S S Cars limited was formed in 1934 not 1945. Eddaido (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)